Friendly relations between the soldiers were one of the sources of such corporativeness. Existence of various groups and close comradely relations in the Roman army is revealed by analysis of epigraphic data. Soldiers’ inscriptions contain a number of terms that denote comrades-in-arms with different shades of meaning (commilito, contubernalis, commanipilaris, collega, frater, contiro,
etc.). These inscriptions register specific relations among soldiers and show that connections between people from the same district, simultaneous conscription, joint worshipping of deities, or membership in one collegia might have laid the foundation for a community of soldiers. Such comradely ties were preserved after retirement, among veterans. Apparently, a small unit, in which soldiers led their daily life, played an important role in developing informal friendly ties. Coherence of the so-called primary groups due to these ties was an important factor of combat readiness of detachments and units.Many characteristic features of military ethos are connected with the corporate spirit and informal comradely relations within military units. Opinions of comrades and the honour of the unit the soldier belonged to determined his behaviour on a battle-field, jealous attitude to the fame of other units and readiness to come to the rescue of his comrades-in-arms. Commitment of soldiers to their unit manifested itself in the worshipping of military ensigns and Genii
. However, corporative solidarity of the military often led to their covering up each other, especially during mutinies and civil wars, as well as in conflicts with civilians. In general, corporativeness of the Imperial army, based on peculiar social ties within military community and special personal relations between the emperor and his soldiers, was a natural form of rallying military units in the historical conditions, in which Roman military organization ceased to be based on civic-communical or ethnic ties.A contradictory blending of ancient traditions and new tendencies in the development of the military organization showed up in the sphere of military discipline. Disciplina militaris
was an important category of the Roman value system and a component of the «Roman myth». The axiological meaning of this concept is revealed through tense opposition between the heroic norm expressed by the notion of severity (severitas) and various vices, which result from ingratiation to and indulgence of soldiers by their commanders (ambitio, indulgentia). In narrations about the glorious past of Rome severitas and ambitio belong to different poles, but in the times of the Late Republic and the Principate sources stress the necessity to find some common ground, a balance between those two poles, more and more persistently. Such judgements indicate that under the conditions of a regular professional army the discipline could be maintained by means different from those used in the period of a citizen militia. In the Imperial army discipline was conditioned not by ruthless punishments or civil solidarity of soldiers, but by administrative and legal means, systematic training of the personnel, various benefits and incentives, corporate unity of contingents as well as by personal ties of the emperor with his army. However, effectiveness of those factors depended, to a considerable extent, on the morally motivated attitude of soldiers themselves to the discipline. Many episodes show that even at critical moments the discipline of legions was conditioned by value conceptions of the discipline deeply rooted in the consciousness of soldiers and associated with the notions of military duty and honour. This «love for obedience» was based on traditional Roman values and was passed over from generation to generation through military traditions, legal and sacral norms, legendary and live examples. At the same time, conservatism of the Roman military organisation made the orientation to severitas an inevitable factor of the army life regardless of the destructive character of opposite tendencies. The image of a strict military leader was the behaviour pattern emulated by many emperors and glorified by public opinion.