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.

A no less important category of the army’s value system was the concept of military valour (virtus). Ancient authors always regarded virtus as an inalienable national feature of the Romans, as a decisive factor of their victories. According to traditional notions, the true valour could be manifested only in the struggle with a worthy enemy and only in a war waged by fair means and in accordance with the divine law and ancestors’ customs. The Roman concept of the military valour is immediately connected with the notions of soldiers’ honour and glory. It implies such normative qualities as steadfastness, bravery, persistence and discipline, being inseparable from strict rational organisation, military training and permanent labours. Being originally an aristocratic value, virtus became a moral orientation of the ranks and files. Many facts of Roman military history confirm that the genuine Roman notions of valour, glory and honour were present in the consciousness of the Roman soldiers. Among the latter, military valour, honour and glory were the objects of zealous competition and rivalry. Jealousy to them induced a soldier to demonstrate publicly his best qualities to receive recognition from his comrades-in-arms and commanders. The demands of the code of military honour often prevailed over all other motives. So the emulation for valour and honour was an effective factor stimulating the soldiers’ individual and collective performance. In the Imperial army these notions were of the corporate character. Generally, the competitive spirit in the Roman army was more pronounced than in the Greek armies. This fact is confirmed by the existence of very elaborated and adaptable system of military honours, including various military decorations.

In the Imperial period, this system developed on the basis of the ancient traditions and concepts. It encouraged the soldiers’ ardour and emulation for honour rather successfully. Military honores in the form of decorations and ranks were always regarded as a reward for real achievements and valour. But in reality receiving of honours was conditioned by the social status of the military, a soldier’s position in the army hierarchy, his personal relations with the commander, as well as by patronage and bribes. In the soldier’s eyes the honours directly depended on the emperor’s appraisal. It was the emperor to whom the right to award honours belonged. Soldiers’ inscriptions containing detailed enumeration of man’s positions, rewards and indications of circumstances of being rewarded, as well as dedications to deities on the occasion of promotion to a higher rank, confirm the great importance of military honores for the soldiers themselves. While the promotions were accompanied with solid material advantages, military decorations always remained an essentially moral stimulation, and their importance directly depended on preservation of the traditional values among the soldiers. Evidently, it is not a pure accident that dona begin to decline in the age of Caracalla, when almost all the status differences between soldiers of legions and those of auxilia disappear.

The military traditions of Rome and the soldiers’ mentality are permeated with religious notions and feelings. Professional corporative identity of the military society manifested itself in the religio castrensis, i. e. a complex of specific army cults and worships. Worthy service to emperor, military valour and honour were inseparable from soldiers’ pietas. Epigraphic and other evidence shows that the Roman soldiers directly connected with a divine protection their career achievements, victories of the Roman arms, their comrades-in-arm’s and the emperor’s well-being. The army religious practice was impregnated not only with routine formalities, but with the sincere individual faith of simple soldiers. The specific features of the religio castrensis are especially apparent in soldiers’ relation to and worship of the military ensigns and standards. The Roman signa militaria played a significant role in commanding the troops, they were the embodiment of the individuality of units and detachments, and personified the military honour and glory. The presence of the signa in battle formations served as an efficient moral-psychological stimulus for valorous performance of soldiers. The military ethic attitude to the signa (signorum amor as Seneca calls this feelling) obviously was based on their sacral nature. The standards were worshipped as real cult objects: sacrifices and other rituals were dedicated to them, they had special temples, they also were sacral guarantees of oaths. Perhaps, signa worship was associated with the cults of geniuses and