A Three-Layer Analysis (TLA) of Livy, History of Rome, Book 3
1. Research Question
Why did the soldiers fight for free Rome, not for the state as a form?
This question examines a key point in Livy’s History of Rome from its Foundation, Book 3.
Under the tyranny of the decemvirate, the Roman army lost its will to fight. After liberty was restored, the soldiers recovered the meaning of fighting.
At first glance, soldiers seem to fight for the state.
There is a state.
There is an external enemy.
There is command authority.
Legions are formed.
Soldiers are recruited.
If these conditions exist, it may seem natural that soldiers will fight.
However, Livy’s Book 3 shows a deeper structure.
Even under the decemvirate, the Roman state existed. The city of Rome existed. The Senate existed. The legions existed. Enemies existed. Command authority also existed in formal terms.
Yet the soldiers lost their fighting spirit.
Why?
Because that state was not “free Rome” for them.
The soldiers did not risk their lives for the form of the state itself. They fought for Rome when Rome protected their liberty, rights, honor, families, and sense of belonging to the community.
This article analyzes the issue through Three-Layer Analysis and OS Organizational Design Theory.
2. Abstract
The soldiers fought for free Rome, not for the state as a form, because the state was not an unconditional object of loyalty for them.
What was worth defending was Rome where the liberty-protection circuit worked and where citizens could participate as free persons.
Even under the decemvirate, the state existed in formal terms.
The city of Rome existed.
The Senate existed.
The legions existed.
Enemies existed.
Command authority existed.
However, that state was not free Rome for the soldiers.
The right of appeal was suspended.
The tribunes were absent.
The decemvirs remained in power after their term.
Opposition inside the Senate was intimidated.
Justice was connected to the private desire of Appius.
Even in the field, opponents of the decemvirs were removed.
In this condition, fighting for the state could also mean helping the decemvirs maintain power.
Therefore, the soldiers could not fight for “the state in general.”
They could fight for Rome after liberty was restored. This was Rome where appeal returned, the tribunes were restored, plebeian resolutions were strengthened, the tyranny of the decemvirs was stopped, and revenge was restrained.
The conclusion of this article is as follows.
The soldiers fought for free Rome, not for the state as a form, because the form of the state alone cannot become the object of loyalty. Soldiers risk their lives for an OS that protects their liberty, rights, sense of belonging, and honor. Under the decemvirate, the state had come close to a ruling device that took liberty away. Only after liberty was restored did Rome again become a state worth defending for the soldiers.
3. Research Method
This article uses Three-Layer Analysis.
Three-Layer Analysis divides historical material into three layers.
Layer 1 is Fact.
This layer organizes the events recorded by Livy: the transfer of power to the decemvirs, the suspension of appeal, the absence of tribunes, the hardening of the second decemvirate, the decemvirs remaining in power after their term, the intimidation of opposition inside the Senate, the decline of the soldiers’ fighting spirit, the case of Verginia, the withdrawal to the Sacred Mount, the resignation of the decemvirs, the restoration of the tribunes, the recovery of appeal, the restraint of revenge, Valerius’ speech, the recovery of Roman morale, and victory.
Layer 2 is Order.
This layer analyzes the difference between “the state in general” and “a free state.” A state may have territory, institutions, command authority, legions, recruitment, and external defense. However, for soldiers to feel that the state is worth defending, the state also needs appeal, representative circuits, control over public officials, procedures for responsibility, restraint of revenge, and a sense of community belonging.
Layer 3 is Insight.
This layer draws the insight that the object of soldiers’ loyalty was not the state as a form, but a community that protected liberty.
This article also uses OS Organizational Design Theory, R1.34.00.00.
Four concepts are especially important.
The first is the liberty-protection circuit. Appeal, tribunes, plebeian resolutions, immunity for those who withdrew, and restraint of revenge are institutional conditions that allow soldiers to trust the state as “their own OS.”
The second is soldier trust T. Soldiers are the execution environment of the state OS. If they cannot trust the governing OS, the military application cannot operate.
The third is attribution of victory. If victory strengthens the authority of the decemvirs, soldiers have little reason to desire victory. If victory belongs to free Rome and to the soldiers themselves, they can fight again.
The fourth is reconnection of war purpose. When war moves from service to rulers back to the defense of a free community, soldiers recover the meaning of accepting danger.
4. Layer 1: Fact
In Livy’s Book 3, the soldiers’ fighting spirit is connected not to the state as a form, but to free Rome.
In sections 32 to 33, power is transferred to the decemvirs. The decemvirate is created as a temporary body to write laws. However, the decisions of the decemvirs are not subject to appeal.
This is the beginning of the suspension of the liberty-protection circuit.
In section 36, the second decemvirate becomes oppressive and behaves like ten kings. The state OS loses republican limits and moves toward privatization.
In section 38, the decemvirs remain in power after their term. A temporary OS loses its exit condition and weakens trust in the state as a general form.
In sections 39 to 41, Livy describes opposition inside the Senate, the intimidation by Appius, and the decision to recruit an army. Military orders are issued while corrective circuits are blocked.
In section 42, the Roman army under the command of the decemvirs loses fighting spirit and is defeated. This is a direct signal that soldiers could no longer fight for the state as a general form.
In section 43, opponents of the decemvirs are removed even in the field. Corrective actors inside the army are also removed, and distrust toward the decemvirs deepens.
In sections 44 to 49, the case of Verginia occurs. The privatization of the state OS becomes visible as a violation of free status.
In sections 50 to 52, the army and the plebeians withdraw to the Sacred Mount. Soldiers and plebeians stop participating in the decemviral OS.
In section 53, the plebeians demand the restoration of the tribunes, the right of appeal, and immunity for those who withdrew. They present the conditions for returning to free Rome.
In section 54, the decemvirs resign and tribunes are elected. The state OS is cut off from the domination of the decemvirs.
In section 55, appeal, the inviolability of the tribunes, and plebeian resolutions are strengthened. The institutional foundation of free Rome is restored.
In section 59, Duilius restrains further revenge. The restoration of liberty does not become a revenge OS. It returns to normal institutions.
In section 60, war is restarted, and the consul carefully regains the initiative. Military command is reconnected to public purpose.
In section 61, Valerius tells the soldiers that they are fighting for the free city of Rome as free men.
This is the moment when the purpose of war is redefined from “the state in general” to “free Rome.”
In section 62, the soldiers’ morale rises, and they enter decisive battle.
In section 63, the Roman army wins, and a debate over triumphs occurs. Victory and honor are connected to the community.
This sequence shows that soldiers are not simply beings who fight external enemies.
They are citizens, plebeians, and members of the community. Therefore, when the state OS protects liberty, they can fight. When the state OS takes liberty away, they cannot fight.
Valerius’ speech in section 61 clearly expresses this structure.
The soldiers are not fighting for the state in general. They are fighting for the free city of Rome as free men.
5. Layer 2: Order
The soldiers fought for free Rome, not for the state as a form, because the object of loyalty was not the formal state but a community worth defending.
A state has two possible conditions.
One is the state as a form.
The other is the state worth defending.
The state as a form has territory, institutions, command authority, legions, and offices.
However, this alone does not make soldiers fight seriously.
For soldiers to fight, they must recognize that the state protects their liberty.
Rome under the decemvirate was a state in formal terms.
However, for the soldiers, it was not free Rome.
Free Rome was not simply a state independent from external enemies.
Free Rome was a state where citizens could appeal against public officials, where plebeian representatives were protected, where collective will was connected to institutions, where justice was not occupied by private desire, and where command authority was connected to public purpose.
When these conditions collapse, the state may remain in form, but it no longer functions as an OS worth defending for the soldiers.
5.1 The Form of the State Alone Cannot Become the Object of Soldiers’ Loyalty
The first structure is that the form of the state alone cannot become the object of soldiers’ loyalty.
Even under the decemvirate, the Roman state existed.
However, the soldiers could not recognize it as a free community.
The reason was that the center of the state had been occupied by the decemvirs.
The existence of a state and the worth of that state are not the same thing.
If the state protects the liberty of citizens, soldiers try to defend it.
If the state takes liberty away from citizens, soldiers lose loyalty to it.
Therefore, what mattered for the soldiers was not simply that “the state exists.”
What mattered was whether that state was Rome that protected liberty.
5.2 The Decemvirate Privatized the State OS
The second structure is that the decemvirate privatized the state OS.
The decemvirate was originally a temporary body created to write laws.
However, the second decemvirate changed its nature.
It stayed in power after its term.
It suspended appeal.
It removed the tribunes.
It intimidated opposition inside the Senate.
It connected justice to private desire.
It removed opponents.
In this condition, the state OS was no longer the community’s OS. It became the OS of the decemvirs.
From the soldiers’ viewpoint, it became unclear whether commands issued in the name of the state were truly commands of the Roman community or commands for the decemvirs’ maintenance of power.
This ambiguity destroyed fighting spirit.
The soldiers wanted to defend Rome.
But they did not want to strengthen the rule of the decemvirs.
As long as this division existed, they could not fight for the state as a form.
5.3 Victory for the State Could Strengthen Tyranny
The third structure is that victory for the state could strengthen the tyranny of the decemvirs.
If soldiers won under the decemvirate, the decemvirs could claim the following.
We defended Rome.
Our command saved the state.
Therefore, our power is necessary.
Therefore, we should continue to rule.
For the soldiers, this kind of victory was dangerous.
They might defeat the external enemy.
But that victory might strengthen internal tyranny.
At this point, the soldiers began to question the meaning of victory.
Whose victory is this?
Who receives the fruit of victory?
If we win, will liberty return?
Or will the authority of the decemvirs become stronger?
This is why Valerius’ statement in section 61 is important.
He says that victory belongs to the soldiers themselves, not to the decemvirs.
He takes the attribution of victory back from the decemvirs and returns it to the soldiers and free Rome.
5.4 Only Free Rome Was Recognized as the Soldiers’ Own Community
The fourth structure is that only free Rome was recognized by the soldiers as their own community.
Free Rome was not only a name.
It was a community in which soldiers could belong as free citizens.
They could appeal.
They were protected by tribunes.
The will of the plebeian assembly was institutionalized.
Public officials did not rule citizens by private desire.
Revenge was restrained.
Responsibility was pursued through procedure.
In this kind of state, soldiers could feel, “This is our Rome.”
In contrast, a state where appeal is impossible, where there are no tribunes, where justice follows private desire, and where opponents are removed is not the soldiers’ own community.
It is a device that rules over them.
Therefore, the soldiers belonged not to the state in general, but to free Rome.
5.5 By Restoring Liberty, Soldiers Became Subjects Who Fought as Free Men
The fifth structure is that the restoration of liberty made soldiers subjects who fought as free men.
In section 61, Valerius tells the soldiers that they are fighting for the free city of Rome as free men.
This expression is important.
Soldiers are not merely people who are ordered.
They are free citizens who fight.
They are not tools of rulers.
They are subjects of the community.
Under the decemvirate, soldiers had come close to being people who were simply commanded.
After liberty was restored, soldiers again became free citizens who fought.
This recovery of subjecthood restored fighting spirit.
People do not accept danger only because they are forced.
However, if they fight for their own liberty, their own community, and their own victory, they can accept danger.
This is the meaning of fighting for free Rome.
5.6 The War against External Enemies Was Connected to the Defense of Internal Liberty
The sixth structure is that the war against external enemies was connected to the defense of internal liberty.
Under the decemvirate, war against external enemies and internal liberty were divided.
Even if the soldiers defeated the external enemy, the tyranny of the decemvirs might continue inside Rome.
Even if they defended the state, their own liberty might not be protected.
Even if they fulfilled military duty, the result might become the authority of the decemvirs.
In this condition, war against external enemies could not be understood by the soldiers as community defense.
After liberty was restored, this division was resolved.
Fighting external enemies now meant defending Rome whose liberty had been restored.
Victory no longer belonged to the decemvirs. It belonged to the soldiers themselves and the Roman community.
Military duty was no longer service to rulers. It became the defense of a free community of citizens.
Because this connection was restored, the soldiers recovered their power to fight.
5.7 The Liberty of Rome Was Also the Liberty of the Soldiers
The seventh structure is that the liberty of Rome was also the liberty of the soldiers.
Soldiers were not separate from the state.
Roman soldiers were citizens, plebeians, men with families, and people who lived under the institutions of the city.
Therefore, if Roman institutions collapsed, the liberty of the soldiers themselves also collapsed.
If there was no appeal, soldiers were exposed to the decisions of public officials.
If there were no tribunes, soldiers lost protection.
If justice followed private desire, the families of soldiers were also in danger.
If plebeian resolutions were weak, the will of the plebeian group to which many soldiers belonged was not institutionalized.
Therefore, defending free Rome was not an abstract defense of the state.
It was the defense of the soldiers’ own lives, families, status, rights, and honor.
That is why the soldiers tried to fight for free Rome.
6. Layer 3: Insight
Soldiers do not fight for a state machine as such.
They fight for a community in which they can belong as free citizens.
This is the central insight of this case.
Rome under the decemvirate was a state in formal terms.
However, for the soldiers, it was not free Rome.
The meaning of Valerius’ speech in section 61 is therefore important.
He tells the soldiers that they are fighting for the free city of Rome as free men.
He does not simply say, “Fight for the state.”
He redefines the war.
Not for the decemvirs.
Not for Appius.
Victory is yours.
You are fighting for free Rome.
Through this redefinition, the purpose of war returns from “military service for rulers” to “defense of a free community.”
6.1 Free Rome Defense Model
The structure in which soldiers fight for free Rome can be modeled as follows.
Defense of free Rome
= liberty-protection circuit
× legitimacy of command
× soldier trust T
× sense of community belonging
× legitimate attribution of victory
× external defense purpose
× connection to self-liberty
The core of this model is the liberty-protection circuit and soldier trust T.
When the state has a liberty-protection circuit, soldiers trust that state as their own OS.
When the state loses the liberty-protection circuit, soldiers begin to see the state not as their own community, but as a ruling device.
6.2 Difference between the State in General and a Free State
The state in general and a free state can be distinguished as follows.
State in general
= territory
× offices
× command authority
× legions
× recruitment
× external defense
Free state
= state in general
× appeal
× representative circuit
× institutionalization of plebeian will
× control of public officials
× procedures for responsibility
× restraint of revenge
This difference determines the fighting spirit of soldiers.
The state in general can give commands to soldiers.
But only a free state can give soldiers the meaning of defending it.
Rome under the decemvirate existed as a state in general. However, it had lost the conditions of a free state.
That is why the soldiers could not fight.
6.3 Attribution of Victory Model
For soldiers to fight, attribution of victory is important.
Attribution of victory
= fruit of victory
× whose honor it becomes
× whose authority it strengthens
× return to soldiers
× return to the community
Under the decemvirate, there was a danger that the fruit of victory would belong to the decemvirs.
After liberty was restored, victory became the victory of the soldiers themselves and of free Rome.
When Valerius says that victory belongs to the soldiers themselves and not to the decemvirs in section 61, he redesigns the attribution of victory.
Through this redesign, soldiers can desire victory again.
6.4 Free Citizen Army Model
The Roman army was not simply a mercenary group.
It was a citizen army.
Free citizen army
= citizenship
× free status
× community belonging
× military duty
× protection of rights
× state defense
A citizen army becomes weak when its connection to a free community is broken.
The reason is that citizen soldiers do not move only for payment. They accept danger for the community to which they belong.
Therefore, when free Rome collapses, the Roman army also becomes weak.
When free Rome is restored, fighting spirit as a citizen army also recovers.
6.5 War Purpose Reconnection Model
After liberty was restored, the purpose of war was reconnected as follows.
Reconnection of war purpose
= separation from decemviral authority
× connection to free Rome
× making victory belong to the soldiers
× external defense
× maintenance of community order
× connection to the honor circuit
Because this reconnection occurred, the soldiers could again fight external enemies.
The enemies were the same, but the meaning of the war changed.
6.6 Operating Model
The operating model of this case can be organized into six stages.
The first stage is the privatization of the state OS.
Privatization of the state OS
= suspension of appeal
× absence of tribunes
× remaining in office after the term
× privatization of justice
× removal of opponents
At this stage, the state remains in form, but it is no longer free Rome.
The second stage is the decline of loyalty to the state in general.
Decline of loyalty to the state in general
= distrust of command
× distrust of the attribution of victory
× anger toward the decemvirs
× unclear purpose of community defense
× decline of soldier trust T
At this stage, soldiers can no longer distinguish whether they are fighting for Rome or for the decemvirs.
The third stage is the decline of fighting spirit.
Decline of fighting spirit
= decline of loyalty to the state in general
× loss of legitimacy of command
× distrust of war purpose
× acceptance of defeat
× inability to focus on external enemies
The defeat in section 42 is the result of this stage.
The fourth stage is the recovery of free Rome.
Recovery of free Rome
= resignation of the decemvirs
× restoration of tribunes
× recovery of appeal
× inviolability of tribunes
× strengthening of plebeian resolutions
× restraint of revenge
At this stage, the state again becomes the soldiers’ own community.
The fifth stage is the redefinition of war purpose.
Valerius redefines the purpose of war for the soldiers.
Redefinition of war purpose
= free city of Rome
× fighting as free men
× victory belongs to the soldiers
× separation from the decemvirs
× connection to community defense
Through this speech, the soldiers again understand what they are fighting for.
The sixth stage is the restart of the free citizen army.
Restart of the free citizen army
= recovery of soldier trust T
× recovery of legitimacy of command
× recovery of attribution of victory
× recovery of community belonging
× rise of morale
× victory
Through this process, the Roman army recovers its power to fight external enemies.
6.7 Causal Chain
The causal chain of this case can be organized as follows.
Transfer of power to the decemvirate
→ suspension of appeal
→ absence of tribunes
→ hardening of the second decemvirate
→ remaining in power after the term
→ intimidation against opposition inside the Senate
→ removal of opponents in the field
→ privatization of the state OS
→ soldiers lose loyalty to the state in general
→ soldiers perceive that victory may strengthen the authority of the decemvirs
→ distrust of war purpose
→ decline of fighting spirit
→ defeat
→ case of Verginia
→ visualization of the violation of liberty
→ withdrawal of the army and plebeians to the Sacred Mount
→ resignation of the decemvirs
→ election of tribunes
→ recovery of appeal
→ inviolability of tribunes
→ strengthening of plebeian resolutions
→ restraint of revenge
→ recovery of free Rome
→ Valerius redefines the purpose of war
→ soldiers recognize that they are fighting for free Rome as free men
→ recovery of morale
→ victory
This causal chain shows that the object of soldiers’ loyalty was not the state as a form.
It was the community that protected liberty.
6.8 Final Insight
The final insight is as follows.
The soldiers fought for free Rome, not for the state as a form, because the form of the state alone is not enough to make people risk their lives.
Even under the decemvirate, the state existed. However, that state suspended appeal, removed the tribunes, intimidated opposition inside the Senate, connected justice to private desire, and removed opponents.
This kind of state was not a community worth defending for the soldiers.
It was close to a ruling device that took away their liberty.
Therefore, the soldiers could not fight for the state in general.
After liberty was restored, the decemvirs withdrew, the tribunes returned, appeal was restored, plebeian resolutions were strengthened, and revenge was restrained. Rome again became a community where free citizens could belong.
At this moment, Valerius told the soldiers that they were fighting for the free city of Rome as free men.
This statement redefined the purpose of war.
The soldiers fought not for the state as a form, but for free Rome. They did so because free Rome was the OS that protected their own liberty, families, honor, rights, and community belonging.
7. Implications for the Present
This case is important for thinking about the conditions of loyalty in modern organizations.
Employees do not give unconditional loyalty to a company as a legal entity itself.
Public officials do not give unconditional loyalty to the name of an organization itself.
Project members do not devote themselves unconditionally to the project name itself.
People work seriously when they feel that the organization protects their dignity, growth, fairness, voice, future, and sense of belonging.
If an organization is connected to the private desires of upper management, rule by fear, scapegoating, suppression of objections, or unfair evaluation, employees will not work seriously even if they are told to work “for the company.”
On the other hand, if an organization has fair systems, appeal, protection of the field, transparent evaluation, procedures for responsibility, and restraint of revenge, employees can move again as members of “their own organization.”
7.1 The Form of an Organization Alone Does Not Move the Field Seriously
There is an organization name.
There are positions.
There is a chain of command.
There are meetings.
There is an evaluation system.
There is a budget.
These are the form of an organization.
However, the form alone does not make the field work seriously.
For the field to move seriously, people must feel that the organization is a community that protects them.
Rome under the decemvirate had the form of a state.
However, for the soldiers, it was not free Rome.
Modern organizations are the same.
A legal entity alone does not create loyalty in the field.
The field moves seriously only when people feel, “This organization protects our dignity and future.”
7.2 When Victory Belongs Only to the Upper Layer, the Field Does Not Become Serious
Whether the field makes effort also depends on the attribution of victory.
If results return to the whole organization, the field can move.
If results support the evaluation and safety of the field, the field can make effort.
If results support the survival of the community, the field can accept danger.
However, if results are used only for the pride of the upper layer, the field does not become serious.
The soldiers under the decemvirate saw that victory might strengthen the authority of the decemvirs.
Therefore, they lost the meaning of victory.
In modern organizations, if results do not return to the field and are used only for upper-level evaluation or self-protection, the field will not become serious.
7.3 People Move for Their Own Organization
People work seriously when they feel, “This organization is ours.”
The voice of the field reaches the upper layer.
People are protected from unjust punishment.
Appeal is possible.
Results are evaluated fairly.
Policy is connected to public purpose.
Responsibility is pursued through procedure.
Revenge is restrained.
Victory also returns to the field.
In this condition, the field can recognize the organization as its own community.
In contrast, an organization connected to private desire or rule by fear is not “our organization” for the field.
It is a device that makes people obey.
In this condition, the field may follow orders, but it will not move seriously.
7.4 The Liberty-Protection Circuit Is the Foundation of Execution Power
The liberty-protection circuit is not a system that makes the field weak.
It is the foundation that supports execution power.
People can speak.
People can object.
People are protected from unjust punishment.
Field representatives function.
Evaluation is transparent.
Responsibility is processed through procedure.
Revenge is restrained.
Because this structure exists, the field can more easily receive commands as legitimate.
When the liberty-protection circuit is broken, command looks like domination.
When the liberty-protection circuit is restored, command can be received as community defense.
7.5 Preserved Proposition for Modern Organizations
The preserved proposition for modern organizations is as follows.
People do not give their lives or effort to the form of a state or organization itself. They fight for an OS that protects their liberty, dignity, rights, honor, and sense of community belonging. The soldiers tried to fight for free Rome because only free Rome was a community worth defending for them.
8. Conclusion
The soldiers fought for free Rome, not for the state as a form, because the form of the state alone is not enough to become an object of loyalty.
Even under the decemvirate, the Roman state existed.
The city of Rome existed.
The Senate existed.
The legions existed.
Enemies existed.
Command authority existed.
However, that state was not free Rome for the soldiers.
The right of appeal was suspended.
The tribunes were absent.
The decemvirs remained in power after their term.
Opposition inside the Senate was intimidated.
Justice was connected to the private desire of Appius.
Even in the field, opponents of the decemvirs were removed.
This kind of state was not a community worth defending for the soldiers.
It was close to a ruling device that took away their liberty.
Therefore, the soldiers could not fight for the state in general.
After liberty was restored, the situation changed.
The decemvirs withdrew.
The tribunes returned.
Appeal was restored.
The inviolability of the tribunes was strengthened.
Plebeian resolutions were strengthened.
Revenge was restrained.
Through this, Rome again became a community where free citizens could belong.
At this moment, Valerius told the soldiers that they were fighting for the free city of Rome as free men.
This was a redefinition of the purpose of war.
The soldiers fought not for the state as a form, but for free Rome.
The reason was that free Rome was the OS that protected the soldiers’ own liberty, families, honor, rights, and sense of community belonging.
The conclusion of this article can be summarized in one sentence.
The soldiers fought for free Rome, not for the state as a form, because the form of the state alone cannot become the object of loyalty. Soldiers risk their lives for an OS that protects their liberty, rights, community belonging, and honor. Only after liberty was restored did Rome again become a state worth defending for the soldiers.
9. Sources
Livy, History of Rome from its Foundation, Book 3.
Japanese translation used as base text: Titus Livius, History of Rome from its Foundation 2, translated by Satoshi Iwatani, Kyoto University Press, 2008.
OS Organizational Design Theory, R1.34.00.00.