Rome's policy was directed toward the securing of order through law. Discipline and authority were the fundamental principles on which her greatness was founded. Her military policy was to subordinate individuals to the general good, to make each soldier a cog in the wheel working in harmony with the whole. Individual freedom of action was curtailed not in the interests of humanity but in the interests of the efficiency of the general army. Her rules of prize distribution are completely in harmony with these principles. No private right of aggrandizement in war existed, all was controlled by the state. The state was the combatant in war, the state bore the losses and to the state accrued the gains. State authority overshadowed every act of the individual.[22] In practical effects the Roman laws of prize money probably accomplished the purpose for which they were intended, that is, they lessened the chance for insubordination among the soldiers. Under them soldiers remained at their post of duty instead of going on journeys of pillage. It made war regular and public instead of guerrilla and private. Humanitarian effects were slight or none at all. Though not impelled by the hope of personal gain the Roman soldiers seem to have captured, devastated and destroyed without compunction. Wheaton says of Roman warfare, "Victory made even the sacred things of the enemy profane, confiscated all his property, moveable and immoveable, public and private, doomed him and his posterity to perpetual slavery and dragged his kings and generals at the chariot wheels of the conqueror thus depressing an enemy in his spirit and pride of mind, the only consolation he has left when his strength and power are annihilated."[23] Though Roman warfare was cruel, it was regulated by law. Roman civilization recognized the supremacy of the state, the public character of regular war, and of immediate interest to the present subject, the exclusive control by the state of all military captures. _NOTES._ Chapter I, Part 2. [1] Antiquita Roma, vii, 63, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 124. [2] Grotius, op. cit. iii, 127. [3] Livy, xiv, 34, 40, 43, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 129. [4] Heroditus, ix, 80, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 130. [5] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, v, 47, quoted, in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 134. [6] Livy, v, 23, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 135; Phillipson, op. cit. ii, 238. [7] Apud Dionysius of Halicarnassus Excerpt, p. 714, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 131. [8] Polybius, History, x, 16, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 138. [9] Cato, xi, 18; Cicero, Verres, iv, 41, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 137, 138. [10] Livy, xliv, 45; xlv, 34, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 133. [11] Livy, v, 20, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 134. [12] Cald. Cons. 85, quoted in Grotius, op. cit. iii, 140. [13] Digest, xiv, 3, quoted in Charles Calvo, Le Droit International Theorique et Pratique, 5th Edition, 6 Vols., Paris, 1896, i, 15.