Furius Venator

Well I don't think it's disputed that hard on the heels of universal citizenship came a shortage of manpower for the army. However I don't know enough about the period in question to state positively that they were (at least partial) cause and effect. The republic didn't seem to struggle for soldiers until Marius' time. the post-Marian army seemed well able to recruit men for the legions until well into the empire. I suspect the unlikelihood of getting rich through loot (not much conquering being done), coupled with the increasing need to be well connected/have money to 'get on' in the army meant that citizens became reluctant to serve for 20 years under army discipline in the legions. Coupled with that, universal citizenship robbed the auxiliaries of potential recruits. And maybe army life was just seen as too hard and 'boring' with the likelihood of postings to such beauty spots as Wallsend... But hard evidence for much of that I am sadly lacking.

I have never read anything to that effect. It is possible that some of the emperors may have suffered from STDs, mind you I'm not entirely certain how long syphilus has been around...

Well said. And a very nice sounding (in the poetic sense) translation. trips off the tongue. Of course using things like expert knowledge and good sense is perhaps cheating...

You are correct, it doesn't. But neither can you construct a sentence just using a dictionary. Even my rusty Latin knows that unus and mater don't go together. Scerio's seems more plausible to me.

I'd completely agree. Each city state was just that with the emphasis on 'state'. Self-interest was the name of the game and alliances were formed only if they served the interests of each particular state (that would include becoming part of the Athenian League or similar through pressure). Pan Hellenism was I think really a philosophical notion, used by unscrupulous politicians (tautology!) as a rallying cry or pretext perhaps but in reality it was probably only existed that the Greeks considered other Greeks 'better' than foreigners, though they might actually hate fellow Greeks more!

For once we are in complete agreement. Sadly it was a brief moment of concord... The pilum is no more than 5 feet long. How on earth does 'planting it in the ground' prevent the much longer pike from outreaching it? Or are you claiming that they actually planted stakes like the archers at Agincourt? Either way quote an ancient source who can confirm this. Do you mean pila? The effective range of a pila was about 15m. It'd scarcely clear the hastati never mind reach the phalanx. Why? The triarii used spears. they're not engaged yet. Neither principes nor hastati commonly used the spear.

Roman my dear fellow, I wasn't having a dig at you. I'm sorry if you thought I was. My joke (such as it was) was at the expense of the author of Revalations, not you.

He's certainly done a lot of research and his style is easy to read. Sadly though I think too many of his assertions can be debunked. The bibliography includes most of the books you'd expect but interestingly not Keppie or Goldsworthy. Neither is Webster's work on the Roman army featured. Rather telling omissions I think. I think it's a great book for those who've read Keppie et al because it makes you reconsider certain points. But it's too flawed and controversial to make a good intro book. Oh, Germaincus, I noticed a small typo in your post. You omitted the 'un' from before 'reliable'... Edit: I've been glancing through Caesar's Legion again and he actually claims that Legions III-IX were raised in Spain in 65! I'm also sad to say that in a quick glance over 6 pages I noticed two indisputable errors of fact, one contradiction (possibly a typo but I doubt it) and plenty of unsubstantiated assertion. Which is a real shame because it's a good read.

Oh dear. That's me for fiery brimstone on at least four counts... Ho hum. Cato: thanks for that link. 'Pastafarians'. Class. I might sign up. Will it save me from the fiery primstone do you think?

Given that most will have some kind of university post, it's about what I'd expect. A lot of folk active in the field (you can take that as a pun if you wish) will earn less but are likely categorised as students.

I think later on that was true. But in 65, when the 'Spanish Legions' were raised I doubt very much it was the case. Look at the fuss there was when Caesar recruited 'the Larks' from non citizens in Cisalpinme Gaul. I'm unconvinced that there were suffiucient Roman citizens in Spain in 65BC to recruit 4 new legions. That'd be 20 000 men (24000 if we follow Collins) from a single 'age class'. Even if we assume 25% of the male citizenry were levied, there'd have to be a population of about half a million Roman citizens in Spain. Is there evidence for this? Dando-Collins' book is full of interest and very entertaining, but I'm afraid I'm treating a lot of his claims with extreme caution.

Is this from Dando-Collins? I found his book fascinating but very contentious. A lot of it contradicts Keppie, Goldsworthy, Webster and others. Especially his 'no replacements except every 16 years' and 'recruited in Spain'.

Did the urban poor ever show much inclination to join the army? Surely it was the rural poor who were more prominent in the legions?

Well the love of luxury was quite high on his list was it not? And, whilst I am personally in favour of luxury, it might be seen as a detriment to the good of society. Did the wealth of the Hellenized East not sap the spirit of the previously hardy and frugal Romans? I'm not certain it did myself, but I can see the argument. A more insidious influence might be the notion of the Hellenistic warrior-monarch. Pompey after all modelled himself on Alexander. Perhaps it might have been better if Camillus had been his role model? It's kind of clutching at straws this I know. I actually agree with you- he was bonkers. But the above are the best I can do.

The only other major benefits woud be: money gained from looting, and only legions in active service 'abroad' would get much of this, hence not very likely for an essentially 'defensive' army like that of the mid-late empire (by defensive I merely mean that defense of the frontiers was more common than invading other lands). a solid career. But the evidence suggests that wothout influence and money it had become very difficult to rise from the ranks through merit alone. So removing citizenship (by the general enfranchisement) as a benefit for good military service in the auxilia really removed the main incentive for many folk to join the army (probably at least 50%). It is difficult to see what else might have been offered in its place. Unless they went back to a citizen militia (all citizens being liable for service) but many would have been too poor to equip themselves...

Meier's book is good once you get past the Germanic pontificating at the start. Once he's in his stride, it's rather fine (there are interludes of ponderous thought but not too many)

I missed this before (and apologies for slight irrelevance) Except of course it would have been Cato vs Caesar, a private prosecution, as all prosecutions were brought privately. I agree with the sentiment though.

I can assure you that although you are correct in that it was the first bill that he presented to the senate and Bibulus did indeed make heavy going of trying to sink it, Cato spoke toward the end of the day with the clear intent of filibustering. Caesar then had him removed by force (after some time), many senators objeted, Cato was released and Caesar resolve to outflank the obstructionists by going direct to the people. Well he hadn't ten years previously, when apparantly thwarted he'd combined with his arch-rival Crassus rather than using force. Granted he was in an even stronger position pre 60 but if the senate were that nervous of him launching a coup, why did they attempt to thwart him at every turn? It'd be like poking a tiger with a sharp stick in order to keep it at arm's length... But really all this surely just underlines that the constitution had no effective safeguards against it being subverted by force, be it armed coup or intimidation in the forum. Hence the triumvirate was the result of attempting to meet radical threat by constitutional means, exposing the basic weakness of the post Marian constitution very clearly.

Pleasure. I had it in a word document so it was fairly easy... I'm clearly a much nastier man than your professor though... If you want me to decimate your hard work at any point in the future, I'll be happy to do so if I've the time.

Caesar had him removed (stupidly) for filibustering, he was not being relevant to the point, merely trying to talk the bill out. This, contrary to your assertion, was when Caesar first presented the bill before the senate. On the second issue, I think perhaps I was not being clear. Why did the senate not settle with Pompey before the formation of the triumvirate? By Caesar's consulship, it was too late. I suppose they simply did not see that.

Universal citizenship did make the army less attractive in one way. Before, a non citizen might live within the empire. He had incentive to join the auxilia as he would gain citizenship upon discharge and pass the rights on to his sons. But as a citizen already he might not feel the need to pursue a military career. This must have been a factor in the falling numbers of recruits that led to large scale recruitment from outside the frontiers

All comments refer to the quoted passage above them.

Sure but when the Senate wavered over the Catiline conspirators, Cato didn't waffle. He rallied them to their 'duty' with a ferocious speech. Not so here... Was his intent to frustrate Caesar into illegality? Do you agree that the triumvirate was a direct consequence of the failure to settle Pompey's troops? Or do you think that Pompey and Crassus would have allied anyway as they had done before (though that was of course when they combined against a senate that would not settle with either).

Deleted as irrelevant, the work's already been submitted. Apologies for my stupidity in not checking that first.

If your points are valid, then why on earth did nobody challenge on those grounds? It can't all be blamed on Bibulus, he was not the only senator capable of speech! If the senate had had the wit to settle with Pompey before 60 then there would have been no triumvirate.