146 BCE

[sylla]

Poor citizens were not part of the army before Marius as soldiers had to afford their equipment and to be able to take leave from their daily bread winning for long periods.

Also plebs were not necessary poor. Many of them were wealthy and powerful.

 

The road that led to the massive imperial assistance begun when competitors in elections started throwing games and gifts to win the urban poor citizens.

Also supplying the city with cheap grains was a task that the institutions of the Republic handled long before the Empire. Bringing this 2 processes together did not required a dictator even if it was eventually done by an authoritarian regime.

The Republic was not ended by the urban or rural discontent but by armies that were loyal to their commanders and not the Republic.

Let me guess... Caius Proletarius and his other poor citizen peers were lucky enough to be comfortably waiting in their farms while the altruistic rich soldiers were risking their necks for them... pretty unlikely, isn't it?

 

Especially because we have good evidence that, when things got hot enough, even slaves were recruited.

 

Maybe we should try this one... like in any other city-state, military service was an absolute duty for all citizens. As any soldier had to pay for his own equipment, poor soldiers ought to get the money from moneylenders, the same as in so many ancient and modern societies. So these poor citizens became clients of their noble patrons (Patricians or rich Plebeians alike), usually for generations.

 

The main difference from the Republican and Imperial systems was the number of patrons; multiple in the Republic, just one for the Empire.

Edited July 15, 2009 by sylla

[Kosmo]

Poor citizens were not part of the army before Marius as soldiers had to afford their equipment and to be able to take leave from their daily bread winning for long periods.

Also plebs were not necessary poor. Many of them were wealthy and powerful.

 

The road that led to the massive imperial assistance begun when competitors in elections started throwing games and gifts to win the urban poor citizens.

Also supplying the city with cheap grains was a task that the institutions of the Republic handled long before the Empire. Bringing this 2 processes together did not required a dictator even if it was eventually done by an authoritarian regime.

The Republic was not ended by the urban or rural discontent but by armies that were loyal to their commanders and not the Republic.

Let me guess... Caius Proletarius and his other poor citizen peers were lucky enough to be comfortably waiting in their farms while the altruistic rich soldiers were risking their necks for them... pretty unlikely, isn't it?

 

Especially because we have good evidence that, when things got hot enough, even slaves were recruited.

 

Maybe we should try this one... like in any other city-state, military service was an absolute duty for all citizens. As any soldier had to pay for his own equipment, poor soldiers ought to get the money from moneylenders, the same as in so many ancient and modern societies. So these poor citizens became clients of their noble patrons (Patricians or rich Plebeians alike), usually for generations.

 

The main difference from the Republican and Imperial systems was the number of patrons; multiple in the Republic, just one for the Empire.

 

 

Never heard of this before. Maybe they used whatever they got in crisis, but there was no real crisis after Cannae. Can you give some sources for your statements?

[sylla]

Poor citizens were not part of the army before Marius as soldiers had to afford their equipment and to be able to take leave from their daily bread winning for long periods.

Also plebs were not necessary poor. Many of them were wealthy and powerful.

 

The road that led to the massive imperial assistance begun when competitors in elections started throwing games and gifts to win the urban poor citizens.

Also supplying the city with cheap grains was a task that the institutions of the Republic handled long before the Empire. Bringing this 2 processes together did not required a dictator even if it was eventually done by an authoritarian regime.

The Republic was not ended by the urban or rural discontent but by armies that were loyal to their commanders and not the Republic.

Let me guess... Caius Proletarius and his other poor citizen peers were lucky enough to be comfortably waiting in their farms while the altruistic rich soldiers were risking their necks for them... pretty unlikely, isn't it?

 

Especially because we have good evidence that, when things got hot enough, even slaves were recruited.

 

Maybe we should try this one... like in any other city-state, military service was an absolute duty for all citizens. As any soldier had to pay for his own equipment, poor soldiers ought to get the money from moneylenders, the same as in so many ancient and modern societies. So these poor citizens became clients of their noble patrons (Patricians or rich Plebeians alike), usually for generations.

 

The main difference from the Republican and Imperial systems was the number of patrons; multiple in the Republic, just one for the Empire.

 

 

 

Never heard of this before. Maybe they used whatever they got in crisis, but there was no real crisis after Cannae. Can you give some sources for your statements?

Nope, we are still just comparing notes on our respective working hypothesis.

 

In othe words; HELP!: does anybody know any evidence and/or estimation on the recruitment procedures and rate (ie, proportion of the eligible male populetion) for the middle or late Roman Republic?

 

Thanks in advance from Kosmo & Sylla.

 

While we are waiting, we can begin with LoCascio (2001) for the so-called crisis of the Hannibalic War: Rome drafted close to 9.5 per cent of its entire citizenry in 215 BCE (the year after Cannae), 11.8 per cent in 214 BCE, and 12.6 per cent in 212 BCE (even omitting naval personnel); these figures are among the highest ever recorded and actually close to maximal biological capability (indeed, our definitons for "crisis" may vary). By any measure, it's clear the poorest Roman citizen was not excluded from such draft.

 

BTW, please note these figures are also a strong evidence against the candid idea of perpetual voluntary recruitment, as suggested in another thread.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that, when things got really hot (which was actually not a rare ocurrance for the III & II century BC), the Roman Republican recruitment became compulsory.

Edited July 15, 2009 by sylla

[Neoflash]

Nope, we are still just comparing notes on our respective working hypothesis.

 

In othe words; HELP!: does anybody know any evidence and/or estimation on the recruitment procedures and rate (ie, proportion of the eligible male populetion) for the middle or late Roman Republic?

 

Thanks in advance from Kosmo & Sylla.

 

While we are waiting, we can begin with LoCascio (2001) for the so-called crisis of the Hannibalic War: Rome drafted close to 9.5 per cent of its entire citizenry in 215 BCE (the year after Cannae), 11.8 per cent in 214 BCE, and 12.6 per cent in 212 BCE (even omitting naval personnel); these figures are among the highest ever recorded and actually close to maximal biological capability (indeed, our definitons for "crisis" may vary). By any measure, it's clear the poorest Roman citizen was not excluded from such draft.

 

BTW, please note these figures are also a strong evidence against the candid idea of perpetual voluntary recruitment, as suggested in another thread.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that, when things got really hot (which was actually not a rare ocurrance for the III & II century BC), the Roman Republican recruitment became compulsory.

 

Here is an excerp from the Histories of Polybius http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl...t_polybius6.htm. He does talk about wealth requirement for the officers (tribunes) but it seems that the soldiers were taken from every tribe and the only requirement was that of age. Hope this helps.

 

Neoflash

[caldrail]

My own personal view is that Polybius was around at a time when Rome was rising out of the almost disastrous Second Punic War and rebuilding its strength and confidence, so perhaps he can be forgiven for some national pride. It is true that he saw the Roman constitution as something inherently stronger by virtue of its checks and balances, but then he doesn't consider that the balance might go too far one way. Since 'change' is an inherent part of our cosmic reality and moves from growth to decay in all things, he is underlining a truth about politics, yet his pride in Roman culture clearly wants his own state to rise above the inevitable fall from grace that he predicts in all things political. I do rationalise that a little. My own feeling is that whatever the ultimate outcome of Roman history was to be, he saw Rome on a rising trend and thought the best was yet to come, so in terms of his own human longevity, experience, and indeed political thinking, he had every reason to feel positive about the city state he lived in.

[sylla]

Alternatively, Polybius might just have been most lavishly and unshamefully praising his patronus' clan and nation, even at the expense of his own conquered motherland, as any bona fide Quisling would have done.

 

Here is an excerp from the Histories of Polybius http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl...t_polybius6.htm. He does talk about wealth requirement for the officers (tribunes) but it seems that the soldiers were taken from every tribe and the only requirement was that of age. Hope this helps.

 

Neoflash

Thanks, of course it helps.

As stated, my quotation on the LoCascio figures was basically a reductio ad absurdum for the indeed incredibly persistent and preposterous idea (maybe even "romantic") that the "unprofessional" pre-Marian Roman Citizen army (militia, if you want) was a bunch of untrained unpaid "amateur" voluntaries; they were, au contraire, an utterly-organized well-payed compulsoryly-recruited highly-expert army, and if we ought to repeat it, plainly the best of their Era, at the very least for winning absolutely all their wars for many centuries without any single year of real peace.

(I simply have no clue on why a statement so axiomatic as the last one is so difficult to understand for some people here).

 

And we may add, an intensively trained army (given his record, this was hardly surprising); as Polybius told us (your quotation) and as the most elementary maths can show us, essentially ALL eligible Roman citizens (17-45 years old) were drafted and served in the front for many years, the infantrymen always under a strict manipular system.

In plain English, virtually ALL the Roman citizens of the time were active legionaries at some point.

 

BTW, the selection of military tribunes, centurions and officials, analogous to the other magistrates, was fundamentally a mixture of democratic and meritocratic procedures.

Needless to say, their impressive military record is the best possible evidence for the extreme degree of high-quality uniformity reached by the Pre-Marian army, regarding either their soldiers or their officials.

Edited September 3, 2009 by sylla

[cornelius_sulla]

But, you officious pack of TWATS...back to Carthage and Corinth, and H.H Scullard!

Two cities, both razed to make an example of them to the rest of their native lands, that if you FUCK with Rome, this is what happens. The message is pretty simple methinks!

[sylla]

But, you officious pack of TWATS...back to Carthage and Corinth, and H.H Scullard!

Two cities, both razed to make an example of them to the rest of their native lands, that if you FUCK with Rome, this is what happens. The message is pretty simple methinks!

IMHO, it was far more complex issue; after all, under your stated rule, "this" (ie, utter devastation and genocide) should have happened to all the Roman known world, which clearly didn't occur.

Because at one time or the other, absolutely all nations "FUCKed" with Rome (no exceptions), in one way or the other; just check on your own sources.

Rome was in its way of universal conquest; at the risk of overstating the obvious, you can't make an omelet without breaking the eggs, and no country has ever happily left its sovereignty to any conqueror (contrary to the patently absurd pretensions of some Roman propaganda).

Edited September 6, 2009 by sylla

[Northern Neil]

But, you officious pack of TWATS...back to Carthage and Corinth, and H.H Scullard!

Two cities, both razed to make an example of them to the rest of their native lands, that if you FUCK with Rome, this is what happens. The message is pretty simple methinks!

 

Indeed... but this is a site for people of all ages, so maybe English of a more standard form could convey the sentiment?