Roman Legions the first professional military force?Or this a myth?

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

One of the claims I always hear in discussions of the Roman Military and Roman Warfare is that the Romans had the first professional military force in existence in history and that for centuries they were the only ones with a professional army in the ancient world. I wish to discuss this for the same reasons why previously I posted a thread about the myth of Roman superiority and being the most sophisticated in warfare during their time.

 

To start off, I'll state my opinions. I personally disagree that the Romans were the first professional fighting force in history and that they were the only ones who had a professional fighting force throughout the world in most of their history.

 

The reason for me saying this is simple: Around the same time the Roman Legion "developed into a professional force". the Chinese were already developing their own professional armies(some sources such as the Art of War even indicate that the Chinese had a professional fighting force centuries before the Romans did).Basically the fact the Chinese warfare during the time of the Romans were about as sophisticated(even more advanced than the Romans in some fields) already proves that the popular belief of Romans having the first and being the only professional army of their time is completely straight up wrong.

 

But lets just take China and civilizations Rome didn't ever meet out of the picture for a moment and limit it to the civilizations of Europe and the Middle East. Popular belief is that the Romans won wars because they had a professional force in the Mediterranean region/Europe (and are often stated even as being the only professional force in Europe and the Mediterranean during their time).This claim is so accepted that even modern military theorist and historians who don't specialize in Roman civilization and soldiers including high ranking ones such as Colonels and generals, all accept this notion as fact.

 

Personally I find it absurd(and impossible to believe) that the Romans were the first civilization in Europe to have a professional army in Europe and that they were the only ones to have a professional army for centuries in Europe during the ancient world. What is your take on this notion?

Edited May 2, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[caldrail]

Aha! This is a favourite bugbear of mine. The problem is that whilst the Romans evolved a professional legion in terms of men recruited for pay rather than patriotism, our definition of professionalism also includes elements of behaviour that aren't appropriate for their era.

 

I'm not sure that the Romans were the the first nation state to raise standing armies for renumerative reward, although they were undoubtedly among the better organised, but bear in mind the average pay for a legionary wasn't brilliant and the soldiers were often 'bribed' with donatives from newly created Caesars. More to the point, they expected to be allowed to pillage for booty should conflict break out, a major source of renumeration for risking their lives.

 

In josephus's account of the Jewish War he includes a description of what happened when the Romans finally broke in. Titus, never a man to suffer fools, simply let his troops off the leash for three days by which time most of the soldiers had grown sick and tired of the bloodletting themselves.

 

Although much is said about Roman discipline, close study of the imperial legion reveals they weren't as 'professionaly' behaved as we might expect. The harsh discipline was imposed on them to keep them in line and it only barely kept them there sometimes.

[Melvadius]

From a quick browse of Wikipedia I suspect part of the answer to which was the first 'professional' army depends on how you define 'professional' and whether you are considering the entirety of a given cultures' army.

 

Lots of armies in the ancient and medieval world were mainly comprised of a few core units who could be classified as 'professionals' but these were often supplemented by either conscripts or, notably like the Carthaginian armies before and during the Punic Wars, large numbers of mercenaries.

 

Although the Han Dynasty army (from about 206BC to 220AD did contain a large standing army of 'professionals' they were mainly confined to the Northern army. In comparison the Southern army was almost entirely conscripted and both armies were supported by additional conscript militias raised during times of great conflicts.

 

On this basis Rome, irrespective of how poorly they may have been paid or how disciplined they were in actuality, possibly can justly be claimed to have been the first culture with a completely 'professional' standing army.

[caldrail]

Actually it can't, under those criteria, because it too relied allies and auxillaries, and it's worth pointing out that although the legions, each a fundamentally seperate military force in its own right, were functionally loyal to their commander rather than the state. The feudal nature of the legions is often overlooked.

[Melvadius]

Although an interesting and partially valid observation it still comes down to which period you are referring to and how you define professional which point I don't think you have addressed.

 

I tend to the view that irrespective of whether you are considering citizen legionnaires or (mainly) non-citizen auxilliaries the fact that for most of the first two centuries of the Principate/ Empire men were 'enlisted' as part of the Roman army for 20-25 years and sent to specific bases they can be considered as a 'professional' army.

 

Admittedly during part of this time allied troops played a part notably in the earlier and later period of the Empire and in some specific campaigns such as those fought in the East where there were allied buffer states. However, as far as I am aware, at least during the earlier period they did not tend to form the primary or even long term garrisons of Roman fortifications on the limes or within the Empire itself.

 

In comparison the southern Han army used short term conscripts as the main bulk of their army including manning of permanent garrison sites so the Han army can not be considered as a 'totally' professional army in a direct comparison with the Roman army of the same period.

 

On these terms it doesn't matter if individual soldiers primary loyalty was to the emperor, state, or their individual commanders. If the vast majority were used to form either 'garrison' troops or a permanent field army, with units normally provided a permanent base during this period, men committed to service to the 'state' for 20-25 years on a full time basis and paid a regular salary then they must in effect have formed a 'professional' army.

 

Edit - I don't see anyone successfully arguing that the Gurkha troops who notably serve with the British, Indian or Brunei armies are anything but professional so in the same way in my view being a 'non-citizen' cannot be seen as an automatic disqualification from this status for Roman auxilliary troops.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Actually it can't, under those criteria, because it too relied allies and auxillaries, and it's worth pointing out that although the legions, each a fundamentally seperate military force in its own right, were functionally loyal to their commander rather than the state. The feudal nature of the legions is often overlooked.

I agree completely.In fact this thread here is an example of how the realities of the Roman Legions are almost always overlooked.

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=524305

[Centurion-Macro]

I heard somewhere that the Macedonian army was considered as the first professional military force? Can anyone back this up?

[barca]

I heard somewhere that the Macedonian army was considered as the first professional military force? Can anyone back this up?

 

 

I agree, that statement has been made numerous times in many sources. I'm not sure you need a specific reference.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

From memory, macedonian soldiers of Alexander were conscripts supplemented by mercenaries, not volunteers like in the roman imperial period. sure they got paid, but it was a more a model of logistics than a way to give them an income (which came from plundering, ransoms and eventual gifts). Of course some units ended up being professionnal soldiers by the end of Alexanders campaigns and kept fighting for years under the diadochoi, but even then they only made part of the armies involved.

[Melvadius]

This comes back to my original statement that before you can decide on what constitutes a 'professional' army of a given culture you have to decide what you mean by the term.

 

Lots of cultures had individual units or even large proportions of their men under arms for extended periods of time but I am not sure that necessarily constitutes them having their 'own' professional army in the same way that the Roman's did where for at least the first two centuries the vast majority of recruits were volunteers and paid fixed rates.

 

On the other hand if a large proportion of an army are conscripts or mercenaries bought for a single campaign even if extended I think that culture can probably be discounted from being completely 'professional'.

 

On that basis Han Chines and Macedonians (probably along with the Persians and Egyptians) have already been discounted from the equation - any more possible contenders for beating the Romans to the first completely professional army?