Did Roman Legions Spit on Celebrities of the Day?

[Pisces Axxxxx]

A month before the forums got down,  I posted a thread about how many pro-military families and students of history complain how the general populace adores Celebrities (esp. Movie Stars) such as Brad Pitt and Taylor Swift while ignoring all the suffering and sacrifices Soldiers make. Some pro-military families even state that Soldiers are the ones who should be earning millions, not celebrities who never served such as Tom Cruise.

 

 

Here is the link to the thread (on this site)

 

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/17340-pro-military-complain-celebities-not-soldiers-get-remember-in-history/

 

 

In addition, I published a thread that shows the many pro-military folks view of the Soldier.

 

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Soldiers+love+to+switch+job+Yahoo+ANswers+were+not+volunteer&d=5031748445079777&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1LqXnO-IiQPwLKthAhNbMjBHkeFqeD9Q

 

 

As you can see, I stated in the above link:

 

 

Quote

There seems to be a popular view of Soldiers as patriots who love their jobs. In fact in some segments of society such as the most diehard of pro-military families, there seems to be an image of Soldiers loving their occupation so much that they spit down on Doctors, Movie Stars, Scientists, other occupations that offer much higher pay than Soldiering.They wouldn't choose any other job but Soldiering.

 

 

I went on about how most Soldiers would have loved to switch to safer higher paying jobs and I even stated many Roman Legions joined out of financial incentive, not because of patriotism.

 

I am curious about one thing though. I remember a few years ago I read a commentary by some Roman Legionnaire. This Roman Legionnaire was pretty much a career soldier and actually enjoyed indulging in violence. In today's standards, he would be a MADMAN.

 

He stated something about how much he spat down on Gladiators and how Gladiators are a mockery to real soldiers and real fighting.

 

Now I mentioned in the thread about Pro-Military people and Celebrities that among a force of reluctant enlistees, there are a  few in the Military that joined voluntary and actually ENJOY FIGHTING and VIOLENCE

 

These type of Soldiers are what you call MADMEN or SCOUNDRELS with Stripes .In civilian life, they were either criminals who engaged in violent activities or if they didn't have a record, they indulged in violenc behind the scenes such as hunting animals, going into bar fights, and even participating in violent sports and other violent hobbies.

 

They enjoy Military Life for what it is-a life of hardships and violence, and they spit on Namby Bambies . Particularly the upper classes, the well-educated (as in Masters and PhD level education), the Aristocracies, the mega-rich (millionaires, billionaires), and celebrities in general like Movie Stars such as Tom Cruise and athletes like Muhammad Ali. They even spit upon military personnel who aren't in Combat Roles such as logistics and staff officers because in their eyes these REMFs (people who stay safe in bases) are a bunch of spineless cowards.

 

In Civilian life, they are rough men with poor social skills (except among other equally violent men). They enjoy of boasting of their tales of killing enemies in war and their battlefield experiences.

 

Caildrail himself told me in a PM his father fought in Malaya and was a typical Scoundrel with Stripes and such military decorations on his arms. Who looked on such Roguish characters as "Virtous" and looked down on those more Saintly.

 

I knew my share of Madmen Soldiers and they really do have a "Mightier than thou" mentality to civilians and enjoy going into fights and openly mock civilians in public. They love Soldiering so much and cannot imagine working in another more respectable and higher paying occupations such as Doctor or Accounting unless the occupation was as hard and rough as Soldiering itself. If you met these guys, you'd agree they are insane warmongers and you'd be scratching your head why they aren't in prison for being such violent personalities.

 

 

 

So I am curious-how did Roman Legions view celebrities of their time period? Was there many madmen who shared the same view as the example on Gladiators being fake combatants?

 

How did they view in specific the upperclasses (like the Roman Senate)?

Edited June 17, 2013 by Pisces Adonis

[Fulvia]

You do know that you don't make public things said in pm's unless given permission, right?

[Onasander]

Wot?

 

Your another Nietzschean, I'm guessing, with the elite warrior class mentality. Prussian empire is over.

 

If you are interested in being in the military, in the US, its fairly easy to get in. You can stick it out, and do your twenty. If you want money, you can stay in the states, and become a high payed bodyguard (rare), become a private patrol operator (private security company), or if you have a Ranger Battalion/ Airborne with Ranger Tab, you can start off work in the Mexican Riviera working security.

 

The latter pays very well.

 

The ratio of soldiers to hollywood actors is too freaken high, it makes sense to have a few famous actors than attempt to make a million soldiers as famous.

 

And the tattoos and gruff doesnt make you a better soldier. That's just a symbolic, cultural cue, one could be easily faked. Alot of special forces guys are little tiny guys with lame mustaches who spent a little too much time in kentucky and tennessee. They dont want to be famous, unless it involves them being a guest star on duck dynasty.

 

Since I got out of the military, I've met dozens of guys, ex Rangers or Green Berets, or Force Recon. I only met one guy who was just Airborne. Never had someone admit they were a cook, or truckdriver, or regular jnfantry. Everyone has to be something special.

 

Apparently everyone thinks pretending to be these super elite guys means something to everyone else, even though they arent shit worth considering. Its why I like promoting my flaws, my lame unglamorous feats. Yeah, some good impressive stories can be honestly told, but did I ever tell you about the time during the rainy season, in the Triangle of death just prior to the surge, I got jungle rot from my wet feet? Oh my god, give me celebrity status, and let me sleep with all your sisters for it.

 

The vast majority of the activity in the military is pretty lame. If you spend your whole life in the military, we will say things like 'honor' and 'patriot'.... but its more or less because we really hope, if those words have meaning, the receiver of such titles would know via unspoken memories the reference points of those proud words, the terrible costs and toll. And the people speaking them, they really dont know themselves if its correct, its usually one way.

 

Why not, hypothetically without actually doing it, imagine a soldier standing tall, instead of us saying 'honor, hero, guardian' we said 'chronic monkey butt, accidental discharge, lost a encrypted radio, nearly got mortared while on the toilet'...... not so damn heroic now.

 

But people do that all the time. Hell, I've seen people promoted for friendly fire, or sent to teach at West Point for loosing Humvees on the books.....

 

Unless I see a part of you missing, or you can prove to me you actually did something important, no amount of tattooed arms, name talking, whiskey drinking, or gruff talking is going to impress me. I don't care, a few million vets have claims to stories.

 

As to why the Romans were not paid more, it's called pillaging. You gotta go on the offensive to pillage though, and the best places to pillage are well defended. If you want it that bad, go right ahead.

[caldrail]

 

As to why the Romans were not paid more, it's called pillaging. You
gotta go on the offensive to pillage though, and the best places to
pillage are well defended. If you want it that bad, go right ahead.

 

Legionaries were paid according to political and financial decision. In one case, a Caesar ruled that any newly recruited soldier would be paid the older lower rate, basically to save cash. It didn't make him popular.

 

As for pillaging, there are anecdotes of Roman soldiers getting creative about that. Certainly in the Pannonian Mutiny the first thing the l;egionaries did when they heard that discipline was out the door was raid local villages. On the other hand, a late empire vexillation mounted ambushes on German villages by crossing rivers covertly using shields to float themselves. Alsothere are comments made by writers about soldiers getting greedy. Cicero sympathises with his friend because his donkey was taken, whilst Juvenal tells us that complaining abiout theft by legionaries was only going to get you beaten up. He also relates a stroy about how a thug, possibly an off duty oldier, takes his sword .

[Onasander]

This is exactly the reason why so many people, including me as a very recent convert, got nervous when the US pug the Coast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security.

 

I noted it was constitutionally awkward having the military develop a branch for use ONLY within US territory, no longer geared at maritime patrols and life saving, but developing it's own infantry corps. It was originally meant for guarding nuclear powerplants from terrorists. So I mildly supported it.

 

However, the reality is we have elderly activist catholic nuns breaking into these powerplants, overcomming multiple security screens..... the Coast Guard wasn't there to stop them..... only place this infantry corps pop up on is illegal raids on reporters, seizing materials, intimidating the fuck out of them, anf then dropping the baseless, trumped up charges after with a official apology.

 

I seriously doubt they have a legal power of arrest or constitutional right to file charges, and only answer to the president. Obama has proved he can do anything he wants with them, and I am certain in time the historically savvy amongst them studying roman history, and of Hoover's FBI, will realize they are that one very special link in the administrative chain with hands in every pot that they can in time control the president and the congress.

 

They can effectively do whatever they want, with very little counter or even reasonable recourse to protest.

[Virgil61]

This is exactly the reason why so many people, including me as a very recent convert, got nervous when the US pug the Coast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security.

 

I seriously doubt they have a legal power of arrest or constitutional right to file charges, and only answer to the president. Obama has proved he can do anything he wants with them, and I am certain in time the historically savvy amongst them studying roman history, and of Hoover's FBI, will realize they are that one very special link in the administrative chain with hands in every pot that they can in time control the president and the congress.

 

They can effectively do whatever they want, with very little counter or even reasonable recourse to protest.

 

I'm not sure what this is a response to but I do know there is no constitutional bar to keep the Coast Guard from filing charges or arresting anyone. The bar for the armed forces does not come from the constitution but from the Posse Comitatus Act--which is part of the US Code of Laws [and it's an act which the Coast Guard as well as the National Guard, when under state control, is exempt from]. The Dept of Homeland Security is restricted to civilian & Coast Guard which is why it does not come under Posse Comitatus either.

[Onasander]

The point I was making was a modern day parallel to Caldrail's post.

 

The division of powers inherent in constitutions of common law states can be philosophically tricky if the police force or army predates the constitution that seemingly establishes its power. Delaware and India struggles with parallel issues:

 

Recently, India suspended it's version of the FBI/CIA, the Central Intelligence Bureau. It has the unfortunate distinction of being the oldest intelligence collection agency in the world, much older than modern india. As such, its role, placement, and activities were barely touched upon constitutionally, and as a logical and bureaucratic necessity, was pinned to similar, newer sister organizations born from the constitution as a common sense after thought. This organization acts as the court system's right hand, undertaking court order tasks all the time.

 

It was recently pointed out that though it functionally and crucially isa police force, it had its ability to make arrests and file police reports stripped from it, though friday it was temporarily replaced:

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-stays-Gauhati-high-courts-order-saves-CBI-for-now/articleshow/25528343.cms

 

Similarly, Delaware has repeatedly in the last two years tried to pass laws to explicitly the state constitution's recognized office of the Sheriff as a position that lacks the powers of arrest and investigation, but unlike India, is oddly okay with the Sheriff filing papers. This has obviously pissed each and every sheriff off in the state, noting that they are the only elected police force in the state, and it's ill defined powers of arrest is still in force, given it possessed them since the colonial era, and was a functional office during the constitutional convention, and was grandfathered in.

 

What is important to note here is a contradiction in Syllogism between Constitutional, Historical, and Actual police powers. A police force is rarely completely defined, and if it was in existence PRIOR to the laws or constitution that seemingly restricts or proclaims its powers, big asystemic rifts can suddenly erupt.

 

The reason for this is the ideology of the seperation of powers give the principled matrix the supreme court selects from and interpretes, trying to maintain and extend the original philosophical intentions. What matters less in these crisis is less the laws determining who can do what, but how the threat matrix is stacked if these courts literally pushed the letter of the law, or protected common law precident or accepted legal-administrative procedure.

 

In Delaware's case, its less of a issue than India if the county sheriff system just disappeared, it's a small, highly surburbanized state with municipal police forces available to quickly fill the void. Just you would still constitutionally have this office called Sheriff around, running for election. In India, there is no damn CIB to fall back on. It's increasingly clear, however noble and clearheaded this team player institution is, being a highly evolved team player institution isn't enough for a court system that is supposed to be oriented to constitution and laws first.... but the legal system in India won't quite function.

 

The posse act is important, but is ever only ONE point in a syllogism, and a trained philosopher with experience in dialectic exchange, such as myself, can come up within a hour with a dozen good reasons as to why it doesnt apply, or constitutionally is insufficient. This however is unwise and disturbing to do, as lawyers will take my ideas and file suit.

 

The biggest issue facing the Coast Guard is it predates the US, and was able to collect and consolidate it's various powers over time by taking a specific legal niche, it was neither a military designed for overseas deployment, nor homeland operations, except at sea, which unlike the articles of confederation (if I recall correctly), operated in state waters because states were prohibited from having navies. They kept to this basic formula since our constitution was formed, and was agreed to have the powers of arrest at sea (and much more, such as sinking yachts breaking the Cuban Embargo).

 

As we stand, it is a 'police force' on land, legally entitled to engadge in combat, and has a ranking system paralleled and recognized by 4 branches of the military, and share many of the same military schools. Someone in the Coast Guard with a Commo MOS can support wilitary operations, or police. However, we observe the separation of military and police powers everywhere else in US States and Incoporated territories.

 

A added issue is the high degree of centralized intergration the coast guard has with other federal agencies. I believe there are currently 54 armed federal police forces, the Coast Guard operates side by side in raids with. Though it gives them increased argument as to why they can't be abolished or removed, it increases the opportunity for judges to do so, given the judge knows sister agencies can in short time adjust and fill the void.

 

Caldrail noted many military excesses legions would engage in. However, I doubt even Cicero wanted them outright abolished.... I'm reading The Dream of Scipio right now, he seems accepting of the idea of military, and like me, could do some fancy syllogistic assertions, demolishing arguments. I doubt even when he was killed, he wanted them abolished, just to return to the other side of the River into the Alps.

 

In my case, I merely point out a similar constitutional excess, a branch of our military awarded special powers along our shores is now doing politically motivated raids on the homes of law abiding citizens, who's only crime is causing a president problems by reporting his excesses in authority, which is a protected right under the constitution.

 

No one elects the coast guard. They still act like a military force, but also now claims police powers.

 

I however doubt they will be seriously checked. Not for a few generations at least.

 

This is how Praetorian guards realised one day they had political power. They controlled the Roman City itself, controlled palace security, new all the major power players in the state, and their secrets. Not as strong as a legion, but could discourage legions moving in on Rome by holding its walls.

 

The very idea of a legion being in a position to steal and harrass Romans was ideologically incomprehensible for most of the Republican era. Modern states espousing both common law and a seperation of powers based on checks and balances have that expectation that this wouldn't happen. But it's starting go happen now, and slowly... and it is not the first time. Hoover and the FBI is precedent.

 

Eventually, another Cicero will be killed. Only then will we realize we went beyond the point of no return. It starts with these seemingly simple excesses.

 

 

Does anyone remember what book and chapter of Clausewitz On War that deals with the Four Ways of Supplying a Army? I want to include it here for his reply noting the mixed payment method the Romans used of Pay and Pillage.

[Onasander]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cant-give-more-powers-to-CBI-director-Centre-says/articleshow/25713865.cms

 

This is from today' paper, that almost exactly parallel's the issue I pointed out above.

 

It's a line of thought traceable to the issues of favoring the martial over the civil, and of the check and balance system, with a clear emphasis on the chain of command, that keeps the chaos that brought down the roman republic.

 

For the same reasons I pointed out not to centralize and aggrandize power under the coast guard or praetorians, India decided not to further centralize the CBI's authority.

 

A philosopher a few centuries from now will look back at these trends for noting what points the nations of today turned under the kyklos cycle. India smart, america dumb.