Paying The Late Republican Army

[Germanicus]

In another thread, Neos posted that Generals didn't pay their troops accept for occasional bonuses, but did rely on their generals for land upon discharge discharge.

 

I realise the state itself paid the citizen militia before the army was proffesionalised, and I realise that after the start of the principate, coinage was minted by, or on behalf of the Emperor.

 

I was however always under the imression that Generals in the late republic did in fact pay their own tropps, on many many occasions. Am I correct in this ? I suppose my reasons for the assumption were the extant coins minted by generals, to pay their troops. Those of Pompey, Caesar, Lepidus, Mark Antony and Brutus etc. When Caesar doubled his troops pay, was this not payed by himself ? I always thought that this, along with land grants was a major reason for the loyalty swing away from the state, toward the individual generals. Could people elaborate ?

 

thanks

[Neos Dionysos]

In another thread, Neos posted that Generals didn't pay their troops accept for occasional bonuses, but did rely on their generals for land upon discharge discharge.

 

I realise the state itself paid the citizen militia before the army was proffesionalised, and I realise that after the start of the principate, coinage was minted by, or on behalf of the Emperor.

 

I was however always under the imression that Generals in the late republic did in fact pay their own tropps, on many many occasions. Am I correct in this ? I suppose my reasons for the assumption were the extant coins minted by generals, to pay their troops. Those of Pompey, Caesar, Lepidus, Mark Antony and Brutus etc. When Caesar doubled his troops pay, was this not payed by himself ? I always thought that this, along with land grants was a major reason for the loyalty swing away from the state, toward the individual generals. Could people elaborate ?

 

thanks

 

 

I was speaking of the Imperial period...

 

For the Late Republic I could not say exactly how the army was paid... and so this is a good point to bring up. However, if the generals paid the troops etc, then what did the Senate and state do? They must have done something if not pay a base pay? Perhaps the general's payment was nothing more than 'extra' pay to ensure loyalty etc.

[caldrail]

Some generals raised legions of their own - Julius Caesar for instance, who no doubt had to pay out of his pocket. Donatives were sometimes expected by troops, but this was a tendency later on during the empire. In short, whoever raised the legion stumped up the cash. After all, they were only paid three times a year and with conquest you could always let them pillage and loot, or perhaps a plot of newly razed land would satisfy them?

[Favonius Cornelius]

It depended on the period and circumstances. The point of the republican army was that the army belonged to the republic not the general. The Romans grew suspicious of even aediles paying for public grain out of their own pockets, so a general paying his troops out of his pockets would be a huge scandal. To reward one's troops then one had to take the roundabout path of having ager publicus being legislated to the soldiers.

 

In later times of civil war, sure you have the generals stamping their own coinage and giving it out, but this was a violation of the norm.

[Germanicus]

In later times of civil war, sure you have the generals stamping their own coinage and giving it out, but this was a violation of the norm.

 

Good point Fav, most of the coins with a general stamp date from the civil wars.

[caldrail]

It depended on the period and circumstances. The point of the republican army was that the army belonged to the republic not the general. The Romans grew suspicious of even aediles paying for public grain out of their own pockets, so a general paying his troops out of his pockets would be a huge scandal. To reward one's troops then one had to take the roundabout path of having ager publicus being legislated to the soldiers.

 

In later times of civil war, sure you have the generals stamping their own coinage and giving it out, but this was a violation of the norm.

 

Possibly, but I doubt the republic had much control of the legions that Caesar formed with his own cash, nor those raised by other individuals. As usual, powerful people ignored the rules for a greater end.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Possibly, but I doubt the republic had much control of the legions that Caesar formed with his own cash, nor those raised by other individuals. As usual, powerful people ignored the rules for a greater end.

 

Oh I agree, by Caesar's time, the Republic did not have much of any power.

 

Just keep in mind that the Republic of Caesar and the Republic of before...even before Sulla, was quite different.

[sullafelix]

Possibly, but I doubt the republic had much control of the legions that Caesar formed with his own cash, nor those raised by other individuals. As usual, powerful people ignored the rules for a greater end.

 

Oh I agree, by Caesar's time, the Republic did not have much of any power.

 

Just keep in mind that the Republic of Caesar and the Republic of before...even before Sulla, was quite different.

 

Hmm, I would take issue with that. Surely Caesar's Gallic legions were originally voted him by the Republic?Admittedly his command was extended by the informal alliance between Pompey Crassus and himself but it was not until Caesar and Pompey fell out that the Republic lost all power, it was in fact the machinations of the Optimates that really pitched Rome into civil war.

 

As for who paid the army I was always under the impression that they were paid by the state (later this was sometimes not while they were on campaign but after their return) but their loyalty was to their general because it was their general who decided the rules of booty and his skill at picking good targets and affinity with the needs of his troops that partly dictated how much they would make. Booty was far more important to soldiers than their regular army pay because it could amount to far more. It was the main reason why people were willing to sign up in the Republic.

Edited March 3, 2006 by sullafelix

[Primus Pilus]

Booty was far more important to soldiers than their regular army pay because it could amount to far more. It was the main reason why people were willing to sign up in the Republic.

 

Yes absolutely, and beyond that the responsibility of the recruiting Consul to act as a political advocate to gain retirement land and benefits for his army was not lost upon the men in the ranks. They understood that if they performed well and showed loyalty their commanders would do the same for them, and fight for them politically when their service was over.

 

In the post Marian 'head-count' army, the potential for spoils of war and retirement arrangements both far outweighed any minimial 'salary' or sense of duty to the state as landowning members of society's upper echelon may have once maintained. I do not deny that there was a sense of duty among the later Republican era armies, nor am I saying that land owning citizens did not continue to serve in the post Marian legions, but the dynamics dictating the general state of military affairs was a completely different animal.

[Ulpii]

Whilst the individual General clearly had some responsibility for rewarding the soldiers with donatives and lad grants, it is clear that the SPQR had to provide the funds. This is clearly shown in the Senate's decision to support Marius and Cinna's decision not to provide Sulla's troops with money in the Mithridatic war. Sulla was very nearly bankrupted and his ferocious assessment of teh Asian Poleis which had supported Mithridates in order to fund his legions indicates the straits to which he was reduced. At the same time this was a reciprocal process as successful generals were expected to contribute towards the state as well and new conquests would provide the wealth to pay the soldiers. Where generals were considered rogue they would of course be cut off from funds - and indeed as has been said above much of the confusion derives from the civil wars - which is why Crassus famously pointed out that nobody could be called rich who could not personally fund an army.

[Favonius Cornelius]

This is all true, but I'd like to point out that when back in the day Rome's armies were raised from the landed citizens, they served willingly because they had a stake in the outcome of a war; no one wants to loose their land.

 

On the other hand, when you raise troops from the landless, the paltry income of a soldier's pay is hardly enough to call taking up the sword and shield and risking life a good job. Therefore the epectation was the general would one way or another come up with a way to give them the big kick back. As Rome's conquests became ever more great, so did the expectations.

[Andrew Dalby]

... their loyalty was to their general because it was their general who decided the rules of booty and his skill at picking good targets and affinity with the needs of his troops that partly dictated how much they would make. Booty was far more important to soldiers than their regular army pay because it could amount to far more. It was the main reason why people were willing to sign up in the Republic.

 

If you combine this with the fact that military success was an essential part of a full Roman political career, you have some structural reasons why Rome was so expansionist, all the way to the end of the Republic.