Aphrodite Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Do you think it was a desirable one? While some would say a roman solider had high moral for defending his empire, others may disagree. I have read about men who could cut their thumbs off so they couldn't hold a sword - not the actions of a man who aspired to be part of the roman army surely? Do you think Roman soliders had a good life, or do you think the 25 years they spent in service were miserable and bleak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 I know that if I had been a member of the lower classes, I wouldn't have to think twice about joining the legions. It may have been a gruelling and potentially deadly course of action, but for even high born individuals the legions were a primary avenue to success. One would be supplied not only with food, shelter, clothes, equipment and tools; one would learn technical skills, discipline and management. It would also be the place where ability and intelligence could earn their due rewards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullafelix Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 I know that if I had been a member of the lower classes, I wouldn't have to think twice about joining the legions. It may have been a gruelling and potentially deadly course of action, but for even high born individuals the legions were a primary avenue to success. One would be supplied not only with food, shelter, clothes, equipment and tools; one would learn technical skills, discipline and management. It would also be the place where ability and intelligence could earn their due rewards. Absolutely..another thing that changed was time..in the early days of the empire a lot of the wars were self defence..then there was the booty of empire. But service changed it got longer and they weren't often close enough to get leave. Then the borders of the empire were fixed and there was little booty, it was about then that people first started lopping their thumbs off (did happen - yup). By the time of the third century anarchy people's loyalties had really started to change and rather than having a central loyalty to Rome often people had a more pressing loyalty to the local big wig on grounds of self defence. This is when we see the start of the feudal system. That's the really really short answer but the thumb thing did happen (I might have done it rather than serve 10 years or more in the Roman army!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Hmmm. Had I been a lower class Italian or a provincial looking for citizenship, I probably would have joined to look for my meal ticket. If however I had been an Italian of any wealth I think I would have deserted the legions and gone into trade, as many Italians did in the post Civil Wars booming Roman economy. Or possibly If I had been a man of letters I'd see about becoming a bureaucrat/sycophant in the imperial service. Yeah, I'm not quite the military type. Sleeping in close quarters with a bunch of rugged, smelly men is not my idea of fun, no matter how loyal to the regime I may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Yeah, I'm not quite the military type. Sleeping in close quarters with a bunch of rugged, smelly men is not my idea of fun, no matter how loyal to the regime I may be. Heh heh. Also, anyone with ability in said area often might be a bit wary for his life... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Yes, the era is important. My answer was based around the Republic era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 It's tough to make a generalization over seven centuries or more of Roman military service. Certainly during the Principate the legions were well paid. Once you were in it became a part of their lives I'm sure, with it's own internal culture and comraderie. Add to it that a motivated person might be able to make it up the ladder promotion-wise and had a retirement package of sorts available. During the Jewish War Josephus seems to indicate that expulsion from the ranks was deemed punishment enough in lieu of execution by Titus for an auxiliary who 'allowed' himself to be captured. There's also that sense of excitment and adventure that appeals to young males. Like a poster already said, thumb cutting took place in the later empire. I can't help but think that much of it came from fear of the unknown and of course just plain cowardness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Do you think it was a desirable one? While some would say a roman solider had high moral for defending his empire, others may disagree. I have read about men who could cut their thumbs off so they couldn't hold a sword - not the actions of a man who aspired to be part of the roman army surely? Do you think Roman soliders had a good life, or do you think the 25 years they spent in service were miserable and bleak? Roman soldiers came from all over the place. Their motivations were various. Some needed a job, others wanted citizenship for them and their descendants, some wanted to escape dodgy situations, others wanted battle, some just liked the idea of being a soldier - much the same motivations we see today. Life could be dull, dangerous, and very hard work. This sort of life isn't for everyone as the cutting of thumbs suggests. However, the more devious of them could always wangle light duties. There was always the usual diversions for off duty troops (largely revolving around alcohol and women) and extracting cash from newbies could always pay for another night. It isn't a very good analogy, but think in terms of an ancient version of the French Foreign Legion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted March 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 What i find intrequing is that as the army progressed into its alter form, conditions were made better, pay was increased, the men were allowed to marry and smalled units meant they had bigger living space - archelogical evidence of forst in england indicate that by the forth century soliders may of had their own chalet with fire place, rather than sleeping in bunks with numerous men squeezed into a small space... So taking into account all these factors, they still had problems recruiting. Maybe this indicates that materialistic pleaseures do not equal happiness and high moral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Life got softer for them didn't it? You are correct about moral. The Foreign Legion is no easy option but its modern recruits are for the most part proud to be legionaires. So it was with the romans. When the regime was hard and glory to be won, romans would proud to call themselves legionaries. As life got easier, it got to be a chore and a bit of a drag. By later times your thoughts might be for your family under threat from barbarians so far away from where you were stationed. The legion wasn't quite the psuedo-family it had been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 Just for clarity. French Foriegn Legion troopers are legionaires. Roman legionary troopers are legionaries. Please don't make me a slave again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidius Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) I would have joined the Roman Army if I had the chance. It was one of my dreams in childhood. Surely, soldiering is a difficult life, but it holds meaning for me. Edited March 25, 2006 by Ovidius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 It does for some people. The same was true then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidius Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 And I get to see places, get some badly needed discipline and kill some barbarians! It's a pity my eyesight is not 20/20. I cant serve in the army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) What i find intrequing is that as the army progressed into its alter form, conditions were made better[...]Maybe this indicates that materialistic pleaseures do not equal happiness and high morale Not necessarily. If conditions in the camp relative to the conditions outside the camp got worse over time, it could still be that materialistic pleasures equal high morale AND that conditions in the camp got better over time. Edited March 25, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.