Roman Military

[journaldan]

Actually, I don't think the concept of the rich not wanting to serve in the military is anything new. In the American Civil War, well-to-do people could hire a person to serve their enlistment if a draft notice came. A similar type of pattern could be found in the U.S. Revolution from Britain in 1776.

[Primus Pilus]

Really, the 'nobility' has always served in some capacity. They just had, and in some cases still have the luxury of command positions that aren't always available to the average grunt.

[journaldan]

There has been a certain segment of "nobility" that has served in the officer/leadership ranks of armies/navies. By and large though, in pre-modern times, this was the path for second (or third, etc) sons, the ones who did not stand the gain the inheritance.

 

One can never paint any class/segment of population/etc with one broad brush, but I would be willing to place a sizable bet that it generally hasn't been the rich who have gone off to war, at least in terms of the same relative proportion with which the middle class and poor have gone off to war.

[Guest dracones]

Hello!

I'm looking for all the roman units formed by

dacians soldiers.

Can anyone help me?

10x

[Guest dracones]

Hello!

I'm looking for something else aswell:

I heard that the roman soldiers on the frontier were not allowed to marry local women.

Is it true. Is there any document to testify this?

10x

[Guest DarklingGlory]

Could anyone tell me the names of Carthaginian military units? I'm talking names, not types

[mquish]

Actually, the auxillia usually made up half of the legion, and usually the most important half.

Romans never really got the hang of cavalry soldiering, and they were also bad archers.

 

I dont think it was down to getting the hang of it but more because it was too expensive. The horses that lived around the region of italy and generally south eastern europe were of a different breed to that of neibhouring regions. They had longer backs which meant they couldnt support the weight of a soldier on them, so instead of going to the trouble of getting horses from neighbouring regions and training them, it was much cheaper to just hire mercenaries(auxilleries).

[Guest]

Just curious, but where the does the notion that one could not 'just sign up for' the auxilia come from? As far as i am aware, one could do just that. When a Cohors was raised and stationed in a different part of the empire, which seems to have been the normal practice in the 1st century, it continued to recruit from that area, surely? If the auxilia were really recruited en masse from one area, and shipped abroad, it would have been disbanded after 25 years, wouldn't it? You know, when all the original recruits were retired with their citizenships. And there must have been replacements for those lost to illness, combat, or desertion. The locations of the various Cohors are evident, and it some cases it can be proved that they were stationed there for some considerable time, decades and sometimes centuries. The suggestion that units of auxilia were recruited en masse and one could not join a Cohors as an individual is an imagined one, i think, and has no real basis in fact. It belongs to the Victorian notion that the Auxilia were second class soldiers. The same ideas would have the auxilia poorly equipped and inferior to the Legions. The only major difference between the Legions and the Auxilia was that most of the Auxilia were not citizens. They were usually led by Roman officers, and were organised and equipped in much the same way as a legion (with with a few minor differences), and although it was standard practice for Cohors fight alongside legions, they could, and did, act independently. There did exist Cohors which were composed entirely of Citizens. These could be, for example, either volunteer units from the City, or units awarded Citizenship for bravery or loyalty. We should probably think of the Legions as soldiers of the City, and the Auxilia as soldiers of the Empire.

[Primus Pilus]

Just curious, but where the does the notion that one could not 'just sign up for' the auxilia come from?

 

I don't think anyone suggested that did they... maybe I missed it, but if so I believe it must have been in reference to pre-imperial legions. Once the military was standardized with permanent legions, garrisons, etc. there's no question that recruitment was definitely a replace as needed affair. However, auxilia units still were recruited en masse after that point (think the Sarmatian cavalry by Marcus Aurelius that was sent to Britannia c. AD 175), but replacement would've become an as needed issue after that because these units still existed at least until the Roman withdrawal in the 5th century.

[caldrail]

Its more to do with long term trends in Roman society. In the early days, Romans were very public spirited and keen to do their bit - it was seen as a mark of respect to have served, and some senators tore open their togas to reveal war wounds to give their arguments weight during debates. But this was an era of austerity. As the more comfortable life evolved along with the empire (and although not everyone was rich and comfortable, there was an easier life to be had from servicing the needs of the wealthy) people were less interested in military life, especially after the success of the conquest era and the lack of further glory. By the late empire, military service wa considered onerous, and press gangs were used to find recruits, and whilst the practice of cutting off your thumb to avoid military service had been present in Roman society for hundreds of years, it got so frequent in the late empire that one emperor ruled that two thumbless men were as good as one fully fit man.

[CiceroD]

By the Imperial period, auxilia was very much a 'regular' part of the Legion.

 

But Adrian Goldsworthy in The Complete Roman Army consistently makes it clear that the legions and the Auxilia were two entirely separate entities.

Independently raised and organized differently, I believe they were a regular part of the army along with the legions.

 

As to the Carthaginians, Ernle Bradford in his book Hannibal

makes it very clear that their armies consisted largly of mercenaries from a large number of nations. This includes Numidians, Iberians, Libyans, and Celts.

As I recall we have almost no written material from the Carthaginians (Except for an agricultural treatise, according to National Geographic).

 

All of this makes unit organization for them very difficult to ascertain.

[caldrail]

They were two different class of entities. The Romans did not have a national army. They wouldn't dare give that much military power to one man (other than the emperor himself) for fear of coup detat. Instead, they developed the idea of temporary warbands which Marius had made permanent in his reforms, and given a regimental air by Augustus in his, yet its still erronous to see the legions (or auxillary formations for that matter) as regiments in an army. They were independent units, mini-armies in their own right, so that an ambitious general had a limiting factor in loyal legions against him.

 

Auxillaries are to all intents and purposes foreign mercenaries serving under the Roman system in return for citizenship after they complete their term. Second class soldiers in other words, although valuable ones.

 

A third tier was the rare occurence of slave soldiers. Augustus for instance had made freedmen of slaves in order to recruit them as sioldiers. They were not allowed regular weapons and equipment, nor were they allowed to billet beside legionaries.

[CiceroD]

Its more to do with long term trends in Roman society. In the early days, Romans were very public spirited and keen to do their bit - it was seen as a mark of respect to have served, and some senators tore open their togas to reveal war wounds to give their arguments weight during debates. But this was an era of austerity.

 

I don't have any doubt that there was a greater sense of military duty to the state early on then later. I also agree that the increase of wealth decreased the incentives of service.

 

But I subscribe to the belief that societal values arise from necessity. Early on it the army relied on men of independent means since they had to equip themselves. Therefore I always find the traditional Roman source bemoaning the loss of this civic virtue ironic.

[caldrail]

Up to a point thats correct. However, right from the start, wealth became a fundamental marker of Roman status, and people being social animals, the social status amongst the herd, once the means is established, becomes a major motivation. That doesn't mean the setup is necessary, rather its become the accepted norm.

 

An important point to realise is that the decrease in incentive with increased wealth really only manifested itself after the Marian Reforms. These changes allowed the poorest men of Roman society opportunities for a military career - something that wasn't so easy in earlier times, if for nothing else than their inability to purchase equipment, as you say, but also that ever present status associated with it. A poor man attempting to serve alongside others in the eraly Republic wasn't going to be well accepted. And incidentially, since human beings are by nature somewhat less than noble, there would always be those who obtained their equipment without the need for purchase.

 

The early legions were no more than a militia. They were gathered from citizens in order to protect the land they owned. Roman society, although essentially urban in later centuries, had rural origins. Certainly they relied on men of independent means, but actually this wasn't about whether they could afford gear, although it must be conceded that they graded themselves according to the equipment they carried into battle, but about their property and the income derived from it. The land they owned was considered to give a motivation for service, to defend their farms against enemy aggression.

 

I don't the Roman sense of loss of virtue at all ironic. I think they were very aware of the falling standards and decay of public morality in the late Republic (I know some disagree with me). The upshot of my reply is societal changes may arise from necessity, they also do so from opportunity, and human instinct always leads people to exploit situations for their own comfort.

[marcus silanus]

By the Imperial period, auxilia was very much a 'regular' part of the Legion.

 

But Adrian Goldsworthy in The Complete Roman Army consistently makes it clear that the legions and the Auxilia were two entirely separate entities.

Independently raised and organized differently, I believe they were a regular part of the army along with the legions.

 

As to the Carthaginians, Ernle Bradford in his book Hannibal

makes it very clear that their armies consisted largly of mercenaries from a large number of nations. This includes Numidians, Iberians, Libyans, and Celts.

As I recall we have almost no written material from the Carthaginians (Except for an agricultural treatise, according to National Geographic).

 

All of this makes unit organization for them very difficult to ascertain.

 

The only Carthaginian unit clearly identified as far as I have found is the 'Sacred Band'. Carthage itself, during the wars with Rome only provided the officers and this group of elite troops based in style on a late Greek model i.e. both cavalry and infantry armed with a short sword, infantry with a long pike and cavalry with a Greek spear. This unit was only called to arms when Carthage itself was threatened such as afetr the invasion by Regulus.