Living In The Legions

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Thought of by Lost_Warrior, started by me. This thread will cover living conditions/daily life in the legions.

 

According to ("Legions." Life and Death in Rome. History Channel. Mar.-Apr.) each contubernium lived in there own small room, rather cramped. They lived together for the duration of their service unless promoted out of the infantry. Each week the men would get a duty roster. Certain soldiers skilled in writing and math could get easy jobs and more pay. Sometimes the contubernium could bribe their centurion to get out of latrine cleaning.

[Pertinax]

AOS , do not be discouraged , but this item is perhaps better placed in this Forum. If you are posting in the "Academia" you should ask, firstly to be Tyrant ( ie: moderator-by pm to the Triumvirate or failing that the Legatii) for the thread in question, and secondly you should perhaps lean more towards a scenario or thesis that needs wide ranging conceptual consideration ( and therefore supportive cited primary sources to bolster your argument). This topic is good in its own right but is more suited to exposition of practical suggestions, very much like "wearing the Gladius....".

 

Ive posted this note publicly not to discourage posting in "Academia" , nor indeed to admonish the keen and worthy Antiochus , rather to focus on the very particular nature of the "Academia " sub-Forum. I f I err , I expect the Triumvirii will comment.

[longbow]

They lived together for the duration of their service unless promoted out of the infantry.

 

I know the legionaries could be re assigned to different parts of the Empire depending on where they were needed most,but would they go individually to far flung places or would it be as the centuriae that they got there orders?Or even the Cohort?

 

Thanks,Longbow.

[DecimusCaesar]

Im not sure about legionaires but Auxillaries were moved from place to place in small numbers eg. 16 Auxillaries were moved from a fort in Housesteads to guard on Hadrian's wall - but this might have to do with the small accomodation at the wall's mile castles itself and not with small groups of individuals taken from one area to the next.

 

Again, this is to do with the auxillaries and not the legions.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

No problem Pertinax, I just mis-interpreted a bit. I get it now.

 

Carry on.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[caldrail]

They lived together for the duration of their service unless promoted out of the infantry.

 

I know the legionaries could be re assigned to different parts of the Empire depending on where they were needed most,but would they go individually to far flung places or would it be as the centuriae that they got there orders?Or even the Cohort?

 

Thanks,Longbow.

 

Soldiers were very much part of their unit, and to split them unnecessarily was frowned upon. Bear in mind the roman talent for organisation was not going to keep track of hundreds of men going here and there all over the place. Men were part of their legion first, and this legion was posted to a region where it would conduct its duties. Men were always posted away from their home country to prevent a rebellion forming. Chohorts would then be assigned postings in nearby areas, but still within easy reach of legion command. Individual men might be given missions away from their unit, but they would always be expected back. The important point is command was only possible when the commander knew where his men were. Any commander who lost track of his troops probably wasn't going home in triumph

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Unit cohesion is a big factor, and the romans understood it well. The men would learn to trust each other, and that takes time. Seperating them would cause many problems in the short run.

[caldrail]

Unit cohesion is a big factor, and the romans understood it well. The men would learn to trust each other, and that takes time. Seperating them would cause many problems in the short run.

 

Its also true that men were given day to day duties that seperated them from their 8-man teams for short periods. They might be posted as guards on civic buildings, bath attendants, clerical work, as batmen, as labourers - whatever the commander decided was required. It would have been rare to send men any distance although soldiers could apply for leave much as they do today.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

What I mean by 'seperation' is more along the lines of moving a cohort or two to a different legion, not for duties. The former affects fighting dtermination and moral.

[caldrail]

No. Cohorts remained part of their parent legion. If more men were needed, then a cohort might be sent as support but I don't think this was standard practise. It was more likely they'd send another legion or more auxillaries. Or perhaps allies if it comes down to it. Caesar used gaulish cavalry in his campaigns.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I agree with you. Read your post, then mine.

[CiceroD]

Wouldnt reshuffling cohorts and centuries actually helped Marian legions remain true to the State and not to whomever was leading them?

 

just a little thought

 

also transferring commanders could have served a similar function

[DecimusCaesar]

Either way if they shuffled one cohort to another legion it would still rely on that new legate for supplies, pay, food etc so if the one legate wanted to turn upon the state they could still do it as the cohort relies on whoever controls the army. I think it was more important to keep the soldiers occupied with tasks rather than switching them from one legion to the next.

[CiceroD]

Either way if they shuffled one cohort to another legion it would still rely on that new legate for supplies, pay, food etc so if the one legate wanted to turn upon the state they could still do it as the cohort relies on whoever controls the army. I think it was more important to keep the soldiers occupied with tasks rather than switching them from one legion to the next.

 

Very true,

 

But the loyalty these legions had for there commanders and for each other was absolute. To my mind its because they had ONLY been commanded (and paid) by the same Dux.

 

I know im not citing any sources but this is a hypothetical situation.

 

suppose a good deal of the centuries in Caesar's army HAD served with Pompey and Liked him.

I am no expert, but I would think that getting his legions to attack other Roman legions. Men they had previously fought with. Officers they had previously served under. Wouldnt the US verses THEM political factor have been reduced? Personally, I think it would have MUCH harder to cross the Rubicon under those circumstances. yes Caesar would have been popular but would he have been popular enough? Would he have had the fanatic loyalty that made Pharsalus a success and brought Octavian to center stage?

Would this have forced Caesar to play ball with the senate? I think so, but I dont know.

 

Again I know I am not an expert and this is entirely hypothetical.

But am I making any sense? am I making any valid points?

More importantly, what are the holes in this theory?

[caldrail]

Either way if they shuffled one cohort to another legion it would still rely on that new legate for supplies, pay, food etc so if the one legate wanted to turn upon the state they could still do it as the cohort relies on whoever controls the army. I think it was more important to keep the soldiers occupied with tasks rather than switching them from one legion to the next.

 

Very true,

 

But the loyalty these legions had for there commanders and for each other was absolute. To my mind its because they had ONLY been commanded (and paid) by the same Dux.

 

I know im not citing any sources but this is a hypothetical situation.

 

suppose a good deal of the centuries in Caesar's army HAD served with Pompey and Liked him.

I am no expert, but I would think that getting his legions to attack other Roman legions. Men they had previously fought with. Officers they had previously served under. Wouldnt the US verses THEM political factor have been reduced? Personally, I think it would have MUCH harder to cross the Rubicon under those circumstances. yes Caesar would have been popular but would he have been popular enough? Would he have had the fanatic loyalty that made Pharsalus a success and brought Octavian to center stage?

Would this have forced Caesar to play ball with the senate? I think so, but I dont know.

 

Again I know I am not an expert and this is entirely hypothetical.

But am I making any sense? am I making any valid points?

More importantly, what are the holes in this theory?

 

The roman army was not a single institution. There was no roman army in that sense. They had a number of legions - seperate armies if you will. Each commander had his quota of men under his charge and he was responsible for their conduct and performance. The legions were motivated by the leadership skills of their officers but also because victories meant the men could carry away booty. Succesful completion of their 25 years would mean honourable retirement plus their pension and even a plot of land. The men had every reason to follow their commander into battle. However, the commanders had no reason to be loyal to Rome other than it was hand in hand with their personal ambition.