Living In The Legions

[CiceroD]

Again true,

 

but Im offering a method of how to have made the Roman Army more proffessional and less likely to turn on the People. Not how it really was (we all know the result of that).

 

Im getting the feeling this should be in a different forum.

[Dominus Rex]

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.

 

Well, commanders always had the reason to be loyal to Rome because if they weren't, the Senate could always send out another commamander and army against them. On strong and exceptional leaders could really hope to turn against Rome. A mediocre general would never get away with "crossing the Rubicon."

[DecimusCaesar]

The legions themselves played a part in this. Caesar's own troops were the veterans of over 8 years of warfare against Gauls, Germans and Britons. The senate's own troops commanded by Pompey were raw recruits who didn't have the skill or the staying power of Caesar's legions. This was an important factor in the battle of Pharsalus. Pompey's cavalry lacked the fighting skills of Caesar's troops so they broke and fled. If Pompey might have commanded veteran soldiers at Pharsalus he might have defeated Caesar.

 

Not only did a usurper against the state need excellent abilities in strategy, tactics and leadership they also needed troops who had an edge in combat, men who knew exactly what to do in battle.

[CiceroD]

If they had cycled troops like they are now in modern armies Pompey would have had more experienced men

 

Although I understand the logistic difficulties of doing just that between Gaul and Italy

[Sztripi]

Again true,

 

but Im offering a method of how to have made the Roman Army more proffessional and less likely to turn on the People. Not how it really was (we all know the result of that).

 

Im getting the feeling this should be in a different forum.

 

Yes well, the problem in your reasoning is that the state didn't cared about its soldiers. The senate by the time of the late Republic became a self serving institutuion that used its power to enrich its members, not to represent its own people. Any attempt to pass any legislation to refom the state or to change the status quo was blocked and usually the reformists were murdered. The soldiers only hope was that their own commanders will keep their word and give them pension or land. I read somewhere that the senate not once but many times declined to give pensions or land to the solders when they were discharged form the army even after repeated promises. You live in a state that does not care about its citizens. Why woud you be loyal to that state?

 

It changed after Augustus who did enact reforms and ensured that the soldiers receved pensions and land after discharge... And the army was loyal to him. No more revolts...

 

Your solution by the way woud totally destroy the army. Shufling the sub units or soldiers dramatically decreases unit cohesion. This is why it isn't done even today...

Edited October 24, 2006 by Sztripi

[CiceroD]

Thank you, Sztripi

 

an answer like that was what I needed

[Dominus Rex]

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Before Marius and his reforms, soldiers came from the land owning class and had their own equipment (usually given to them by their parents at 16). After their term, they could go back to their farms, and it didn't cost the State very much.

 

Then, when Marius started recruiting his soldiers from the head count, the poor nobodies who lived in the slums of Rome, armies needed weapons from the State. The new soldiers were so poor they couldn't afford anything, and Rome certainly wasn't going to let ill-equiped soldiers into the field. This provided a large burden on the State and it's treasury. Rome had lots of money, so this wasn't such a huge problem.

 

The real problem came forth when it was time for the soldiers to retire. The old type had farms and land, but the newer soldiers had nothing. Once trained in fighting, it became impossible to put them back in the slums. (That would have been just a really bad idea) So, the generals made promises to their men of land and pensions.

 

The generals was the key there. The senate made no promises to the soldiers, and so they felt no obligation to provide them with what others had promised. Often, the generals then had to pay out their own pocket, which naturally makes the men much more loyal to them. And that is why generals could march on the State and such (once again assuming that their were competant enough) if they wished to.

[Primus Pilus]

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Before Marius and his reforms, soldiers came from the land owning class and had their own equipment (usually given to them by their parents at 16). After their term, they could go back to their farms, and it didn't cost the State very much.

 

Then, when Marius started recruiting his soldiers from the head count, the poor nobodies who lived in the slums of Rome, armies needed weapons from the State. The new soldiers were so poor they couldn't afford anything, and Rome certainly wasn't going to let ill-equiped soldiers into the field. This provided a large burden on the State and it's treasury. Rome had lots of money, so this wasn't such a huge problem.

 

The real problem came forth when it was time for the soldiers to retire. The old type had farms and land, but the newer soldiers had nothing. Once trained in fighting, it became impossible to put them back in the slums. (That would have been just a really bad idea) So, the generals made promises to their men of land and pensions.

 

The generals was the key there. The senate made no promises to the soldiers, and so they felt no obligation to provide them with what others had promised. Often, the generals then had to pay out their own pocket, which naturally makes the men much more loyal to them. And that is why generals could march on the State and such (once again assuming that their were competant enough) if they wished to.

 

You've summed it up fairly well. There were cases of non land owning citizenry (and slaves and freedmen as well) serving in the legions prior to the reforms of Marius (ie 2nd Punic War). Many lower class citizens still had occupations to return to after their service as the mass influx of slaves from Greece, Africa and the Balkans had only just begun. Additionally Colonia and the retirement of veterans on provincial soil was not a new concept in the post Marian army, but the scale grew with each successive generation as Roman borders expanded farther and farther beyond Italy.

 

You also touched upon an interesting factor regarding the burden on the Roman state that still contributed heavily to the recruitment, outfitting and continuing supply of the imperator general armies. There is often a misconception that the men were entirely dependent upon their generals, when for the most part, a great deal was financed by the treasury. It seems that oft-times, even the legions themselves were not quite aware of this. Don't misunderstand though, the treasury and many individual aristocrats could and often did benefit heavily from the conquests of the army.

[CiceroD]

The Senate was also incredibly reluctant to fork over Public land as well.

 

not hard to understand why

 

the proceeds of this ager publicus were supposed to go to the state

but ended up in the pockets of some senators themselves!

 

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves"

 

Were they all blind!?

[Kosmo]

Caesar sent to Pompey 2 legions and this were used against him.

The army of the empire despite not being dependent on generals still rebeled. Some of the rebel leaders were centurions that could not pay in advance.

The problem was that the greatest riches could be made by wining power and not fighting the enemy. When the soldiers and officers that made up the army had no interest or convinction to defend the political order thay could follow anyone who made them a good promise.

Some soldiers of Caesar rebeled against him and asked for money and an equestrian ring. This is why they fought for: money and status.

What political goal has someone who helps establishing a dictator that could kill him anytime? There was no ideology, no different view of public power, no religious belief. Just some attachement to a leader, a lot of loyalty to comrades and a promise for some money.

[caldrail]

Well, commanders always had the reason to be loyal to Rome because if they weren't, the Senate could always send out another commamander and army against them. On strong and exceptional leaders could really hope to turn against Rome. A mediocre general would never get away with "crossing the Rubicon."

 

The loyalty of generals was always questionable. Time and again they rebelled or their men proclaimed them emperor. It was simply a question of whether they stood to gain from serving the senate and Rome or pursued their own agenda at greater risk. Caesar understood this - and he crossed the Rubicon not simply to better himself but also because he was in danger of being rendered helpless by his rivals. He had no choice. Other generals had every choice. If Rome was seen as weakened and ripe for a military coup sooner or later someone would be tempted. The men would quickly support a popular commander rather than a distant and feeble ruler.