Question about the origin of the army's discipline: clientelae?

[Schabbes]

Ave everyone,

 

I have to write a term paper on the Roman nobility and have a question that goes into military history. I read that the Roman army's discipline was much higher than in other armies of the time (relevant for me: mid to late republic), and that this discipline was based not only on the general understanding of military hierarchy in that era, but to a high degree on Roman social structure, because the soldier and his commander felt as if in a cliens-patronus relation (sry, I don't know the anglicised terms).

 

If the discipline is considered as highly unusual for the time (and the most important advantage of the Roman army), and that discipline is mostly based on the institution of the clientelae, then one could think that the clientelae did indeed have a striking importance throughout Roman society, right? In your face, Fergus Millar!

 

But I would need more stuff to illustrate the point. Is there anyone who wrote about the origin of discipline in the Roman army and related it specifically to the general social structure?

 

Greetings

Schabbes

Edited March 11, 2007 by Schabbes

[Mosquito]

Ave everyone,

 

I have to write a term paper on the Roman nobility and have a question that goes into military history. I read that the Roman army's discipline was much higher than in other armies of the time (relevant for me: mid to late republic), and that this discipline was based not only on the general understanding of military hierarchy in that era, but to a high degree on Roman social structure, because the soldier and his commander felt as if in a cliens-patronus relation (sry, I don't know the anglicised terms).

 

If the discipline is considered as highly unusual for the time (and the most important advantage of the Roman army), and that discipline is mostly based on the institution of the clientelae, then one could think that the clientelae did indeed have a striking importance throughout Roman society, right? In your face, Fergus Millar!

 

But I would need more stuff to illustrate the point. Is there anyone who wrote about the origin of discipline in the Roman army and related it specifically to the general social structure?

 

Greetings

Schabbes

 

Actually there were even wars in which Roman patricians were leading their armies of clients againt enemy. If I remember well in Livy's work was described how Fabii took army of 5000 against someone (dont remember know who and when was it).

[M. Porcius Cato]

If the discipline is considered as highly unusual for the time (and the most important advantage of the Roman army), and that discipline is mostly based on the institution of the clientelae, then one could think that the clientelae did indeed have a striking importance throughout Roman society, right? In your face, Fergus Millar!

 

Maybe.. Or Fergus Millar is right--that is a possibility, you know. Also, when--in the vast history of the Roman world--are you talking about?

 

My own view is that Millar is dead on, and it's high time for someone to present some actual evidence that clientele played a significant role in the Roman politics of the middle to late republic. As it is, the patron and the client are the Batman and Robin of Roman history: whenever some motivation is difficult to explain, these two masked figures fly in from nowhere to save the day, and after all this time we know absolutely nothing about the history, operation, and limits of these shadowy figures.

[Kosmo]

s it is, the patron and the client are the Batman and Robin of Roman history: whenever some motivation is difficult to explain, these two masked figures fly in from nowhere to save the day, and after all this time we know absolutely nothing about the history, operation, and limits of these shadowy figures.

 

Good point MPC!

Did the patron used a rigid discipline on his clients? It is more easy to admit that military neccesity imposed discipline rather then this mysterious relation that was not backed by public force.

You start by claiming that the romans of mid-late republic were more disciplined then others, but there were some armies highly disclipined and the obvious example it's Hannibal's Italian campaign. To keep an army in enemy territory for that long requires a lot of discipline.

[caldrail]

Ave everyone,

 

I have to write a term paper on the Roman nobility and have a question that goes into military history. I read that the Roman army's discipline was much higher than in other armies of the time (relevant for me: mid to late republic), and that this discipline was based not only on the general understanding of military hierarchy in that era, but to a high degree on Roman social structure, because the soldier and his commander felt as if in a cliens-patronus relation (sry, I don't know the anglicised terms).

 

If the discipline is considered as highly unusual for the time (and the most important advantage of the Roman army), and that discipline is mostly based on the institution of the clientelae, then one could think that the clientelae did indeed have a striking importance throughout Roman society, right? In your face, Fergus Millar!

 

But I would need more stuff to illustrate the point. Is there anyone who wrote about the origin of discipline in the Roman army and related it specifically to the general social structure?

 

Greetings

Schabbes

 

It is true that roman discipline was extraordinary, ruthless, and very harsh. We have that story of the centurion nicknamed 'Give Me Another' because he kept breaking vine staff on unfortunate soldiers. He also got himself killed because of it! Which brings me to an important point. Despite this fierce discipline the rank and file soldiers were not known for obedience. There are plenty of stories in which I see senior roman commanders pleading and persuading their men to back to their duties. The discipline produced some very hardened soldiers who simply weren't afraid of anyone and in some cases that included their officers. This is why I think that roman leadership was so important. Without strong leaders the legions simply didn't function effectively.

[Schabbes]

written by Kosmo: "You start by claiming that the romans of mid-late republic were more disciplined then others, but there were some armies highly disclipined and the obvious example it's Hannibal's Italian campaign. To keep an army in enemy territory for that long requires a lot of discipline."

 

Was i saying non-Roman armies were not disciplined? Anyhow, Hannibal was an outstanding leader- you can't really use him as an example of the average state of military discipline in a non-Roman army- and a.f.a.i.k. the soldiers he kept there were, increasingly as the campaign moved on, northern Italian Celts and former Roman socii, who were never far from home. What takes more discipline- keeping a victorious army together, moving plundering along the plains (not easy, admitted), or following such an army, which already dealt your buddies several heavy blows, in the heavy terrain of the hills and mountains surrounding the plains, like Q. Fabius Max. did?

 

I thought it would be generally accepted that Roman military (and civilian/social) discipline was unusually strong, because i've read that in several books about the rise of the republic, i didn't expect an argument on that. But if you can prove me wrong, go ahead- i asked for your advice, and i'm here to learn.

 

written by M. Cato: "My own view is that Millar is dead on" - Sorry I don't get that (English is not my first language), does that mean "Millar is entirely correct"?

 

I didn't want to start a discussion on him, but you seem interested and well informed. My paper is on the nobility betwen 287 and 133 (or 49, i don't know yet), and Millar claims a nobility, or any halfway homogeneous patrician-plebeian political elite, never existed. I can hardly ignore such a claim, considering my chosen topic... He also holds the classical Roman Republic was essentially a democracy (e.g. in his article in JRS 74), which the other scholars on the subject i've read all deny- that's why i tend not to believe him. Given e.g. the number of non-nobility consuls in the mid-/late republic or the three pompae (more or less only accessible to the nobility, depending on your definition), i think it is rather obvious an elite existed which tended to be exclusive, monopolised political and military acumen and effectively ruled Rome.

 

Millar bases his whole argumentation on the assumption that amicitiae and necessitudines/clientelae were not at all dominating the people's decisions. If i could find something that hints to the opposite, that would be nice, if i'd find something that backs him, also great- i surely am not dogmatic, and my professor isn't either. But what seemed convincing to me was this idea: The (early-mid-) Republican army, often not too well equipped, and often lead by commanders who got their posts more by social prestige rather than military acumen, had as their deceisive advantage its discipline (what else?), which was tougher than the discipline in other armies. Now you could try and explain this unusual discipline by a strong social hierarchy (=clientelae), which transfers the patria potestas to the patron. The military commander then, in the field, takes over the function of the patron. If vertical obligations generate such remarkable social discipline, therefore, they must have played an important role, or not?

 

The first beginnings of the function of the commander in the field as a patron-like figure can be dated back to the 1st Punic War at least, I'd guess: As soon as the soldier is no more a mere militia-man whose survival is based on his harvest at home, but a "professional" who stays in the field for more than one summer, he has to rely on his commander as a political figure to grant him a compensation, be it booty, a piece of land or money. Therefore, he is well advised to support his former commander politically, which then creates necessitudines.

 

Now to modify the original question a bit: Do you think the Roman army's discipline was based on military necessities alone, or maybe also on the strong social hierarchy in Rome?

 

If the Roman discipline was, as Kosmo asserted, not stronger than that in other armies, or not based on civilian social hierarchy, and you can give me articles or books saying so (i need that for the paper), then my point with the clientelae would be futile- I'd be happy nonetheless about a definite answer.

 

Greetings

Schabbes

Edited March 12, 2007 by Schabbes

[M. Porcius Cato]

written by M. Cato: "My own view is that Millar is dead on" - Sorry I don't get that (English is not my first language), does that mean "Millar is entirely correct"?

Yes, I agree with Millar about clientele and about the importance of the democratic character of the Republic. Please note, however, that I did not say that Rome was a democracy; it wasn't, at least not in the sense meant by Polybius. BUT, popular co-sovereignity with the senate wasn't just a motto ("SPQR"), and Millar has been invaluable in pointing out the many sources of information that attest to this fact.

 

I didn't want to start a discussion on him, but you seem interested and well informed. My paper is on the nobility betwen 287 and 133 (or 49, i don't know yet), and Millar claims a nobility, or any halfway homogeneous patrician-plebeian political elite, never existed. I can hardly ignore such a claim, considering my chosen topic... He also holds the classical Roman Republic was essentially a democracy (e.g. in his article in JRS 74), which the other scholars on the subject i've read all deny- that's why i tend not to believe him. Given e.g. the number of non-nobility consuls in the mid-/late republic or the three pompae (more or less only accessible to the nobility, depending on your definition), i think it is rather obvious an elite existed which tended to be exclusive, monopolised political and military acumen and effectively ruled Rome.

 

I don't want to hijack a thread on the army, but I vigorously dispute the idea that the Republic was dominated by an unelected elite. For more details supporting my argument, click here. I'd also heartily recommend an excellent volume for your paper, A Companion to the Roman Republic (Eds. N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx). The chapter "Popular Power in the Roman Republic" by Alexander Yakobson is relevant to Millar's thesis about popular sovereignty; the chapter "Patronage" by Elizabeth Deniaux is relevant to your paper (she's more sympathetic to the idea than I am).

 

Millar bases his whole argumentation on the assumption that amicitiae and necessitudines/clientelae were not at all dominating the people's decisions. If i could find something that hints to the opposite, that would be nice, if i'd find something that backs him, also great

But it's logically impossible to find something that backs him: he says that a system of clientele did NOT dominate Roman politics. Since you can't find evidence FOR a negative, no evidence can be found for Millar's position. But the onus of proof isn't on Millar: it's on those who make the positive claim that the system of clientele DID dominate Roman politics.

 

Now you could try and explain this unusual discipline by a strong social hierarchy (=clientelae), which transfers the patria potestas to the patron. The military commander then, in the field, takes over the function of the patron. If vertical obligations generate such remarkable social discipline, therefore, they must have played an important role, or not?

But there were well-disciplined armies with no such system (e.g., the Argives, the Spartans, etc); therefore, clientele is an unnecessary assumption.

 

As soon as the soldier is no more a mere militia-man whose survival is based on his harvest at home, but a "professional" who stays in the field for more than one summer, he has to rely on his commander as a political figure to grant him a compensation, be it booty, a piece of land or money. Therefore, he is well advised to support his former commander politically, which then creates necessitudines.

Clearly this is a double-edged sword. If you motivate your troops merely by the prospect of spoils, you get mutinous troops when the going gets rough. Also, the earliest case you can make with much certainty here would be Marius, and then (to a greater extent) Caesar. In both cases, btw, the patron-like generals suffered several potentially disastrous mutinies.

 

Now to modify the original question a bit: Do you think the Roman army's discipline was based on military necessities alone, or maybe also on the strong social hierarchy in Rome?

Neither--it was based on religion, discipline, and training.

 

If the Roman discipline was, as Kosmo asserted, not stronger than that in other armies, or not based on civilian social hierarchy, and you can give me articles or books saying so (i need that for the paper), then my point with the clientelae would be futile- I'd be happy nonetheless about a definite answer.

 

See the chapter in Rosenstein's Imperatores Victi on the role of religion on Roman confidence in their commanders. The book is on-line somewhere.

[caldrail]

The first beginnings of the function of the commander in the field as a patron-like figure can be dated back to the 1st Punic War at least, I'd guess: As soon as the soldier is no more a mere militia-man whose survival is based on his harvest at home, but a "professional" who stays in the field for more than one summer, he has to rely on his commander as a political figure to grant him a compensation, be it booty, a piece of land or money. Therefore, he is well advised to support his former commander politically, which then creates necessitudines.

yes, but notice the greed and corruption endemic to legionary life. The soldiers expect reward for their trouble, or there is likely to be some. Roman soldiers were expected to be obedient but that was an ideal. In many cases they weren't. They were not loyal to Rome. They were loyal to their commander, and therefore if the commander lost respect or was unable to inspire his men, he was in for a hard time. This cuts both ways so if a commander was especially loved and respected by his men, they might well begin to think that he would be a better emperor than so and so back in Rome, and then the legion mutinies as a whole.

 

Now to modify the original question a bit: Do you think the Roman army's discipline was based on military necessities alone, or maybe also on the strong social hierarchy in Rome?

The roman social hierarchy is indeed part of the roman armies discipline but the it isn't simply a matter of obedience or punishment. A commander was expected to be a leader who inspires his men to victory. The emphasis on this was much greater than todays pep-talks by officers but even these can produce results. Notice that the class structure is still part and parcel of modern army life for good reason, even if many officers are actually from the same class as the rankers. The officers are educated and trained to fulfill their role as social superiors, as gentlemen. Roman armies have their own social structure after Marius rather than they wealth orientated structure of the early days which reflected the society they came from and their place in it.

[Schabbes]

Yes, I agree with Millar about clientele and about the importance of the democratic character of the Republic. Please note, however, that I did not say that Rome was a democracy; it wasn't, at least not in the sense meant by Polybius. BUT, popular co-sovereignity with the senate wasn't just a motto ("SPQR"), and Millar has been invaluable in pointing out the many sources of information that attest to this fact.

But was Millar's concept new in any way? His theory of the plebs as the real sovereign of Rome (JRS 74, p.19) is nothing else than Th. Mommsen's idea of the "citizen body institutionalised in the comitia/contiones as carrier of the sovereign power of the state" (Staatsrecht III/1 127ff, 300ff; III/2, p.1030, my translation). As far as I know, Mommsen is quite well-known also among English-speaking history guys, so Millar should know him. Anyhow, no one of Millar's contemporaries ever claimed SPQR was just a motto. The general consensus, as far as i understand, is that the people and their ability to vote were an essential part of the aristocratic (!) regime: In order to keep the consensus among the nobility, a "third force" was necessary which would allocate the important positions/magistracies (there are exceptions, of course, e.g. pontifices and magistri equitum) Thereby, the nobility would not compete directly "against" each other, but indicrectly- they would try to gain popular favour. Thus, the potentially destructive forces of competition were neutralised, and even put to good use. As long as there was a consensus among the nobility to accept the people's function as a "3rd force", and as long as the people were comparably independent in their voting (not too much blackmailing, which would damage their function as a "referee" etc), the nobility could work as a (more or less) homogeneous ruling "class" (for lack of a better term).

 

To say it again: The nobility agreed with each other that the people would allocate the positions. It is by this consensus that they could form an aristocratic regime, to whom the coherence (they didn't have to fight among each other about the rules to allocate the magistracies) and relative equality of the ruling "class" is critical. As this consenus began to break away, because opportunities arose to acquire political power e.g. by wealth, military and foreign clientelae of incredible strength, the republic was at the end. That's what i understand as the generally accepted idea.

 

I don't want to hijack a thread on the army, but I vigorously dispute the idea that the Republic was dominated by an unelected elite.

Well, the guys criticizing Millar never said it was "unelected", but that it tended to be exclusive. Millar fights an orthodoxy that has long since been done away with.

 

But it's logically impossible to find something that backs him: he says that a system of clientele did NOT dominate Roman politics. Since you can't find evidence FOR a negative, no evidence can be found for Millar's position. But the onus of proof isn't on Millar: it's on those who make the positive claim that the system of clientele DID dominate Roman politics.

I said the clientelae dominated the people's decisions, and that was surely wrong, i'll admit, because it sounds as if the clientelae were the ONLY factors to decide whom you give your vote to. But Millar even denies that clientelae were one factor among others, like military success, commendatio maiorum, great ludi/circenses during the "aedileship" (- if you can say so), rhetorics etc. when it came to voting. That informal obligations (e.g. Christian Meier in "Res publica amissa" has, before Millar's time, noticed they were not formally institutionalised in the mid + late Rep.) were not necessarily unimportant in Rome is at least indicated by the meaning of the mos maiorum and the amicitiae (e.g. Cicero deemed it only natural for amici to provide large sums of money for his wife while he was in exile- amicitia meant much more than "friendship" nowadays).

Besides- Millar also has to make a positive claim; he has to verify that Rome was ruled by the plebs. He cannot say "well you can't prove the relevance of the clientelae, and therefore my claim is right and Rome was a democracy".

 

But there were well-disciplined armies with no such system (e.g., the Argives, the Spartans, etc); therefore, clientele is an unnecessary assumption.

Again: I didn't say other armies were not disciplined, merely that the Roman army's strength was based on an unusually high discipline which could be rooted in the social hierarchy.

Honestly, maybe the only thing about Spartans i know is that they ate blood soup and hunted people for sports, so i'm just guessing... But they came from a social system that imposed harsh discipline on its members, right? Without this social structure, would their military success have been possible? And is this success based on an unusually strict military discipline or rather on a high degree of individual training?

 

Also, the earliest case [militia structure damaged by military necessity to stay longer in a foreign area- general pays troops] you can make with much certainty here would be Marius, and then (to a greater extent) Caesar. In both cases, btw, the patron-like generals suffered several potentially disastrous mutinies.

Well, a.f.a.i.k. the earliest case of a Roman army spending a winter abroad is the 1st Punic war. Note the many struggles on how to spend the booty in the 2nd century (whether the triumphator should be granted full access to the booty or not- e.g. the Scipio trials initiated by one of your namesakes), and the sums of money e.g. L. Aemilius Paullus (iirc) gave to his soldiers in 167. Booty had always been a "motivator" to compel the people to vote for war (think e.g. of Polybios' account of the outbreak of the 1st Punic war), but as soon as the soldier could no more make a living by plowing the ground, it became more + more important. Marius was only the one who finally drew the consequences, the problem had been there long before.

 

[Roman military discipline] was based on religion, discipline, and training.

I find this answer unsatisfactory, because religion is too broad an area to specify Roman peculiarities, and discipline as basis for discipline sounds strange as an explanation. Training sure was tough, but was it less tough in other armies?

 

And would you say the Roman army's discipline was stronger than that of other armies?

 

Well, thanks a lot, M. Cato, for the detailed answers, and especially for the link and the book you mentioned, that's exactly what i need. Yakobson is well known here and should be a reliable source for the paper.

 

(by caldrail) yes, but notice the greed and corruption endemic to legionary life. The soldiers expect reward for their trouble, or there is likely to be some. Roman soldiers were expected to be obedient but that was an ideal. In many cases they weren't. They were not loyal to Rome. They were loyal to their commander, and therefore if the commander lost respect or was unable to inspire his men, he was in for a hard time.

Yes, that's exactly my point- the soldiers felt as if in a clientela to the commander! Therefore, they were loyal to him (personally) and expected him to do anything for them a patron might do: The faithfulness in this relation is what they called fides, the breaking of which (by any party) is called fraus in the xii tabulae and results in social damnation ("sacer esto")- hence the strong reaction if a commander wouldn't provide a nice stipendium etc. The patron was the one that enabled the client to really participate in society, e.g. without him, the client could hardly defend himself at court. The soldiers were taken away from their old patron and received another (the commander), so they really depended on him for their economic survival and their status as a citizen.

 

Greetings

Schabbes

Edited March 13, 2007 by Schabbes

[M. Porcius Cato]

There's much to reply to in your post, Schabbes. Perhaps you could start a thread in the Republic sub-forum on Millar's thesis.

[Primus Pilus]

Forgive a reply lacking in depth...

 

Would a client-patrol relationship aid both recruiting and ultimate discipline. Surely. Understanding and maintaining an obligation to an 'authoritative' figure is simple enough. When we consider the localized nature of this relationship in comparison to the gap in class structure in the later feudal armies for example, its easy to illustrate the resulting discipline (or lack thereof) as dependent upon the client/patron relationship. When we further compare the tribal (Gauls, Germanics, etc.) and mercenary (Seleucids, Carthaginians, etc.) nature of other contemporary armies it may be reasonable to explain Roman discipline as a result of the client/patron relationship.

 

What becomes more difficult is understanding the nature of this relationship once the army was formed and divided. If an entire recruited clientela remained under the direct authority of a member of their patron family I could understand an extreme impact on loyalty and discipline based on this relationship. However armies were divided amongst the centuries based on class. Centuries of 100 (or 80) could not have been established based entirely on this relationship, since a single patrons clientela would be divided among several classes. I understand that this is a very simplistic reconstruction, but what obligation would a century of mixed clientela have to a single patron? Clearly we can understand that each would attempt to honor their patron through quality service regardless of who may be in their contubernium, but couldn't this be more easily defined as a sense of honor and duty rather than obligation to a patron? Again, I think the relationship obviously influenced Roman discipline, but training and structured military authority seem to carry more weight on the surface.

 

As already mentioned, other societies and cultures maintained discipline without this relationship. Alexander's army might be considered more medieval in nature (regional lords recruited men from their own sphere's of influence in answer to the call from the ultimate monarch), yet his army is traditionally considered disciplined. This discipline was due to the Greek hoplite and military standard/training traditions. As another example, Hannibal's army was equally disciplined despite being made up of Phoenicians and mercenary Iberians, Gauls and what have you. Admittedly, I have selected two great historical armies under the command of extraordinary leaders as counter samples.

[Mosquito]

The "patron-client" system was adopted by Romans from Etruscans - who didnt have such great military achievements as Romans. So Roman discipline is more than that.

[Virgil61]

...

If the discipline is considered as highly unusual for the time (and the most important advantage of the Roman army), and that discipline is mostly based on the institution of the clientelae, then one could think that the clientelae did indeed have a striking importance throughout Roman society, right? In your face, Fergus Millar!

 

I'd seriously challenge the idea that the client/patron relationship had anything but a tangential influence on discipline. The client/patron relationship seems to be a factor in many societies, not all of which produced disciplined armies. The world has never lived in fear of a Latin American army to use a more contemporary example. And, as MPC stated, the Spartans with a vastly different society produced disciplined armies.

 

The idea that you imbue soldiers with a determination to hold their formation or strictly follow orders seems more the outcome of the hard won experience of constant warfare, something the early Romans had a substantial history of. The same goes for training, something discipline is useless without, and that the clientelae institution doesn't explain.

 

What it would explain it is a Roman Army structure where clients led their own groups into battle, something more akin to say what the Gallic and German clans and tribes may have done. Polybius gives a fine example of an army organization during a large call up of citizens who gather at a certain hour on the parade ground (though by this time it may have been centuries in the making). The several tribunes each pick four men at a time, much like we would a softball team, until they are all assigned. Not something that lends to a clientelae relationship in the smaller group sense at least.

[Schabbes]

There's much to reply to in your post, Schabbes. Perhaps you could start a thread in the Republic sub-forum on Millar's thesis.

 

What this discussion developed into is, as i see it, 4 issues:

 

1. What was the political character of the Roman republic, and which role did the nobility play? (i.e. Millar vs. others)

2. Were the clientelae relevant for the political process?

3. Can the clientelae/the social (civilian) hierarchy (if one accepts its existence) be considered important for the discipline within the army?

 

and, probably another new topic, but imho interesting nevertheless:

 

4. When actually did the Roman militia-man begin to become something like a paid, professional soldier?

 

I agree with you that 1 and 2 should be dealt with in a special thread. Since that topic isn't that important for me at the moment (that damn paper...), i don't have the time to start such a thread, but you could do it, and i'd be happy to join in later. This is a discussion that should be really interesting for many Forum members, since it concerns the most basic understanding one has of the republic. 3 and 4 can be continued in this thread, i think.

 

Virgil61 and Primus Pilus have argued that the clientelae did not play an important role for military discipline because the soldiers served not necessarily under their patron, but often under some other responsible magistrate. Please note that i (i.e. the guy i read) said "the soldiers felt AS IF in a clientela to the commander", the point being that an internalised strong social hierarchy would make the soldiers feel obliged to obey, because that is just what they did in everyday life. The general value system, based in the clientela, was: "Obey to the guy with social prestige that is responsible for you", and would be transferred to military life, thus being one of the reasons for the strong discipline. Would you disagree?

 

It was the patron who enabled the citizens to make use of their civil rights. The commander just took the role of the person which they were attached to in civilian life, even more so if the army would stay longer in the field than only one summer. Then the soldier was separated from his former patron, who could not help him out, and needed his commander to provide him with an opportunity to earn his living, which would even strengthen the bond between soldier and commander. That was why i was mentioning L. Aemilius Paullus and his soldiers' demand for money. Also, the founding of coloniae between 200 and 170 could perhaps be read in that way: Veterans were provided with a living (~payed) after a long time of military service. Note further Gellius' account on drafted proletarii (16,10) who were equipped by the republic, the later "volones" (slave soldiers), and, later, but still before Marius' time, the lex militaris initiated by C. Gracchus, which made it possible to draft among the lower classes because their clothing was provided for by the aerarium. (Surely i wouldn't claim that Marius wasn't the one to introduce important reforms, but, as i see it, the developments leading into a professional army began before his time and also continued until after it, e.g. to Augustus' time)

 

Greetings

Schabbes

Edited March 15, 2007 by Schabbes

[Virgil61]

...

Virgil61 and Primus Pilus have argued that the clientelae did not play an important role for military discipline because the soldiers served not necessarily under their patron, but often under some other responsible magistrate. Please note that i (i.e. the guy i read) said "the soldiers felt AS IF in a clientela to the commander", the point being that an internalised strong social hierarchy would make the soldiers feel obliged to obey, because that is just what they did in everyday life. The general value system, based in the clientela, was: "Obey to the guy with social prestige that is responsible for you", and would be transferred to military life, thus being one of the reasons for the strong discipline. Would you disagree?

...

 

The question could easily be turned on its head and stated as such: Since the Romans were generally more 'democratic' in their individual political make-up why did they submit themselves to discipline more so than a person under the authoritarian rule of an Eastern King?

 

I think using the client relationship is reading far too much into it. Sometimes the answer is far simpler; Early Romans fought a lot and learned the lessons of discipline; pickets who fell asleep led to surprise attacks, formations who stuck it out had a far higher rate of survival or even success, formations who fled led to incredible losses and so on. Sometimes we want to make nice theories about issues that are fairly straightforward. I'm far more inclined to say that the Romans, through hard fought experience, hit on the formula for success.

 

I'm not saying that there may be no input from the client/patron system, but I'd argue it isn't terribly relevant. The Romans found an common-sense organizational training approach that worked (they were like that). To illustrate the point in its extreme, it's a bit like asking how the client/patron system influenced the Roman approach to engineering arches.