Schabbes Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Although it is somewhat painful to contradict one's own former statements, i'll do it -i'm classified as a "servus" around here anyway, so what the heck- i've no auctoritas or dignitas anyway... I'm not even a person! ( ) I did some reading on the republican army's discipline and did not find too much relating to its origin. However, Hans Delbr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 It depends. A popular charismatic leader could inspire his men through sheer force of will if need be. Someone less talented would have to promise rewards. The roman army was known for discipline but the truth is it wasn't always so obedient. Leadership really was an important factor. So was satisfying the greed of the soldiers. Roman patronage was part and parcel of legionary life. The soldiers were in a very real sense clients of the commander, who acted as a patron in many ways. Its also true that the soldiers could demand their general lead them into battle. It wasn't unknown for soldiers to complain about the lack of campaigning which I find extraordinary, given the natural tendency of soldiers to want an easy life. However, when you consider the potential for back-breaking fatigues to keep them busy, perhaps it was self-interest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schabbes Posted March 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Its also true that the soldiers could demand their general lead them into battle. It wasn't unknown for soldiers to complain about the lack of campaigning which I find extraordinary, given the natural tendency of soldiers to want an easy life. However, when you consider the potential for back-breaking fatigues to keep them busy, perhaps it was self-interest! Wasn't there some later Roman emperor who got himself into some serious trouble because he had his soldiers do only roadwork and fountain-digging? Neither booty nor fame to be won there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 (edited) Its also true that the soldiers could (would?) demand their general lead them into battle. Didn't that happen with The Cunctator, Caesar and Julian? Edited March 20, 2007 by Gaius Octavius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Its also true that the soldiers could (would?) demand their general lead them into battle. Didn't that happen with The Cunctator, Caesar and Julian? Not sure about Julian, and not so much with Fabius, his case was more of a "I know better" Master of Horse. It certainly did happen in Caesar's case at Thapsus and the post battle siege of Munda. Both of which were noted for their bloody, unclementia like conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Its also true that the soldiers could (would?) demand their general lead them into battle. Didn't that happen with The Cunctator, Caesar and Julian? Not sure about Julian, and not so much with Fabius, his case was more of a "I know better" Master of Horse. It certainly did happen in Caesar's case at Thapsus and the post battle siege of Munda. Both of which were noted for their bloody, unclementia like conclusions. At Thapsus, Caesar (or Aulus Hirtius) reports, not that the soldiers demanded to be led into battle, but that the soldiers massacred the surrendering troops against orders while Caesar was suffering an epileptic fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Its also true that the soldiers could (would?) demand their general lead them into battle. Didn't that happen with The Cunctator, Caesar and Julian? Not sure about Julian, and not so much with Fabius, his case was more of a "I know better" Master of Horse. It certainly did happen in Caesar's case at Thapsus and the post battle siege of Munda. Both of which were noted for their bloody, unclementia like conclusions. At Thapsus, Caesar (or Aulus Hirtius) reports, not that the soldiers demanded to be led into battle, but that the soldiers massacred the surrendering troops against orders while Caesar was suffering an epileptic fit. I touched upon it briefly during the review I did on Dodge's Caesar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 (edited) 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? (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) Marius introduced changes he thought worked better on the basis of his own experience in dealing with hastily raised armies without the standard division in troop type based on military experience. Hastatii were novices, pricipales were experienced, triarii were veterans etc. The trend to an 'all-hastatii' legion had indeed already been under way for some time, so perhaps Marius wasn't so put out by having to raise his own. Nonetheless, once consul, he introduced what is now considered the professional army, in that it was no longer levied for each campaign but existed in something approaching permanance - a standing army. Augustus made changes in his reforms but I would suggest these were an evolution of the legions toward an established army with permanent legions and the tradition and esprit-de-corps that goes with the regimental system, apart from relatively minor changes in organisation such as the introduction of military tribunes and the return of the cavalry contingent. How professional the roman army actually was is debatable. In many ways it was - we see training and drill that is reminiscent of the modern day, and daily army life for roman soldiers is hauntingly familiar. Yes, they were paid for their 25 years service, three times a year at a special parade if possible. They had stoppages for equipment, burial clubs, and a sort of pension scheme which saved a seventh of their pay for a lump sum at their end of service. Nonetheless, these men were expected to loot and pillage if the opportunity arose, and the soldiers considered this a perk of service. On the other hand, corruption was rife and I have read that some soldiers complained when opportunities to buy their way out of fatigues were hard to come by. Therefore we need to be careful when considering if the legions had a professional attitude, though I must admit these matters are partly due to the mindset of the times, given many of them were from poor ill-educated families in less civilised regions in or surrounding the roman world. Edited September 24, 2007 by caldrail 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.