Quick Q about the Imperial Roman Army

[Londinium]

I know little about the Roman army but I'm sure someone here will be able to help me with this. After Augustus' reforms I understand that the term of service in the Imperial Roman Army was 20 years (16 full years, 4 reserve years) upon signing up. What I was wondering was whether it was possible for soldiers to buy themselves out of this contract? for example someone from a wealthy family or someone who had inherited money in some way and thus possessed a fiscal ability that they not during their initial enrolment or were they tied to the army for the entire period. On a tangent if they had developed connections with the Imperial family or prominent Senators could the Emperor/Senator arrange for them to be discharged from the army?

Finally did the regular soldiers or officers gain any share of any loot gained from campaigns? like was generally the case during certain Medieval periods.

[ray243]

Not likely, considering that the Romans even refuse to allow the veterans to retire if they need man power badly.

[hellheaven1987]

I know little about the Roman army but I'm sure someone here will be able to help me with this. After Augustus' reforms I understand that the term of service in the Imperial Roman Army was 20 years (16 full years, 4 reserve years) upon signing up. What I was wondering was whether it was possible for soldiers to buy themselves out of this contract? for example someone from a wealthy family or someone who had inherited money in some way and thus possessed a fiscal ability that they not during their initial enrolment or were they tied to the army for the entire period. On a tangent if they had developed connections with the Imperial family or prominent Senators could the Emperor/Senator arrange for them to be discharged from the army?

Finally did the regular soldiers or officers gain any share of any loot gained from campaigns? like was generally the case during certain Medieval periods.

For what purpose?? It was just like modern military - when you become senior, you are pretty much a semi-government officer, so why bother to jump out a political career??

[Londinium]

For what purpose?? It was just like modern military - when you become senior, you are pretty much a semi-government officer, so why bother to jump out a political career??

I was thinking officer campaigns with the Emperor, impresses him and the Emperor pulls him out of the army to become a governor of a province, part of his personal retinue or some administrative role. For the pre Augustian army that doesn't seem like such a hard thing to do seeing as the enlistment period was only six years which leaves plenty of time to do things after. I know Rome (the TV series) isn't exactly historically accurate but it shows it quite well with Vorenus coming to the end of his service and due to his relationship with Caesar being catapulted into a political career. Thats what made me ask it in the first place as the 20 year rule seems to make it rather prohibitive to do much after your service in the army, especially for scions of nobles families, who might otherwise have considered the army as a career. Which to me would make any noble representation in the army very sparse, except for Senators/Consuls attached as generals.

Another question which has sprung to mind is whether Roman soldiers recieved any leave? I know they quite often kept families in the vicus' outside forts but where they ever entitled to periods of leave as they progressed up the ranks?

[SigniferOne]

Thats what made me ask it in the first place as the 20 year rule seems to make it rather prohibitive to do much after your service in the army

Actually this too puzzled me at first, until I realized the missing piece: that during the Republic this 20 year fact meant that you were merely eligible for enlistment, and that armies were composed of levies, not exclusively of volunteers (as in the Empire). So it's not that it meant that you were to be serving in the army for the first 20 years of your adult life, but rather that you'd be eligible for a levy if and when it was called. When you consider Roman campaigns in the 3 and 2nd centuries BC in comparison to the population size of available Roman youths, this means you'd probably be called up 5-6 times in those 20 years, which makes a lot more sense than the initial figure.

[Hanny]

Another question which has sprung to mind is whether Roman soldiers recieved any leave? I know they quite often kept families in the vicus' outside forts but where they ever entitled to periods of leave as they progressed up the ranks?

Livy gives an acount froma centurioon in a debate who should be first centurion, him or his rival,the man gives his mil record year by year so we can see hios progresion and service record, and gives his familys record as well, this is from Rome and the Med by livy, so is outside your time frame, but does show he served every year, only time was of during the winter period.

(In 171 BCE)
I am Spurius Ligustinus, my father left me half an acre and a hut where i was born and breed and i live there today. I joined in thye Cn of Publius Sulpicius(200BCE), he then goes on to recount the campaigns and advances in grade he won, he makes distinction between enlisted and drafted, that is when a cmdr made use of his legal authority to raise troops against there wishes as oposed to fulfilling the 16 or 6 years service, he ends up having listed 22 years consequative service, the last 4 as primus, which was his point, he wanted a fith term as primus of the first legion, the senate agreed and he went on for his 23 years service, also livy mentions 2000 veterans from the sicily legions still serving in macedonian against their will.

[Hanny]

I know little about the Roman army but I'm sure someone here will be able to help me with this. After Augustus' reforms I understand that the term of service in the Imperial Roman Army was 20 years (16 full years, 4 reserve years) upon signing up. What I was wondering was whether it was possible for soldiers to buy themselves out of this contract? for example someone from a wealthy family or someone who had inherited money in some way and thus possessed a fiscal ability that they not during their initial enrolment or were they tied to the army for the entire period. On a tangent if they had developed connections with the Imperial family or prominent Senators could the Emperor/Senator arrange for them to be discharged from the army?

Finally did the regular soldiers or officers gain any share of any loot gained from campaigns? like was generally the case during certain Medieval periods.

http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/legio.html

Should help you.

Good political conection ment faster promotion, not a means to get out, remember Rome was all about civic duty which ment doing your service, not paying not to, afaik once you were in your stayed in, over half died in service before doing there time.

As for Booty, yes the CO got the lions shere and it trickeled down the rank structure, except ina city sack when it appears it was free for all.

[SigniferOne]

As far as loot, it was never free for all literally. It might've been an order from the COs to ransack the city for tactical or other reasons, but the imperial soldiers never rummaged through the city without being able to be controlled or stopped, like they were e.g. in the English Civil War, or the 30 Years War, when commanders had no ability to stop the soldiers from looting. But in Roman imperial records I'm not aware of wide-spread uncontrolled looting, unless someone is able to enlighten me on that matter.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

As far as loot, it was never free for all literally. It might've been an order from the COs to ransack the city for tactical or other reasons, but the imperial soldiers never rummaged through the city without being able to be controlled or stopped, like they were e.g. in the English Civil War, or the 30 Years War, when commanders had no ability to stop the soldiers from looting. But in Roman imperial records I'm not aware of wide-spread uncontrolled looting, unless someone is able to enlighten me on that matter.

Yes they were. Whether or not the forces under command would be tightly controlled depended on the aptitude of the commander and the professionalism of the troops. Spanish troops, which tended to be far more professional and less motivated by cash than foreign mercenaries, were quite capable of self-restraint if ordered so.

[Nik]

In the professional army, soldiers were foremost loyal to their commanders, as they would met out loot gained in campaigns or sieges. We know that Caesars troops became wealthy due to Caesars distributing the gallic slaves among his soldiers (of course keeping a major share for him).
Uncontrolled looting several days long should be rather uncommon, as the roman army kept a high level of discipline among the ranks, but I wouldn't bet my ass that the breach party gaining access to a city would wait with taking what they saw while advancing through the city. After all, Archimedes was killed by a legionnaire against explicit orders from his commander when syracuse was taken.

As for the officer class, that was heavily class governed. A normal soldier could aspire to become a centurio, but anything more that would have been en exception. The officer class, the tribuni, legati etc were drawn from the senatorial and equestrian class, with the a focus shifting on the equestrian class later in the julio-claudian dynasty, as they posed the smaller risk of rebellion.

You should keep in mind that traditionally (an the early empire was at least in name a republic, upholding its traditions), the romans did not make a distinction between political and military office. A roman coming from one of the senatorial families in the cursus honorium would have responsibilities in both areas (after all, the highest offices, proconsul, consul and dictator were a mix of political and military responsibility.)

Cross-class connections were governed by the client-system, i.e. every poor roman already had "political" connections in the form of his patronus, and those did not absolve them from military service.

[SigniferOne]

After all, Archimedes was killed by a legionnaire against explicit orders from his commander when syracuse was taken.

Err no, that's not what happened. The legionary forced Archimedes to go with him back to the consul, and Archimedes refused, even under threat. To a soldier inured to harsh discipline, where one's own soldiers were executed for insubordination, no other recourse was possible than a threat of death.

[Nik]

Err no, that's not what happened. The legionary forced Archimedes to go with him back to the consul, and Archimedes refused, even under threat. To a soldier inured to harsh discipline, where one's own soldiers were executed for insubordination, no other recourse was possible than a threat of death.

You dont know what happened, neither do I. We have plutarchs writings, and even they offer differing variants. The argument just does not sound convincing to me. Imagine the hypothetical after action report:
Marcellus: "Where is archimedes, I ordered to see him after the assault?"
Legionaire:
"He refused to come to see you, he wanted to to his calculations first"
M:"And then what?"
L: "Then I killed him, sir, had to make a point about discipline!"
M: "Couldn't you just knock him over the head and bring him to me? Sigh".

In the end, neither you nor I know the truth, all we can do is pick to version we like the most. But I really have no interest in debating about the superior discipline and self restraint of the classical legionaire on the example of archimedes death.

[SigniferOne]

The fact is that even if the legionary did kill Archimedes out of his own ill-restraint, and contrary to published orders, he had to make up a contrary story because he knew that he would get completely punished otherwise. So in either case the story supports the more general statement that Roman discipline was enforced utterly severely.