Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 28th, 2012, 04:25 AM   #11

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 15,039

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishcrusader95 View Post
but wasnt Caesar after the conquest of Gaul ordered to disband his legions and return to rome. or did that just mean not disband in the real sense but just give up control of them?
Honestly I am not sure about that. But in any case, Caesar did not disband his legions.
arras is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 28th, 2012, 04:32 AM   #12

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 15,039

Another thing to note, one which Frank81 touched in a way:

There were many different complex levels of relationship between Rome and other parts of empire, which would relate to different levels of citizenship if I simplify it (or rights and obligations). These relations were not established on provincial basis but rather every city, sometimes even community in the city would have different status. Roman colonies would have different relations with Rome then allied cities or conquered ones. This included military service obligations. Soldiers from Roman colonies which were founded in conquered provinces would be recruited in to Roman units.

Over time more and more communities were given Roman citizen status until basically all inhabitants of Empire were declared Roman citizens. But that was only much later.
arras is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 06:11 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Honestly I am not sure about that. But in any case, Caesar did not disband his legions.
Nope indeed; what was disbanded was the Roman Republic.

Yup, exactly the same as any commander under almost any administration all along History (let say like the modern US) and like any non-usurper commander ever CJ Caesar was expected to present himself before the legal executive power of his homeland as requested without the legions the Senate & people of Rome had trusted him, once his service to his nation as Proconsul had effectively ended.

Let say exactly the same as Douglas MacArthur when he was called by the Truman Administration in 1951.

In the Republic the legions were recruited on an ad hoc basis either each year for regular service or additional units for any specific mission.

In fact, one of CJ Caesar's legions had been actually re-deployed to his (still) partner Cn. Pompeius Magnus in DCCI AUC / 53 BC.

On the other hand, one whole legion of Caesar (the XIV) was entirely destroyed by the Gauls (more exactly, by the Eburones) in that same year, so it required to be reconstituted by the Republic.
sylla1 is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #14

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 15,039

Yes, originally in Republic, legions were raised annually at the start of military season and then disbanded on its end. However I do not know if they were disbanded also administratively, or they were simply emptied by soldiers returning to their farms.

As Rome started to fight campaigns out of Italy which took more than one year to finish, this changed.
arras is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 07:29 AM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Yes, originally in Republic, legions were raised annually at the start of military season and then disbanded on its end. However I do not know if they were disbanded also administratively, or they were simply emptied by soldiers returning to their farms.

As Rome started to fight campaigns out of Italy which took more than one year to finish, this changed.
Only previous to the Roman reforms; after that the legionaries were levied for several years, regularly 25 from Augustus onward.

For any non-usurper army, the legions under CJ Caesar would have been at the disposition of the Senate, either remaining as the garrison for Gallia & Illyria, being redeployed to other provinces as required or even being disbanded
sylla1 is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012, 05:45 AM   #16
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 210

Early/late republican or early/late imperial army?
Nego is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012, 07:50 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nego View Post
Early/late republican or early/late imperial army?
Good point; all along the centuries from 753 BC to 1453 AD there were several kinds of Roman armies; the OP is a bit vague, kind of a sweeping generalization.

Even so, some outstanding contributions of several Historumites have already dealt here with the main traits of some of the most representative periods.

Not to mention myriad threads all along Historum on this rather popular topic.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 10:07 AM   #18

irishcrusader95's Avatar
None shall pass!
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Ireland
Posts: 6,729
Blog Entries: 4

a few more questions
first let me refer to this quote from the website Frank81 provided
Quote:
Command of the legion was usually given to a legatus legionis picked by the emperor from the senatorial class who generally had some previous military experience through service as a tribunus. In Egypt and from the the start of the third century also in other provinces the command was not entrusted to a senatorial legatus, but to a praefectus legionis, an acting commander drawn from the equestrian order. The legionary commander was assisted by six military tribunes. With the exception of the units stationed in Egypt one of these tribuni was usually a young senator at the start of his public career. Known as a tribunus laticlavius from the broad purple stripes on his tunic this senior tribune was second-in-command. His collegues from the equestrian order were known as tribuni angusticlavii and generally had done earlier service as a commander of an auxiliary infantry unit. A former senior centurion usually performed the duties of praefectus castrorum, camp commandant, and was the third in the chain of command
The Roman Army Page

1. my question so is relating to how each general knew the fighting tactics that were usually employed among the legions. there was no sandhurst or westpoint at this time so how how exactly did the many generals know how the legions were to fight in the way they were. reading past military histories was perhaps their only way of doing research but they must have had first hand experience of the legions fighting to see how it was usually done. was there ever many incompetent roman generals who did away with these usual tight formations and lead his men to a disaster?

2. only a citizen could serve in the legions is my understanding while non-citizens served in the auxiliaries. but i had thought that a 25 year service granted citizenship so could a man join the legions while not being a citizen under the agreement of getting citizenship after full service.

also here's a very interesting video on their fighting tactics, have to say i was very impressed by the last bit on how they would replace the front rank overtime allowing for a steady supply of well rested men.
irishcrusader95 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 04:24 PM   #19

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,126
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishcrusader95 View Post
but wasnt Caesar after the conquest of Gaul ordered to disband his legions and return to rome. or did that just mean not disband in the real sense but just give up control of them?
By the time of his conquest of Gaul, he had many enemies back in Rome, especially Cato the elder, who was often outspoken about Caesars war on the Gauls being illegal, and prosecuted without the consent of the senate. That said, Cato was technically correct, but given Caesars abilities as an orator and the perennial fear that the Roman people instilled into their psyche, after Rome was acked previously, that Caesar was allowed to continue his conquest.

No Roman General was supposed to bring his army beyond the Rubicon. That was the boundary. Any crossing was considered a march on Rome. Caesar was on his way back to Rome, and was ordered to disband the army (it belonged to the state in theory, not him), although he knew if he was to do this and enter Rome on his own, he would be arrested for warring with the Gauls. The die was cast, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 05:21 PM   #20
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
By the time of his conquest of Gaul, he had many enemies back in Rome, especially Cato the elder, who was often outspoken about Caesars war on the Gauls being illegal, and prosecuted without the consent of the senate. That said, Cato was technically correct, but given Caesars abilities as an orator and the perennial fear that the Roman people instilled into their psyche, after Rome was acked previously, that Caesar was allowed to continue his conquest.

No Roman General was supposed to bring his army beyond the Rubicon. That was the boundary. Any crossing was considered a march on Rome. Caesar was on his way back to Rome, and was ordered to disband the army (it belonged to the state in theory, not him), although he knew if he was to do this and enter Rome on his own, he would be arrested for warring with the Gauls. The die was cast, and the rest, as they say, is history.
If the "technically", "considered", "supposed", "theory" and analogous hypothetical suggesting terms were deleted from the post above, it would be basically exact
sylla1 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
army, questions, roman, running


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running the Roman Home by Alexandra Croom (NF) Ben Kane History Book Reviews 0 October 12th, 2012 02:09 AM
Carthaginian Army or Roman Army? Mohammed the Persian Ancient History 25 October 14th, 2011 05:21 PM
Roman Army vs Greek Army reuben Ancient History 275 June 14th, 2011 10:29 AM
Classical Roman Army or Later Roman Army? Isoroku295 War and Military History 11 May 25th, 2011 07:35 PM
Roman Army under Caesar vs Japanese army under Tokugawa Arkkataka Speculative History 15 April 6th, 2011 03:27 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.