Roman Legions loyal to commanders - why?

[Robert_Emmett]

I remember hearing that after the Marian reforms, that the Roman legions switched their main alliegance from the Roman state and more towards the commanders of the legions. Why was this, or is it even true?

[Grossbottom]

Quite true. It was likely a combination of many factors, but three in particular would have been the most influential, in my opinion.

1. The Marian reforms resulted in a change from a landed, seasonal army to professional standing army made up of citizens who for the most part were poor and disenfranchised. A soldier with his own land and family just wants to live through the campaign and get home to the harvest. On the other hand, the guy who signed up in the post-Marian army was probably marginally employed at best, a runaway slave or wanted criminal at worst. He had little to no political power. Marriage was forbidden to the legions, they legally couldn’t have wives and families. They were forbidden from entering the capital. The social isolation that contributed to making them highly effective soldiers also resulted in…surprise, social isolation. They became a culture unto themselves, with the expected shifts in loyalty.

2. During the civil wars, it became common to promise land to these troops, if they survived their tour of duty. But the Senate had gained a reputation for reneging on the agreement (or trying to), and over time the SPQR came to represent a body that was happy to send legions to die, only to deny them their promised retirement. Commanders would exacerbate this by promising more land and cash bonuses for improved performance. At the end of a tour, it didn’t take a genius to realize that loyalty to the SPQR meant you got screwed, loyalty to your commander meant you might get paid.

3. The civil wars had shown that an aspirant with sufficient military force would be emperor. So imagine you’re a legionary stationed in the ass end of Germania. Think: “My commander might be kind of a moron, but hey, he’s a patrician, right? Why not? If he becomes imperator, I’ll get like…double the salary! No, triple! Plush digs in Rome with hot chicks who dig that Praetorian thing. No more freezing my butt off on Rhine patrols, no more woad-slathered barbarians trying to bury an axe in my skull.” In many cases, troops backing their commanders might have been motivated less by actual loyalty to that man, and more by simple self-interest. They came to be aware of the political power they wielded, and they began backing their elected candidate, in a blood-soaked way.
   The U.S. shift to a paid, professional army and attempted slashing of veterans’ benefits shouldn’t concern you. Now where was that thread about using incarcerated felons for soldiers…

[Alessan]

@Grossbottom

The U.S. shift to a paid, professional army and attempted slashing of veterans’ benefits shouldn’t concern you. Now where was that thread about using incarcerated felons for soldiers…

Why do you think they change the commander of the USMC so often?

[msmith537]

@Grossbottom

The U.S. shift to a paid, professional army and attempted slashing of veterans’ benefits shouldn’t concern you. Now where was that thread about using incarcerated felons for soldiers…

Yeah…just ask General MacArthur about that

[CJJ]

Grossbottom gives a very thorough review of the factors that led to this change. If you are interested in source material supporting these, take a look at Sallust’s Jugurthine War. This war against Jugurtha–ruler of Numidian who kept his position by spreading a lot of cash around the Roman aristocracy–chronicles how the war brought about various social changes in Rome, including changes in the management of the army. In particular check sections 84-86, where Sallust puts a speech in Marius’ mouth neatly summarizing the problems that led to this change in the military, e.g. on the Marian reforms:

(Marius) himself, in the mean time, proceeded to enlist soldiers, not after the ancient method, or from the classes, but taking all that were willing to join him, and the greater part from the lowest ranks. Some said that this was done from a scarcity of better men, and others from the consul’s desire to pay court to the poorer class, because it was by that order of men that he had been honored and promoted; and, indeed, to a man grasping at power, the most needy are the most serviceable, persons to whom their property (as they have none) is not an object of care, and to whom every thing lucrative appears honorable.

[smiling_bandit]

@Grossbottom

The U.S. shift to a paid, professional army and attempted slashing of veterans’ benefits shouldn’t concern you. Now where was that thread about using incarcerated felons for soldiers…

All joking asie, the U.S. had a sometimes-paid, profesisonal army from the midpoint of the revoultionary war, so for us it’s not a huge problem. In some 3rd world countries, where the culture of civilian control is not so well entrenched, armies still follow the political power model.