Printable View
When I saw an old episode of Rome (the battle of Phillipi) I wondered why these guys were so quick to kill each other, they are both Roman.
Dont these guys fight for country? dont they love their homeland? or is money all they care about?
In history books I always hear of emporors having to increase the pay of their soldiers to keep their loyalty, and it makes me wonder if Romans really didnt care much about Rome...
From my understanding of the imperial period of Rome and the time after the reforms of Marius, the organization of the army changed. It essentially became a professional fighting force. The generals of the army awarded soldiers with booty and plots of conquered lands. This shifted the loyalty of the soldiers from the state of Rome to whoever their commanding general would be as all rewards came from the general and not from the state. This explains Rome's many civil wars in the later periods. Again, this is just my understanding and someone with more knowledge may have a much better answer.
Generally most of the Roman soldiers on Pompey's side were saved and the foreign troops killed, the surviving enemy Roman troops were incorporated into Caesars army or dismissed from service. Also a lot of Caesars troops weren't "true Romans" they were raised in his provinces and some didn't even have true legal Latin status, let alone Roman citizenship so i'm sure they didn't have many problems in fighting other Romans. lets also keep in mind that it was a do-or-die battle for Caesar and his troops, they knew they'd see no mercy if they lost, and so fought accordingly.
In the later Imperial age troops loyally was an issue for several reasons, two of which beng that they were raised futher and futher away from Rome, therefore not having that connection and dedication to the city and it's leaders. Secondly they found out that they could be used to install new emperors (which in the later centuries they often did) and used this as leverage, making their generals emperors when they were promised pay rises and reminding current Emperors of their ability to make and break emperors if they were not treated well enough.
Edit: Cash Staks also made a very good point too.
Thanks for the reply guys. :2thumbsup:
Also, remember that all this takes place in a time when the idea of nations or states was far less developed; modern ideas of nationalism are a relatively recent development.
Very true, politically Rome never developed from a city-state, it's constition was always small-scale and this more than anything led to the creation of the Principate. To be Roman was to have a connection to the city, many of the great Republicans in the last years before Empire were not true Romans. Including Cicero and Pompey.
The problem is that by the time of the Civil Wars the army had become a true professional fighting force.
Officers no longer had to have been born in Rome to qualify, so the allegiance of the army was more to their own province than to the Empire. The fact that the Republic refused to sponsor the "pensions" of the Legionnaires, forcing their generals to do so, made the Legion's loyalty move further away from Rome itself.
A soldier did not have the sense of Loyalty to Rome that an Italian would have. They were loyal to their province (motherland) and their general, since these provided them their homes and lively-hoods. This meant that subverting soldiers against Rome was far easier than it had ever been, because there were no real ties to Rome and the Republic.
The Principate addressed some of these issues, since Augustus created an oath of loyalty to the Emperor, and a pension plan sponsored by the Emperor and funded by the Royal Treasury. He still failed to address the fact that officers had no true sense of loyalty/belonging to Rome and Roman culture, and thus failed to impress this to their subordinates.