|
Fader Movitz posted:Are there any statistics or educated guesses on the proportion of people that managed to do their 25 years and claim the citizenship? I would also like to know if anyone's done an actual statistic analysis on this. My assumption is the majority survived their full term, given how many people joined the legions for the benefits and you didn't get anything unless you made it to 25 and got your diploma. I can't imagine that system going for centuries if it was rare to make it through. FAUXTON posted:they rarely operated in hostile territory during the imperial era lol, they basically always had served in a support role for the army and once they conquered the mediterranean they pretty much just patrolled for pirates and revenue, plus river logistics for the army Yeah but if there was a storm or something everybody was fuckin dead. Naval disasters were way worse. If you gave me the choice between army and navy there's no way I'm getting on a Roman ship. I'm 99% sure no emperor had any naval service. It was dishonorable bullshit for wimps. Agrippa creating the fleet is probably as close as any emperor got to direct involvement. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the only reason it was 26 years was as a gently caress you to anyone who joined the navy instead of serving in a proper, manly occupation.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:heck was there even an emperor who rose up through the navy specifically? Bonosus tried to take the Empire from Probus, and he was the commander of the Rhine fleet. Also, if we're including the Byzantines, Romanos I Lekapenos had been Admiral of the Fleet when he seized the throne. Romanos I had been the son of an Armenian peasant who had saved the Emperor in battle and was rewarded by being given a place in the Imperial Guard Epicurius fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Also, if we're including the Byzantines, Romanos I Lekapenos had been Admiral of the Fleet when he seized the throne. poo poo, glad I said 99%. Though the view of the navy was quite different by that point than it had been during the classical era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I would also like to know if anyone's done an actual statistic analysis on this. My assumption is the majority survived their full term, given how many people joined the legions for the benefits and you didn't get anything unless you made it to 25 and got your diploma. I can't imagine that system going for centuries if it was rare to make it through. yeah putting it this way they probably saw it as an inferior, almost a non-combat role, or maybe a specific gently caress-you-carthage/greece through the centuries. Sure they could just sail out one day and never come back but maybe they should have just tried a little harder to get the gods' favor if they didn't want to sink in a storm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Cool thread Dang, kinda neat that it's bronze, they would have been making tens of thousands of these things and they were just for commoners right? I guess it's not especially big but that still seems kind of expensive. I'm still kind of unclear on Roman metallurgy really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Dang, kinda neat that it's bronze, they would have been making tens of thousands of these things and they were just for commoners right? I guess it's not especially big but that still seems kind of expensive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:heck was there even an emperor who rose up through the navy specifically? Carausius
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Dang, kinda neat that it's bronze, they would have been making tens of thousands of these things and they were just for commoners right? I guess it's not especially big but that still seems kind of expensive. Wouldn't be surprised if they made you buy it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 04:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Carausius Well he was Roman
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Dang, kinda neat that it's bronze, they would have been making tens of thousands of these things and they were just for commoners right? I guess it's not especially big but that still seems kind of expensive. it's not cheap, but compared to everything else you are outfitting a soldier with over his 25-year career it's nothing at all. remember, the romans had government-run factories for all levels of military equipment and churned everything out by the tens of thousands. The Lone Badger posted:Wouldn't be surprised if they made you buy it. i mean, yeah. you did. with a full career of service. the romans did not take 25-year veterans and their potential to cause trouble lightly, that's why they all received land/citizenship/both at the end. nickel and diming them just as they're leaving to become respectable middle-class citizens would be silly. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
I'm wondering if the odds of surviving to the end of your 25 years of service were any worse than, y'know, the odds of just surviving 25 years as an average commoner. With a free sword and significantly better odds of being fed during a crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
Benagain posted:I'm wondering if the odds of surviving to the end of your 25 years of service were any worse than, y'know, the odds of just surviving 25 years as an average commoner. With a free sword and significantly better odds of being fed during a crisis. Probably better life expectancy than living poor in Rome itself, at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I think disease was still overwhelmingly the most deadly thing to concentrated populations in Antiquity, so you're probably better off in the army than poor in a town, but worse off than being in the countryside somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 07:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Your best chance is to be a rich landowner in like western Gaul who stays the hell outta politics. Rich enough to get medical care and eat well, far from any invaders, large population centers, and hopefully any upstart generals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Your best chance is to be a rich landowner in like western Gaul who stays the hell outta politics. Rich enough to get medical care and eat well, far from any invaders, large population centers, and hopefully any upstart generals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 08:58
|
|
|
Is it time to plug A Legionary's Life again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 09:18
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Wouldn't be surprised if they made you buy it. And would you like the transport insurance with optional river crossing coverage as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
The thread states they had a central archive and that the bronze they gave out was just like a notarized copy so I imagine you could theoretically get a replacement. The layout of the bronze is scarily similar to the stuff a Serbian friend of my got after she got out of the marines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Benagain posted:I'm wondering if the odds of surviving to the end of your 25 years of service were any worse than, y'know, the odds of just surviving 25 years as an average commoner. With a free sword and significantly better odds of being fed during a crisis. Honestly, overall your odds probably weren't any worse. You had medical care and a regular food supply, which a lot of people wouldn't. And like others posted you weren't sitting around in a big city getting hilarious diseases. Much like the modern military, most of the time it's not like you were actually in battle. There were probably plenty of legionaries who were in like, two skirmishes during their 25 and that was it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Honestly, overall your odds probably weren't any worse. You had medical care and a regular food supply, which a lot of people wouldn't. And like others posted you weren't sitting around in a big city getting hilarious diseases. Much like the modern military, most of the time it's not like you were actually in battle. There were probably plenty of legionaries who were in like, two skirmishes during their 25 and that was it. the army camps were basically cities hard to say if they were more diseased or not
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:the army camps were basically cities If I recall didnt they at least have the concept of being disciplined about latrines? Plus a generally healthy, young and well fed population compared to a city.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
The camps were probably not great but you had food and water, were kept physically fit, and theoretically people would notice and do something if you got sick and you wouldn't really need to worry about it or go unnoticed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Honestly, overall your odds probably weren't any worse. You had medical care and a regular food supply, which a lot of people wouldn't. And like others posted you weren't sitting around in a big city getting hilarious diseases. Much like the modern military, most of the time it's not like you were actually in battle. There were probably plenty of legionaries who were in like, two skirmishes during their 25 and that was it. have to imagine it depends very heavily on which era you're talking about - tons of roman soldiers died in the civil wars, right? that poo poo must have dragged the average down somewhat - there every casualty is a roman one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:If I recall didnt they at least have the concept of being disciplined about latrines? Plus a generally healthy, young and well fed population compared to a city. yeah they had, but cities had latrines too. i wonder if the population in army camps would have been younger than in cities, since there would have been fewer children
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:i mean, yeah. you did. with a full career of service. the romans did not take 25-year veterans and their potential to cause trouble lightly, that's why they all received land/citizenship/both at the end. nickel and diming them just as they're leaving to become respectable middle-class citizens would be silly. Of all the lessons history has to teach I think this one is very important 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:have to imagine it depends very heavily on which era you're talking about - tons of roman soldiers died in the civil wars, right? that poo poo must have dragged the average down somewhat - there every casualty is a roman one. Right, but that's comparable to a modern military in that WW2 or whatever happens sometimes, but still most of the time most soldiers aren't seeing much combat. Sucks if you're in the army at the wrong time though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Right, but that's comparable to a modern military in that WW2 or whatever happens sometimes, but still most of the time most soldiers aren't seeing much combat. Sucks if you're in the army at the wrong time though. They didn't have big armies all the time though. Pax romana wasn't like pax americana with huge standing armies on the brink of M.A.D. In the expanding part, it was a sustainable racket where you'd help conquer some celts and then receive some conquered land. Probably not too dangerous either, statistically speaking. Not conquering, but times are peaceful and taxable? No problem, keep a small army. Not conquering, but need armies to quell moving unrest? Staffed by young men who would otherwise be farming taxable stuff? Big problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
Depends what you define as big I suppose. During the 100s there were an estimated 350,000+ soldiers across 30 legions. It is true the army varied though, Diocletian had about twice as many as that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Is it time to plug A Legionary's Life again? Never don't plug this game. My most successful run was completing my original tour, reenlisting, and dying immediately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:yeah they had, but cities had latrines too. i wonder if the population in army camps would have been younger than in cities, since there would have been fewer children Not enforced by military discipline and literal manuals they don't, and from the point of view of 'resistant to disease' kids aren't necessarily a plus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
I do have to caveat all of this by the fact that I haven't read a good analysis of it. I feel like there should be enough legionary graves that somebody's done it, but I don't know the paper. There is analysis on how many soldiers were in the army that I've read, but how likely you were to get stabbed... ???
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I do have to caveat all of this by the fact that I haven't read a good analysis of it. I feel like there should be enough legionary graves that somebody's done it, but I don't know the paper. There is analysis on how many soldiers were in the army that I've read, but how likely you were to get stabbed... ??? Poking around a bit, I found someone who did a really extensive study of the question of mortality in the Imperial Roman army. The book Measuring sex, age and death in the Roman Empire: explorations in ancient demography by Walter Scheidel has a ton of statistical work on this topic. The book is really dense and I didn't read the whole section on army mortality, but he did summarize the key points relevant to the discussion in this thread in a much shorter paper https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/110509.pdf. quote:Empirical information that would permit us to improve on this generic assumption is rare. [The previous paragraph gave a general rate of 40% mortality for Roman men between the ages of 20 and 45] In an earlier study, I made use of epigraphic rosters that list the number of soldiers who were discharged from a particular legion in a given year. In three out of seven surviving documents from the second century AD, anomalies caused by military events forestall further analysis. The other four rosters (from the lower Danube, North Africa and Egypt) all point to annual rates of between 100+ and c.125 discharges, and in fact mostly to 120-125 cases per year. The underlying median of 120 annual discharges per legion needs to be related to the typical size of a legion and the length of service in order to calculate the rate of attrition during active service. Reckoning with an effective troop strength of slightly under 5,000, twenty-five years of service, and an average enlistment age of twenty, we may project an annual intake of 250-260 recruits and an annual discharge of 120 veterans per legion. In this scenario, slightly more than one-half of all recruits would not complete a full term of active duty. If correct, this estimate suggests that even in peacetime, the imperial legions lost approximately one-and-a-third times as many soldiers as predicted by mortality models alone (say, 50-55% instead of 40% over twenty-five years). Due to the probable margins of error, it is impossible to be more precise. Even so, this apparent discrepancy between predicted and observed attrition rates may readily be explained with reference to early discharge – either dishonorable (missio ignominiosa) or, perhaps more often, for medical reasons (missio causaria). Desertion and transfers to elite units would have added to the drain. Hence, in the absence of major combat operations, actual mortality in the legions need not have been dramatically (or at all) higher than in the civilian population. Interestingly however, his work suggests that the Praetorian Guard during the second century suffered much high mortality rates then normal legions did. quote:Records pertaining to the military units stationed in the capital itself create a very different impression. Discharge rosters for the Praetorian Guards suggest much more rapid attrition than in the legions, of some 58% during seventeen years of service (in the second century AD) and of 45% during thirteen years (in the early third century AD). These rates are similar to those among legionaries who served for much longer periods of time, and therefore imply bigger losses overall. Much the same is true for the equites singulares Augusti, who appear to have suffered 60% attrition within twenty years of service. Various factors may account for this imbalance, including elevated levels of combat mortality in the emperors’ campaigns of the Antonine and Severan periods, a greater degree of outward mobility in the form of promotions into the officer corps, and the notoriously severe disease environment of the city of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
Uhhh didn't the guard suffer 100% attrition in the transition from Pertinax to Didius Julianus to Septimius Severus? I thought all the praetorians who weren't stabbed to death were dismissed? Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Feb 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
Such are the risks of playing politics with kings and emperors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 08:41
|
|
|
i can totally see why there are so many examples (particularly in the civil or quasi civil wars) of rank and file legionaries deserting to joining the other side - backing the wrong horse could be suicidal. i want to say there was some kind of weird quasi democratic system at play within legions* but you have to wonder if some soldiers felt 100% committed when they all decided to bet the farm on, say, lepidus. i know Caesar was famous for his forgiveness but was that typical? say you took up arms with some general that gets defeated, you surrendered, what happens to you? *please correct that if i'm wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 08:54
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not enforced by military discipline and literal manuals they don't, and from the point of view of 'resistant to disease' kids aren't necessarily a plus. soldiers are filthy, even if they're told to poo poo only in one place. diseases were the biggest killers for roman soldiers too. their camps weren't as sterile places as you seem to think, manuals or no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 09:49
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Tolkien was into that This interview is hilarious and anyone who hasn’t listened to it should, if only to hear the mid-20th-century version of a professorial type absolutely dunking on a journalist who is desperately trying to get a gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 10:26
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:The camps were probably not great but you had food and water, were kept physically fit, and theoretically people would notice and do something if you got sick and you wouldn't really need to worry about it or go unnoticed. I’m pretty sure the existing camps from Hadrian’s wall show them to be fairly nice little towns
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:soldiers are filthy, even if they're told to poo poo only in one place. diseases were the biggest killers for roman soldiers too. their camps weren't as sterile places as you seem to think, manuals or no. Didn't say that, but do you think civilians are somehow better? Disease can remain the biggest killer and yet still kill less people, you know. Im not arguing for 'sterile' and I don't know why you think that, I'm arguing for 'slightly healthier than your average insula or provincial equivalent'. Its not a high bar. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Feb 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Everyone was covered in excrement all day every day until 1997 when hygiene was invented.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 23:45
|
|
