Recruitment of the Roman Legion - From Italian to Provincial
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2024
- The Roman Empire owed much of its power to the formidable Roman Legionaries. These men for a majority of the empire existence hailed from the Italian penisula. However, The Roman legions underwent a significant transformation in composition between 69 AD and 161 AD. This period witnessed a shift from a predominantly Italian force to one fueled by provincial recruits, forever altering the character of the Roman army.
During the early Republic, particularly the Pyrrhic and Punic Wars, Italy boasted a seemingly inexhaustible supply of manpower. Roman citizens formed the core of the legions, readily fulfilling their civic duty to defend the republic. However, by the mid-1st century AD, this dynamic had changed. Military service was no longer a mandatory requirement for citizenship, and the prospect of spending years stationed on distant frontiers or far-off provinces held little appeal for Italians.
This waning enthusiasm among Italians opened doors for a new breed of legionary. Freeborn men from across the empire, not necessarily Roman citizens themselves, were drawn to the legions by the promise of purpose, regular pay, and advancement opportunities. This included the sons of soldiers born in the canabae, civilian settlements that sprung up near legionary forts. While some legions, like the initial cohort of Legio I Italica, might have been raised primarily in Italy, this "Italian-ness" typically faded within a generation.
New legions were often raised locally or in regions with a surplus of manpower, such as Illyricum or Thrace. This meant that for many recruits, Latin was a secondary language at best. Yet, despite the diverse ethnicities - Germans, Pannonians, Spaniards, Africans, and Syrians - a strong sense of "Roman-ness" was fostered within the camps.
These provincial legionaries, much like the Italian yeomen who fought centuries before, embodied the traditional values of the Roman army. They were fiercely competitive, fiercely loyal to their honor, and driven by a desire to maintain and enhance their reputations for virtus - a combination of courage and excellence that defined the ideal Roman soldier.
In conclusion, the Roman legions underwent a dramatic shift in composition during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. While Italians initially dominated the ranks, the lure of military service and the changing demographics of the empire led to a rise in provincial recruits. These new legionaries, despite their diverse origins, embraced the Roman military spirit, ensuring the continued strength of the legions for generations to come.
SOURCES:
www.worldhisto...
www.britannica...
ROMAN LEGIONARY AD 69-161 by ROSS COWAN
__________________________________________________________________________
SUBSCRIBE NOW : bit.ly/3aYZCOh
PATREON : bit.ly/3b0VixZ
MERCH : bit.ly/2X4d8rX
__________________________________________________________________________
MUSIC : by Alexander Nakarada
Music: by Alexander Nakarada (www.serpentsoundstudios.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons BY Attribution 4.0 License
__________________________________________________________________________
#AncientRome #romanempire #AncientHistoryGuy
Best birthday gift.. a new josh video
Wanna know something i like about your vids.. i can turn my phone volume to max anoying my family well i do a task in my room... On weppons, armor and things i usually need to look at the vid at least once but you get the point
Happy birthday!
Wanna know if Numidians do have their own Roman Legions after playing a faction "Masaesyli" in a game "Rome 2 : Total War"
The legionnaires of the provinces were romanized with citizenship.
Love ur vids so mich
Thankyou!
You seem to extensively overuse and overestimate the term "diverse". Its repeating its self in every video. Yes Rome was diverse but not as we would wish for today. It really was no USA.
I mean kinda of disagree with that statement. The Roman empire consisted of Romans Italians Greeks picnics Iberian Celts Illyrians dacians Scythians Germans Thracians Numidians Anatolians Cappadocians Syrians Egyptians Libyans Persian. And that's not even including their sub cultures within the cultures such as with the Celts Celtiiberians Gaul Britons Galatian Gaelic Pictish. And with the Greeks the Ionian Dorian thing (even though that's a dialect thing there seems to have been a clear us and them thing). And even with swords and armour it differed throughout the empire Spanish legionaries tended to be lighter armed than their Germanic counterparts because of the heat and the nature of warfare on that region.
@@AncientHistoryGuy Well we dont have to all agree but when you dig up sources, like laws and civic rights, you will realize that a Roman peasant of lowest plebean sort had more rights than foreign noble from the provinces. They were not this modern idylic, milticultural society. Polybios even wrote a thesis about who can be co sidered Roman and who can not. Blood and lineage played huge role, as did ethnicity. We have many records, like in case of Zenobia, that even offsprings of Romans, made with foreign locals were shunned. One emperor even demanded, that a African auxiliare was immediately removed from his sight as he considered him uphoring. Yes rome ruled over many people, often benevolently, allowing big personal freedo. But those were never considered equals or Romans. Romanship was offered to influential people strategically, out of pragmatism, not tolerance. Romans considered Italics and Greeks as one of their own and integrated, where others were put aside. This asumption that it was like ancient cosmopolitant USA is quite a fabulation. Metatron on his chanell debunks it with sourcess nicely. We have a tendency to appropriate history to our oen contemporary ideals. Communists sought communism everywhere too. We now do the same. Greeks and Romans in fact are quite xenophobic. And proponents of early nationalism. Focusimg great deal on what is theirs and whats not. Do you heard about the learned debate of Greeks as to whether or not consider Macedonians and Thracians as Greeks or not? Ethnicity, culture, language, blood lines, likeness, played huge role. Eve the apprarance. Thracians were rejected but Macedonians accepted.
Romans were quite good at adopting other peoples invetions, but that doesnt mean adopting everything.
We may hate to acknowledge it now, as we base our democratic ideas too far away in history, more than we should, making huge referencess to Greece and Rome, yet we forget they were not like us at all.
Nationalistic idea, patriotism, was big part of Roman life. This doesnt automatically mean they were closed, isolated, dimm rednecks. They were just prerty sure about their identity and its creation and building it up. And we have many old grafitti, like in Pompei, beeing written in humiliating sentencess, attacking peoples nationality or sexual orientation.
You know, they commited several genocides right? On Carthage and Gauls? It was no peacefull take over and intermingling.
Romans certainly are not black-white society, but we cant really say they were multicultural in our current imagination.
@@AncientHistoryGuy Going by these facts, I would even argue that the Roman Empire was more diverse then the USA is today.