Roman Military Academy?

[euromellows]

Was there ever a military academy centered in Ancient Rome similar to what we would understand a military academy to be today? (I note Plato's Greek Academy was known to the Romans). It just seems to me that after Marius's reforms an effective way to mitigate soldiers following rogue generals would be to control the appointment of officers and the payment of soldiers (ie, take it from the generals). For example if the Senate were tasked with the administration of soldiers pay, as well as the appointment of officers to the Roman Military Academy - a necessary pre-requisite for becoming a General for example. Naturally the process would still be abused by more powerful or rich families, but I would think would go a long way towards at least mitigating rogue generals. This would be particularly successful in my opinion, if the Senate had the sole authority to confirm field promotions and the subsequent privileges which goes with such promotions.

Would this not also lend the idea to having a permanent and sizable garrison force stationed in Rome capable of sustaining an assault? (and placed firmly in control of the Senate).

Could this be enough to save the Republic, or at least prevent the Empire as we know it OTL?

 

[carlton_bach]

The system of the republic tied military commands to civil magistracies, which were elective. Making them contingent on some kind of academy would have gone against the grain of that system. Of course, all Roman aristocrats (who really were the only candidates for such offices and commands) got military training, both in the family - accompanying officers as part of their cohors amicorum - and in their military tribunate.

The Principate largely retained the republican structures, but added the effective system of imperial appointment since most military commands were either immediately in the highest magistrate's gift or technically merely substitute positions. There was no formal training, but the succession of offices requiring service in ascending grades continued, and you increasingly had families who specialised in the military, the viri militares, whose professional networks trained their sons. There were also still institutions for military training of the entire free male youth. The equites got their own cursus honorum, more or less, including three military commands, but also still including civilian positions.

By the end of the Principate, you have an effective separation of civilian and military spheres which is later formalised. Now, there begin to appear institutions like the protectores sacri lateris and the various guards scholae where promising candidates are brought in to learn and network. Bubt even here, the idea of a modern miliutary academy is very different.

Interestingly, the Roman way of doing things is closer to Plato's academy than our modern schools are. I wonder if they would have seen merit in the modern system at all.

As to the permanent force in Rome: it was called the people of Rome. By the lights of the Republic, the people were the army. Since Rome was full of Romans, it was defensible. Bringing armed troops into the city was considered sacrilege (I think technically nefas), because the citizens of Rome lived at peace with each other within the pomerium. That continued to be a big problem when the first praetorian cohorts were stationed in Italy and didn#t soften until the mid first century AD, when the divide between civilian and soldier had solidified.

 

[euromellows]

Thank you for your prompt reply, obviously you are very knowledgeable on the period.

So for such a system to work it would essentially need to be forced on the republic?

If so, that kind of suits with my plans. I thought of a doing a TL where the republic survived a lot longer then OTL. The POD I thought of was during the Social Wars where Marius was reported to have suffered a stroke. I thought having him die would remove major problems in the future, so that when Sulla takes command of the legions to attack Mithridates his commission isn't revoked by the senate.

Nonetheless in his absence Marius Jr. attempts to oust him politically but is not nearly as successful as his father would have been. In a reverse sense of irony it is Marius Jr. who marches on Rome breaking the sacred laws. It is up to Sulla to restore order and the senate greets him as a hero for doing so. His military experience has made him very aware of the dangers inherent in a professional army not tied to landed aristocracy (as his OTL reforms prove). As he is an optimate and naturally conservative, his instinct is to strengthen the senate. Consequently he places the power and administration of forming and maintaining armies with that body. Naturally he uses the occasion to fill the ranks with loyalists to himself and the 'academy' at first is an informal body which is used to assess officer candidates by the senate (his requirements would ensure that only those with optimate sympathies are admitted). Mostly this would operate as a result of patronage or recommendations from influential aristocracy, but in time it gradually evolves to become an institution with standardised training (or if not training at least examinations to confirm training in the field) and pre-requisites.

Such an institution would, at least in my opinion, greatly stabilise the military element of the roman republic which is half the struggle. It would still be an oligopoly and real power remain concentrated in the hands of the few, although if the establishment is canny enough to continue recruiting from outside its ranks there's no reason it (the republic) couldn't continue for many more centuries.

A particularly important point I would think would be the Senate (perhaps through this body) insisting that only it had the authority to confirm field promotions. If the promotion was too high they may even insist on the candidate returning to Rome for assessment. I'm think of the British Admiralty model during the Napoleonic Wars for inspiration. That body was notorious for sometimes taking years to confirm (or disallow) a promotion that had taken place. It kept an important reign of control on Admirals or Captains (although we know patronage was still the order of the day).

 

[carlton_bach]

The main problem I still see is that even at the time of Sully, technically there was no such thing as a professional soldier. Soldier was a stage of life, like bridegroom, grandfather, or graduate, not a job. But there is something I could see.

There is no way the senatorial aristocracy would allow the formation of a permanent army. It would remove the importance of their clientage networks - if everyone gets the same soldiers, their loyalty is questionable - it also threatens their ability to gain status and glory by producing a hurdle that prospective commanders would have to clear, and it costs a lot. But one point where the Senate might see a point where influence would be acceptable is in the selection of subordinate officers. Let's say Sulla forms a senatorial commission that vets officers for command functions under the proconsuls. Call them the decemviri militares. Technically, their job could even be vetting the entire list of potential soldiers, the Romans were given to thinking in small-town terms. In actual fact, what they do is ensure no warleader goes off with an army commanded completely by personal loyalists. Since it does not interfere with the appointment of commanders and offers potential for patronage, it gets instituted.

Fast forward to a reasonably stabilised Roman Republic. The decemviri militares are composed of acknowledged experts in matters military, in many cases consulares with distinguished records. Young men flock to them for advice and networking. Every year, they review the commendation letters of hundreds of people whom provincial governors and legionary legates want as tribunes, prefects, primipilares and praepositi. The environment of this body is where talented soldiers congregate, and where careers are made or ended. While there is no formal entrance exam, they are known for asking pointed questions. But there are also men from whom, in return for money, patronage or friendship, you can learn to master those questions. With the blithe unconcern for conflicts of interest, some decemviri themselves teach the sons of friends and clients.

 

[euromellows]

Thanks for your response. Your proposal actually sounds like a reasonable and plausible compromise. The decemviri committees were made up of 10 senators is that not correct? I could see Sulla in the interim stacking this committee with handpicked cronies, possibly even going so far as to appoint new senators from the equestrians amongst his army (although this would probably need dictatorial powers or at least a pliant censor).

I often believe Sulla gets a bad rap from history, but in my opinion he was quite aware of the dangers inherent from a professional army made up of landless citizens. On that point your post seems to indicate that the Senate wouldn't allow a permanent military force, but it was my understanding that that was precisely what Marian's reforms achieved. In addition to the daily drills and military routine did he not also institute minimum periods of service (16 years) with generous land grants at the end of service? I would propose that these aspects are retained but the administration remain with the Senate, including the pay but also especially the granting of land and confirmation of promotions etc.

I think of my own experience in the armed forces. It is difficult to imagine just how different things would be even psychologically if my pay, promotion and privileges was ordained solely by my Commanding Officer and not Fleet Headquarters. You will still get the odd occasion where an ambitious general develops considerable loyalty from his troops, although this is somewhat mitigated by regular rotation of officers (or even regular Centurions) and ensuring the command imperium magistrates rotate by decree of the senate.

Actually that brings up another point. You seem to know the era quite well so you might know the answer to this question. The Roman Constitution/Tradition seemed to indicate that the election of a Consul/Proconsul or other imperium magistrate was only on a yearly basis. I imagine this was a nightmare when a Consul or other official was conducting a military campaign. Was this impediment regularly extended? Certainly Sulla's OTL reforms attempted to limit it but it wasn't long before his reforms were abolished.

 

[cimon]

Study the "Cursus Honorum" and you will know everything regarding the scaling of the Roman military ladder.

 

[carlton_bach]

The Marian reform - if such a thing actually existed - did not create a professional arm,y. For all we know it is quite possible that marius never undertook anything like an army reform but simply tinkered with the systemn to produce enough soldiers for his immediate needs.

Pre-Marius, the idea was that a Roman citizen of military age kept his own arms, trained himself, and came to the army when called. Your wealth determined as what class of soldier you served (depending on what gear you could afford), and those who could not afford any, could not serve (in theopry - people found solutions). It meant that the burden of service fell on the landholding smallholders, an increasingly economically stressed class, while it bypassed the landless poor, of whom there were more. What Mariuis did, in broad outline, was to provide equipment to soldiers who could afford none, to provide adequate-ish pay for men who could not support themselves while in the field, and try to arrange for veterans with a certain number of service years being given land lots to settle on if they had no homes to go back to. All of it was ad-hoc, though, and tended to rely heavily on the political mojo or personal wealth of the warleader. The need to provide land for veterans in the end led to completely random and often violent dispossessions.

What the post-Marian army did not have was a permanent establishment. You did not join the army, you went on a campaign. It would last as long as it did, and when it was over, you went home. Over time, with major political figures maintaining retinues of clients to fill their legions when they got a command, the concept of a career structre developed. You could be promoted for meritorious service before, but only when death created vacancies, and rank did not carry over from one campaign to the next. Now, increasingly, once you were, say, a Caesarian centurion, you would be one the next time he went to war - or maybe a tribune, if you proved yourself. It all still depended on personal ties and the vast fortunes produced by warfare and the systematic plunder of defeated enemies foreign and domestic. Nobody paid troops in peacetime, and crucially, a soldier was only a soldier until his army was dissolved.

The idea that soldiers were different from civilians was born in the long years of almost permanent warfare that ended in the Augustan Principate, and it is likely that Augustus mostly created the peacetime army because he didn't know what else to do with them. There was no such thing before.

 

[Elfwine]

This explains the problem with the army as a political force - having the support of the army is the same as having a lot of political supporters, and "I can take the throne by force" developing only made that more entrenched.

 

[Imperator Novae Zealandae]

The Roman Constitution/Tradition seemed to indicate that the election of a Consul/Proconsul or other imperium magistrate was only on a yearly basis. I imagine this was a nightmare when a Consul or other official was conducting a military campaign. Was this impediment regularly extended? Certainly Sulla's OTL reforms attempted to limit it but it wasn't long before his reforms were abolished.

For most of the Republican period one year commands worked fairly well. The rule was you held a consulship for one year and then were ineligible to stand again for 10 years. In the meanwhile you could be appointed proconsul of a province. Most of the time wars were fairly small affairs that could be wrapped up short order. It was mainly during the Punic wars and in the 1st century BC that longer wars were causing problems and leading to a bending of the rules, such as Marius' 7 consulships (of which five were consecutive IIRC).

 

[Pesterfield]

Augustus mostly created the peacetime army because he didn't know what else to do with them. There was no such thing before.

Is that when using the army for construction projects started?

 

[Arachnid]

As carlton_bach says a Roman of the Republican era wouldn't understand the concept of a civilian. If you were a citizen you served when called upon and then went home at the end of the campaign. Equally the idea of a specific "military" academy would be mystifying to a Roman, "civilian" authority was military and military authority "civilian".

As for getting a modern academy style training system you would need massive, nigh on ASB intervention. From the Roman POV they had a great system of military training, you started at the bottom, learned on your way up and if you failed at any point you either died or disgraced yourself and didn't progress;

Junior tribune of soldiers (appointed)> military tribune (elected) age 20> more (appointed) tribuneships> Quaestor age 30> Legate> Praetor age 39> Propraetor> Consul age 42> Proconsul.

If you criticised the system of learning on a job to a Republican Roman he'd probably reply "well how come we've conquered most of the known world with this system?". Also as others have pointed out a military academy isn't going to fix the basic problem that a solider had to rely on and be loyal to his General if he wanted to get paid or get his pension in land. If he didn't back his General during a Civil War then at best he'd be left with nothing like the followers of Carbo or Lepidus the Elder. Fix that by have the Senate take over pay and pensions and then the existing system of military training probably won't cause any problems.

Is that when using the army for construction projects started?

No that had been around for a long time. In the pre-modern era war shut down for winter and Roman Governors were generally smart enough to use the legions for a spot of construction work during the "off-season". Generally by building a road to where ever he planned on fighting next summer.

 

[carlton_bach]

Is that when using the army for construction projects started?

Yes and no. The Roman army was always used for construction related to military efforts (Maroius had them build a canal). Augustus initiually decided to fight perpetual war to keep his sdoldiers busy, but after conquering huge swathes of the Balkans and Central Europe decided instead to encamp them permanently on the new frontiers. They built a lot of the local infrastructure they needed. Presumably that is where the idea got started.

 

[carlton_bach]

This explains the problem with the army as a political force - having the support of the army is the same as having a lot of political supporters, and "I can take the throne by force" developing only made that more entrenched.

It was very hard to get that idea out of the Roman military tradition, though Augustus certainly tried hard. That, BTW, also is how the imperial cult came to be so important in the Western provinces. Augustus' reform basically produced an army on a perpetual war footing - citizens and auxiliaries who would never be disbanded because peace broke out, and whose commander, Augustus, would never be replaced because his imperium ran out or was not prorogued. Every legionary commander and provincial governor was technically a temporary stand-in for the real imperium-holder, Augustus. The provinces where a true proconsular imperium continued to exist had no legions in them (and the proconsuls knew better than to try and raise one, Republic-style). The soldiers received their pay through state coffers, the aerarium militare, but their donatives and discharge premiums from the emperor himself. Their festive calendar was increasingly structured around the holidays of the imperial cult as time progressed, and they also worshipped the genius of their standards, which were given them by the emperor. It helped, but ultimately it was not enough.

There is one thing we have top keep in mind, incidentally: when we talk of the transition from Republic to Empire, we are talking abbout a very long time. The Marian reforms are as far away from the age of the triumvirate and civil war as the Vietnam War is from today's US military. The idealised version of the Principate army we have reconstructed from hundreds of shreds of evidence took at least half a century to emerge from the Caesarian fighting force Augustus inherited. The first evidence for regular auxiliary discharge premia comes under Claudius AFAIR, which would make the Augustan "creation" of the standing army as far back as WWII and the Marian reform that started it all roughly around the Indian Wars. What we consider transitional phases was the reality in which generations of soldiers grew up, served, retired and died. As far as they were concerned, things were normal. Change came slowly to the Roman army.

 

[Elfwine]

Interesting stuff. And in my something less than humble opinion, vital for writing good alternate history to understand and work with these factors (and others).

The way a state works says a lot about what it will do and how it will do, after all.

 

[euromellows]

It was very hard to get that idea out of the Roman military tradition, though Augustus certainly tried hard. That, BTW, also is how the imperial cult came to be so important in the Western provinces. Augustus' reform basically produced an army on a perpetual war footing - citizens and auxiliaries who would never be disbanded because peace broke out, and whose commander, Augustus, would never be replaced because his imperium ran out or was not prorogued. Every legionary commander and provincial governor was technically a temporary stand-in for the real imperium-holder, Augustus. The provinces where a true proconsular imperium continued to exist had no legions in them (and the proconsuls knew better than to try and raise one, Republic-style). The soldiers received their pay through state coffers, the aerarium militare, but their donatives and discharge premiums from the emperor himself. Their festive calendar was increasingly structured around the holidays of the imperial cult as time progressed, and they also worshipped the genius of their standards, which were given them by the emperor. It helped, but ultimately it was not enough.

There is one thing we have top keep in mind, incidentally: when we talk of the transition from Republic to Empire, we are talking abbout a very long time. The Marian reforms are as far away from the age of the triumvirate and civil war as the Vietnam War is from today's US military. The idealised version of the Principate army we have reconstructed from hundreds of shreds of evidence took at least half a century to emerge from the Caesarian fighting force Augustus inherited. The first evidence for regular auxiliary discharge premia comes under Claudius AFAIR, which would make the Augustan "creation" of the standing army as far back as WWII and the Marian reform that started it all roughly around the Indian Wars. What we consider transitional phases was the reality in which generations of soldiers grew up, served, retired and died. As far as they were concerned, things were normal. Change came slowly to the Roman army.

Thanks for the great info. How did the proconsular imperium function during the republic in frontier provinces (or at least those with potential trouble)? I assume there would be garrison forces at the proconsul's disposal, but what was the makeup of these forces? Do we know if they were roman legions permanently attached to the province, or did they 'come' with the appointed governor (which is what many of the above posts seem to suggest).

Also Elfwine your Twin Eagles timeline was excellent, are you still planning to write it?

 

[Elfwine]

Thanks for the great info. How did the proconsular imperium function during the republic in frontier provinces (or at least those with potential toruble)? I assume there would be garrison forces at the proconsul's disposal, but what was the makeup of these forces? Do we know if they were roman legions permanently attached to the province, or did they 'come' with the appointed governor (which is what many of the above posts seem to suggest).

Also Elfwine your Twin Eagles timeline was excellent, are you still planning to write it?

Twin Eagles? If you mean my "HRE and ERE both succeed" project (under the heading of The Eagle of the Bosporus at present), yes - going to restart the thread and make some edits to a few Third Crusade things that need work.

Still working away pulling together how I want it to look, so no chance of it dying. Suggestions welcome, especially for the world outside Europe and the Near East - anything east of Iran is "I'm sure it will be different thanks to the Mongols splintering early (1240s) but I have no idea how" - and of course my knowledge of the Americas is so slim as to be a project on its own to do the research.

If you have something else in mind, I'm afraid that's the only timeline I have any intent on doing any time soon.

 

[euromellows]

Sorry got mixed up. Indeed I was referring to the Eagle on the Bosporus.

 

[Elfwine]

Sorry got mixed up. Indeed I was referring to the Eagle on the Bosporus.

No worries. I think I've used the term "two Eagles" somewhere in regards to both empires using an eagle symbol.

If not me, someone else probably has.

 

[Arachnid]

Thanks for the great info. How did the proconsular imperium function during the republic in frontier provinces (or at least those with potential trouble)? I assume there would be garrison forces at the proconsul's disposal, but what was the makeup of these forces? Do we know if they were roman legions permanently attached to the province, or did they 'come' with the appointed governor (which is what many of the above posts seem to suggest).

With the massive proviso that it depended massively on the time and place the answer to your question is "all of the above".

Sometimes you had a Provincial Governor come in and take over the troops left by his predecessor, though he would almost always replace the senior ranks with "his" men (e.g. Lucullus when he took over fighting Mithridates from Sulla). On other occasions you would have a Governor take out freshly raised Roman troops for a specific purpose (e.g. Marius when fighting in Africa), or take his existing "personal" troops (e.g. Sulla when he went out to fight Mithridates). And lets not forget the majority of Governorships if there wasn't a major war going on or it wasn't in a militarily active Province, e.g. Sicily the Governor would rely on the locally recruited militia.

 

[euromellows]

With the massive proviso that it depended massively on the time and place the answer to your question is "all of the above".

Sometimes you had a Provincial Governor come in and take over the troops left by his predecessor, though he would almost always replace the senior ranks with "his" men (e.g. Lucullus when he took over fighting Mithridates from Sulla). On other occasions you would have a Governor take out freshly raised Roman troops for a specific purpose (e.g. Marius when fighting in Africa), or take his existing "personal" troops (e.g. Sulla when he went out to fight Mithridates). And lets not forget the majority of Governorships if there wasn't a major war going on or it wasn't in a militarily active Province, e.g. Sicily the Governor would rely on the locally recruited militia.

Thanks. What was the model for border regions that were not actively at war? For example places like Iberia or Illyria which had been pacified for some time but would, I think, be rather foolish of Rome to leave unguarded. Basically I'm trying to envisage a model where the soldiers of Rome owe their patronage to the Senate in particular and consequently remain loyal. Whether the decemviri militari concept described above would be sufficient is an interesting question, particularly if newly appointed Proconsuls or Propraetor's couldn't get rid of them (unless expressly authorised by the Senate). Although I imagine a different model would be adopted when an official campaign was launched by a Consul, ie he would form up a new army and likely not utilise provincial forces already available.

Leaving aside the conundrum on how to get a surviving Republic, I actually envisage a republic expanding quite differently to OTL Roman Empire. For example I imagine the Republic would be more likely to operate on an economic basis and shy away from large frontiers, probably relying more on vassal kingdoms then romanized provinces. This would potentially mitigate having a large standing army (although I still think some kind of standing army would be necessary). A smaller Roman Republic-Empire probably becomes more sustainable in the long term. They don't need to annex the mediterranean to actually control it.