Roman Military Academy?

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.

I don't think that's goping to work unless you massively change the way the republic works. Rome had no economic or political need to conquer other countries. Italy could have supplied everything it needed, and its influence would have ensured economic dominance of Gaul and the Alpine regions. But that wasn't how the Republic ticked. War was written into the Roman state's DNA not because it needed to conquer to survive, but because its ruling classes needed to conquer to advance. Military glory and the profit it provided were the fuel of political careers. Without it, you could hardly hope to amount to much. So unless you can take that out of the system, the officials of the republic will continue to look for excuses to go to war, find them, and further their careers by it, and the scale of the whole thing will continue to feed into more war until they either are forced to turn on each other, or meet someone they cannot defeat. You would have to produce a Roman republic that was willing to live within its means and embrace civilian achievement as the foundation for high office and great repute.

As things were, the reality was almost exactly the reverse: it was the republic that produced Roman provinces by the carload. The early Principate switched to a system of client kingship, most likely conscious of the cost of conquest. It didn't work, in the end, and that realisation all but ended Roman expansion with the integration of many former client states by the second half of the first century AD. But the idea of controlling a territory by diplomacy rather than direct force for economic reasons was Principate. In the republic, it would not have been acceptable because the conquest of the area at one point or another could have fuelled someone's career, and ironically it was precisely for this reason that the process ended - Augustus and his successors could not use successful generals.
 
I don't think that's goping to work unless you massively change the way the republic works. Rome had no economic or political need to conquer other countries. Italy could have supplied everything it needed, and its influence would have ensured economic dominance of Gaul and the Alpine regions. But that wasn't how the Republic ticked. War was written into the Roman state's DNA not because it needed to conquer to survive, but because its ruling classes needed to conquer to advance. Military glory and the profit it provided were the fuel of political careers. Without it, you could hardly hope to amount to much. So unless you can take that out of the system, the officials of the republic will continue to look for excuses to go to war, find them, and further their careers by it, and the scale of the whole thing will continue to feed into more war until they either are forced to turn on each other, or meet someone they cannot defeat. You would have to produce a Roman republic that was willing to live within its means and embrace civilian achievement as the foundation for high office and great repute.

As things were, the reality was almost exactly the reverse: it was the republic that produced Roman provinces by the carload. The early Principate switched to a system of client kingship, most likely conscious of the cost of conquest. It didn't work, in the end, and that realisation all but ended Roman expansion with the integration of many former client states by the second half of the first century AD. But the idea of controlling a territory by diplomacy rather than direct force for economic reasons was Principate. In the republic, it would not have been acceptable because the conquest of the area at one point or another could have fuelled someone's career, and ironically it was precisely for this reason that the process ended - Augustus and his successors could not use successful generals.

That sounds pretty straight forward, although by the late republic they seem to have vanquished most of the other civilised enemies (with the exception of Egypt and Persia - although Persia is imo too far away). If the republic existed for another century would they really want to conquer backwaters like Germania or even Britannia? Gaul I can understand to a point because it was bordering Italia. Would it not be more feasible for Romans to continue to conduct expeditions and warfare against barbarians not so much for conquest and assimilation, but for plunder and the collection of slaves (and consequently returning to their natural borders). I could see periodic raids every decade or so that greatly improves Rome's security as well as their economy (and the successful Consul's career no doubt). Seems a more sustainable model in the long run, albeit they will be a smaller empire.
 
That sounds pretty straight forward, although by the late republic they seem to have vanquished most of the other civilised enemies (with the exception of Egypt and Persia - although Persia is imo too far away). If the republic existed for another century would they really want to conquer backwaters like Germania or even Britannia? Gaul I can understand to a point because it was bordering Italia. Would it not be more feasible for Romans to continue to conduct expeditions and warfare against barbarians not so much for conquest and assimilation, but for plunder and the collection of slaves (and consequently returning to their natural borders). I could see periodic raids every decade or so that greatly improves Rome's security as well as their economy (and the successful Consul's career no doubt). Seems a more sustainable model in the long run, albeit they will be a smaller empire.

As carlton_bach says war was written into the Roman states DNA, and requires drastic change by 100 B.C. to alter. However you have a point here. Prior to Caesar the Roman Governors of Gaul across the Alps* who were most Praetors generally restricted themselves to the profitable raiding, looting and slaving of the nearby Gallic tribes in order to pay for the run at the Consulship and then went elsewhere. So it is far from impossible to keep the Romans restricted to Southern Gaul for longer than OTL. The problem is that sooner or later a Roman is going to come along who is a.) ambitious and b.) military talented and is going to push forward and once everyone else realises how profitable enslaving a million Gauls can be the genie is out of the bottle.



As opposed to Italian Gaul, a.k.a. Padus Valley/ Padania
 
Top