Importance of the Citizenship

[caldrail]

Quite clearly the offer of roman citizenship was a strong motivation for people living in the roman world. Once everyone had that by right, it was no longer desirable - and I think that was a major factor in the decline of the west.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Quite clearly the offer of roman citizenship was a strong motivation for people living in the roman world. Once everyone had that by right, it was no longer desirable - and I think that was a major factor in the decline of the west.

 

This should be a separate thread, but what's the evidence for your claim? Were citizens less likely to serve in the army than non-citizens? If so, was this always true or only sometimes? When and when not?

 

In my opinion, you're reversing cause and effect. It was only after citizenship became nearly worthless that it was extended to all, not that it became worthless by extending it to everyone. In favor of my claim, I can offer evidence that the value of citizenship declined prior to extension. Can you, in favor of your claim, offer any evidence that previous extensions led to a decline in the value of citizenship? If not, then the evidence doesn't support your causal story.

[Germanicus]

This should be a separate thread

 

Agreed.

[Ursus]

The main reason citizenship was extended was to increase the tax base. If the increased tax base helped to pay for more soldiers to fight Persia, et al., it can't have been all bad.

 

My own feelings are at some point after the birth of the empire, citizenship did not matter so much as one's social class. The Empire was in practice a partnership between the imperial bureaucracy and the local elite. For all the differences of the various cultures conquered by the Romans, the aristocratic elements of those cultures had certain things in common which helped glue the empire together as surely as soldiers and roads and laws did. Thus it was better to be a local aristocrat in Greece sitting on the town boule advising the Roman governor than it was to be a poor citizen of Italy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But matters much for what? For your standing in the courts (e.g., whether you were entitled to a trial), citizenship was extremely important: it was a matter of possible life or instant death.

[Furius Venator]

it was a matter of possible life or instant death

 

Surely the right to be tried by a Roman court rather than a by local law?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Surely the right to be tried by a Roman court rather than a by local law?

 

Exactly--and the right to appeal the decisions of magistrates.

[caldrail]

Quite clearly the offer of roman citizenship was a strong motivation for people living in the roman world. Once everyone had that by right, it was no longer desirable - and I think that was a major factor in the decline of the west.

 

This should be a separate thread, but what's the evidence for your claim? Were citizens less likely to serve in the army than non-citizens? If so, was this always true or only sometimes? When and when not?

 

In my opinion, you're reversing cause and effect. It was only after citizenship became nearly worthless that it was extended to all, not that it became worthless by extending it to everyone. In favor of my claim, I can offer evidence that the value of citizenship declined prior to extension. Can you, in favor of your claim, offer any evidence that previous extensions led to a decline in the value of citizenship? If not, then the evidence doesn't support your causal story.

 

Oh? Many served in the legions for twenty five years to earn their right to be roman citizens. That was a hard bargain and the the reward well earned in my view. The roman way of life had great appeal back then - something we're not too aware of these days. Why else would german tribesmen look enviously at the people across the river? Sure, they were pushed, but they didn't fight too hard to keep their hereditary homelands did they? When the germans overran Rome, they adopted roman airs and graces (must have been almost a farce at times). They wanted to be roman - in order to enjoy roman life - and that was the primary reason why anyone wanted to a citizen back then.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Quite clearly the offer of roman citizenship was a strong motivation for people living in the roman world. Once everyone had that by right, it was no longer desirable - and I think that was a major factor in the decline of the west.

They wanted to be roman - in order to enjoy roman life - and that was the primary reason why anyone wanted to a citizen back then.

 

Uh-huh... and why would it be that all the benefits of Roman life would suddenly disappear once citizenship was universal?

Edited April 17, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[caldrail]

Because it was taken for granted. Actually the benefits didn't disappear (hence the envious germans) but for romans it was a case of... well.. We're all citizens now, right, so why strive to earn it?

[Furius Venator]

Universal citizenship did make the army less attractive in one way. Before, a non citizen might live within the empire. He had incentive to join the auxilia as he would gain citizenship upon discharge and pass the rights on to his sons. But as a citizen already he might not feel the need to pursue a military career.

 

This must have been a factor in the falling numbers of recruits that led to large scale recruitment from outside the frontiers

[M. Porcius Cato]

Universal citizenship did make the army less attractive in one way. Before, a non citizen might live within the empire. He had incentive to join the auxilia as he would gain citizenship upon discharge and pass the rights on to his sons. But as a citizen already he might not feel the need to pursue a military career.

 

Maybe this is a quibble, but technically you could have universal citizenship AND universal military service. In any case, your historical point is well taken: Rome gave the major reward for military service to anyone for free. That's a bad policy, isn't it?

 

OK, this suggests a qualification to my original claim: citizenship could have been expanded indefinitely IF military service could be incentived by other means.

[Furius Venator]

The only other major benefits woud be:

 

money gained from looting, and only legions in active service 'abroad' would get much of this, hence not very likely for an essentially 'defensive' army like that of the mid-late empire (by defensive I merely mean that defense of the frontiers was more common than invading other lands).

 

a solid career. But the evidence suggests that wothout influence and money it had become very difficult to rise from the ranks through merit alone.

 

So removing citizenship (by the general enfranchisement) as a benefit for good military service in the auxilia really removed the main incentive for many folk to join the army (probably at least 50%).

 

It is difficult to see what else might have been offered in its place. Unless they went back to a citizen militia (all citizens being liable for service) but many would have been too poor to equip themselves...

[Primus Pilus]

OK, this suggests a qualification to my original claim: citizenship could have been expanded indefinitely IF military service could be incentived by other means.

 

In theory, the idea of regular pay and the opportunity for social advancement (for the family and the individual) could have continued to be an incentive in itself, but this does not seem to have given any real motivation to the old citizen classes, even the poor. We know that the citizenry developed a certain level of complacency towards military service and that it clearly lost its attractiveness as an opportunity for advancement, but had military service actually become a true social pariah because of the inclusion of and reliance on 'provincials and barbarians'?

 

There were still plenty of poor Italians, and poor 'old provincials' in places like Hispania, Gaul, etc. I don't know if the question has ever truly been answered as to why these people did not seem to pursue regular military enlistement in any large numbers. Was the proximity to the borders truly that important, was the economic advantage in barbarian recruiment that great.. or was Rome so reliant on pacifying its neighbors by including them in its army, that it precluded recruitment of its own citizenry?

[M. Porcius Cato]

We know that the citizenry developed a certain level of complacency towards military service and that it clearly lost its attractiveness as an opportunity for advancement, but had military service actually become a true social pariah because of the inclusion of and reliance on 'provincials and barbarians'?

 

Was life for the poor in Rome better or worse than life in the barracks? If it really were better to be among the urban poor than among the legions, that's really a sad commentary on Rome's priorities.