Septimus Flavius Galarius Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 If a legionnaire was killed in combat, or any soldier or officer in the Roman Army, was his family entitled to any kind of compensation? Also when one was killed in combat in the Roman Army was that considered an honurable death, or was it viewed as he messed up somehow in combat so therefore he deserved to die? Was it more honrable to be fighting the barbarians, or to be fighting fellow Romans in the many civil wars that Rome had? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Was it more honrable to be fighting the barbarians, or to be fighting fellow Romans in the many civil wars that Rome had? The Roman soldiers would have much preferred to be fighting barbarians in foreign wars than killing fellow Romans in the civil wars, many of the legionaries would have had friends and maybe even family in the opposing Roman army and although they would have fought to the death and killed fellow Romans for their general they would certainly have enjoyed fighting and killing barbarians a hell of a lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 I can't imagine the general thought would be "he messed up and deserved to die". If you think about it, comrades in war are like family, in fact their mates in the legion were sometimes the only family they had left. I can't imagine anyone saying of their "brother" "Oh, he deserved to die." I don't know what the general populace thought exactly, although I imagine they honored their fallen soldiers just like most other cultures. I seem to remember reading somewhere that "it was an honor to die on Mars' field". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 On a tangent, Roman soldiers were 'legionaries'. Legionnaires are in the French Foreign Legion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 On a tangent, Roman soldiers were 'legionaries'. Legionnaires are in the French Foreign Legion. Gaius - I was just about to post something similar myself on an 'off topic'. I cannot understand this modern trend to call them legionnaires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimus Flavius Galarius Posted March 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Augusta maybe you don't understand because its one lousy extra "n" and a "i" out of place. I appreciatte and understand people correcting me so i know for the future on the correct spelling, but how did any of that add or answer any of the questions i originally asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 The legionnaires/legionaries question is simply one of language : in French we use the word legionnaire to describe both the modern day unit and the roman soldiers, that's all. But to return on topic we must remember that fallen soldiers were buried by clubs giving them a tomb and giving their name forever. Also we can see the great troubles suffered by Germanicus in order to bury the deads of Varus and give them a proper resting place. So my answer would be no, no dishonor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) If a legionnaire was killed in combat, or any soldier or officer in the Roman Army, was his family entitled to any kind of compensation? No. But the mans friends may have helped if they could. Also the burial clubs acted as charitable institutions so although compensation is unobtainable, perhaps a charity payment might be forthcoming. It was not a sure thing. Also when one was killed in combat in the Roman Army was that considered an honurable death, or was it viewed as he messed up somehow in combat so therefore he deserved to die? An honourable death requires that witnesses saw him die in act of courage. Otherwise its an unfortunate turn of events. Soldiers in war become very callous regarding death and injury. Was it more honrable to be fighting the barbarians, or to be fighting fellow Romans in the many civil wars that Rome had? Neither. It was more honourable to win. Edited March 1, 2007 by caldrail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Augusta maybe you don't understand because its one lousy extra "n" and a "i" out of place. I appreciatte and understand people correcting me so i know for the future on the correct spelling, but how did any of that add or answer any of the questions i originally asked. If you had read my post thoroughly, you would have seen that it was in answer to the quoted post by Gaius Octavius, and I actually mentioned that it was 'off-topic'. So, no - it did not help your original question - but I did not make any pretence that it was meant to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 SFG, The Augusta's and my comments in re your error was meant to be helpful and were not disparaging. I am sure that this shan't happen again. B.H., we are not speaking French here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Was it more honrable to be fighting the barbarians, or to be fighting fellow Romans in the many civil wars that Rome had? Neither. It was more honourable to win. Except for Cato! Actually Caesar's late triumph over romans was badly viewed by many. So, at least for his time it was not a glorious thing to gain victory in civil wars. Are there any known public monuments for the dead war heroes (not private self commissioned ones) or monumental collective graves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimus Flavius Galarius Posted March 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Kosmo thats a good question. The Arch of Titus could be considered a war memorial, and it was constructed by Domitian so i believe it would be a public commission, but i don't know enough about it to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Was it more honrable to be fighting the barbarians, or to be fighting fellow Romans in the many civil wars that Rome had? Neither. It was more honourable to win. Except for Cato! Actually Caesar's late triumph over romans was badly viewed by many. So, at least for his time it was not a glorious thing to gain victory in civil wars. A civil war is bound to arouse strong feelings. Partly this was inspired by caesars success and talent, both of which were considerable. Julius caesar remained popular with the plebs so it was people amongst the senatorial class who quite literally wanted to stick daggers in his back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 There might be a statistical answer to his question. How many triumphs were celebrated over romans and how many over enemies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshotgene Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 I would say the Romans had no problem fighting each other or others. If one examines all of the usurpations throughout the history of Rome, this is evident. You have to remember also that as the empire expanded and waned, less and less 'Romans' were actually in the army. The army was generally made up of people who were conquered and earned citizenship through the army. In Britain very few Britains served in those legions. They were made up of Romans from modern day Belgium, Holland and Germany. The Romans were genius in this perspective. You could be stationed thousands of miles from home, with nothing but barbarians between you and the next Roman settlement. It had a way of creating extreme loyalty to your commander. If your commander was being selected as the future emperor, chances were you would kill anyone who stood in the way to make sure your commander was selected. By the way, there is no 'honorable death' at the hand of another. You died with honor when you died on your own sword. Remember Cassius and Brutus! For Brutus was the noblest Roman of them all. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.