Permanent army and Democratic rule

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

 

An open question to UNRV community:

 

Is there any conclusive evidence of long-standing permanent armies at the Classical more-or-less democratic regimes (vg, Athens or Carthage)?

 

I deliberately left open the main operative definitions of this question (ie, "long-standing", "permanent armies" and "democratic") to the expressed personal interpretation of the respondent.

 

I ask this question trying to get support to the idea that the presence of long-standing permanent armies was the most significant isolated contributor to the demise of the Roman Republic.

 

Thanks in advance.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Weren't the Spanish armies of the Hannabalic faction 'long-standing'? Being funded by the silver mines of Spain, it seems that Hannibal's family could operate as free agents (i.e., without the ability of the Carthaginian senate to cut off their money).

[Gaius Octavius]

Was there a 'long standing permanent army" during the Republic?

[caldrail]

The demise of the roman republic was a failure of politics and tradition to contain personal ambition. Eventually any social structure will be challenged by someone who wants to rule, and Rome began to suffer this decay once the precedent had been set. The permanent legions allowed these men to enforce their will by military threat, but since these personalities were going to rise anyway, they would have found other means to obtain control. So yes, the permanent army did contribute as a catalyst to those events instead of other means. Remember that Octavian hired assassins to kill Marc Antony early on and failed. He didn't want to fight a war, just to take out his rival. Eventually he had to use an army for that end in the struggle for dominance. It was that struggle that pushed the republic aside (but didn't end it - republican institutions survived unchanged into the empire).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Remember that Octavian hired assassins to kill Marc Antony early on and failed

 

That's news to me. Source?

[Primus Pilus]

Remember that Octavian hired assassins to kill Marc Antony early on and failed

 

That's news to me. Source?

 

Antonius definately accused him. Whether or not is true is debatable, but Antonius at least seems to have believed it.

 

Appian gives a solid account in Civil Wars 3.39

[ASCLEPIADES]

Weren't the Spanish armies of the Hannabalic faction 'long-standing'? Being funded by the silver mines of Spain, it seems that Hannibal's family could operate as free agents (i.e., without the ability of the Carthaginian senate to cut off their money).

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

As far as I hnow, Hannibal's Army was mainly made by mercenaries; it would be interesting to know if those who weren't had any kind of client kinship with the Barca family; that seems to have been true at least for the commanders.

 

That's an interesting notion. It's clear that the Barca's were the primary authority in Hispania, and it made up a sizeable portion of Hannibal's recruiting ground for the war with Rome. What's difficult to define is the nature of the Carthaginian army. As we touched on in another thread somewhere, Carthage was heavily reliant upon mercenaries, but not necessarily in the traditional sense.

 

Most of Hannibal's "mercenaries" were not permanent units for hire to the any bidder, but were tribal warriors who simply happened to reside within Hannibal's sphere of influence. While I can't be certain of this, I've never had the impression that the Celt-Iberian infantry or even Numidian cavalry were offering mercenary services to the highest bidder wherever work could be found. These were simply men who were paid by Hannibal to serve in his army. It's why I view his army more akin to Roman auxilia, then true mercenary.

 

In any case, the "client" concept has some merit, especially in Hispania. For lack of a better term, the Barcas ruled there, and the people likely had a stronger sense of loyalty to that family rather than the Carthaginian state as a whole.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

To answer once more too quickly ( I really need 40h long days ) about ancient Greece and especially Athens we know that there are at least one permanent unit during the classical period, a 500 men archer corps ( on horse if I remember well ) used for internal police. Then the fleet trained regularly and had a permanent administration ( needed to run the shipyards and boats sheds ). Later on, in the mid-4th century B.C Athens had a permanent border force made of the youngest citizens undergoing military training and garrisoning the Attic fortresses.

 

We must also remember that the Athenian cavalry was always kept serviceable with yearly inspection of the horses and horsemen and regular training and this at least at the time of Xenophon but probably earlier, a practice kept when Aristotle wrote his own books.

 

Another example of a permanent force under democratic regime is the elite Sacred Band of Thebes in the mid-4th century.

 

Those are the main examples that comes to mind at the present time.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

First a correction to our good friend Asclepiades : I'm a man and should thus be called "lord BH" rather than "Lady BH" should you r

[caldrail]

Weren't the Spanish armies of the Hannabalic faction 'long-standing'? Being funded by the silver mines of Spain, it seems that Hannibal's family could operate as free agents (i.e., without the ability of the Carthaginian senate to cut off their money).

 

There may have been carthaginian troops that served the length of the war in the same way as roman ones. Its important though to realise that mercenaries are notorious for fickle behaviour in past ages. Certainly Carthage relied on these men so there must have been a standard of reliability, but since the carthaginian mercenary soldier is there for money and not for loyalty to his lord or country, ultimately there's no guarantee they would last the campaign. Money being money however, I have no doubt it would attract soldiers for that reason alone.

 

I'm not sure that Hannibals family were able to operate as free agents entirely. If they did access and control that wealth, it does make a difference, yet I don't see any evidence that Hannibals troops were especially well paid, and given their isolation from any supply line, nor were they likely to be.

 

I might delve into this question a bit further when I get time - I think there's an interesting point about Hannibals campaign emerging here.

[ASCLEPIADES]

First a correction to our good friend Asclepiades : I'm a man and should thus be called "lord BH" rather than "Lady BH" should you r

Edited October 26, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

It would be only until the Roman generals had their own "professional" armies when they were going to be able to surpass the power of the Senate, ie after the Marian Reforms. The priority for those soldiers was now the prosperity of their commander, as he was their protector.

 

But isn't it just the short sight on the part of the senate? those soldiers had no where to go after their service ended and if the senate had propose to be their benefactor they could turn them into a conservative force who supported the goverment (just like Augustus did) and neutralize the political power of their commanders.

 

But instead they prefered the narrow intrests of the aristocrasy, even Brutus when he try to bought the loyalty of the soldiers after his assassination of Caesar, while Brutus promise them the grants of lands that they deserved he refuse to give it to them if that would hurt the current wealthy holders of the land.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But isn't it just the short sight on the part of the senate? those soldiers had no where to go after their service ended

 

Of course they had somewhere to go. It's not as though soldiers were not richly rewarded with booty or paid for their services.