Archaeologists Find Athenian Naval Base

[Banjo]

So many citizens had perished in earlier wars. The second Punic war devastated the "Roman" citizenry. 30,000 at Trasimene, 60,000 at Cannae. By the time Iulius was in Gaul many soldiers were regular folk.

Everything I read underneath is correct too. The Gracci etc.

Rome simply ran out of Romans and then as the empire grew Africans, Greeks, anyone could be in the legion. Later they hired mercenaries. Especially in the east. 

That of course was centuries later.

One of the promises Caesar made to form his leadership was to offer his men land, and the citizens jobs whereas they had been "taken" by slaves. Caesar was the "Man of the people" and many fell for it.

Mind you, who else would work the lead mines but slaves?

Later those same soldiers felt cheated, civil wars and strife. Down went the Republic. All hail Octavian.

2nd Punic war didn't deplete Rome's eligible manpower.  Rome continued to be able to field fully manned militia army for wars on multiple fronts through the 3rd Punic war.   Later social and economic factors alluded to earlier depleted the ranks of yoeman farmers, and also made those who remained unwilling to serve.  The transition happened way before Caesar, under Marius at around 110BC.  

The Roman army had always consisted of "everyday folk".  Prior to Marius, the army consisted of Yoeman farmer citizens who had some small property, and the ability to purchase and hand down through the family a set of soldier's equipments.  After Marius the army increasing consisted of the dispossessed citizens who can't pay for their own equipment and relied on the state, and their generals, for basic equipment kit.

Even during caesar's wars, not everyone could be in the legionary army.  One has to be a Roman citizen.  That usually means one had to have been either a true Roman, or from an Italian city long allied with Rome and whose citizens were granted Roman citizenship at the end of the social wars.  The phenomenon of a permenant auxiliary army that consisted of non-citizens didn't really arise until after the start of the empire.

Later Roman legionary army didn't really become open to everyone until around AD210, when serverus granted Roman citizenship to all freemen in the empire.

Well there were other battles and Cannae and Trasimene happened over a fortnight.

The key here is Citizen. One had to be a citizen to join up. Buy their own gear. Farmer or politician.

I think the Roman , say at the time of Diocletian, was quite different to those who fought under both Pliny's. One successful, the other not.

Indeed, we have biological evidence centurions at a later date came from all over the empire. People Africanus would consider barbarians. 

I do of course also agree with you. Just adding to it, if you will.

[Minimalist]

Part of the genius, intentional or accidental, of Roman expansion in Italy was the way they incorporated entire communities into becoming "Romans."  There were no wholesale slaughters nor mass enslavements.  Generally, the nobility of the conquered region was brought into the fold and individuals who were particularly useful were made citizens.  The Romans had a massive manpower pool by the start of the 2d Punic War.  One of Hannibal's great miscalculations was his idea that all he had to do was show up in Italy and the "conquered" Italian states would rebel against Rome.  Generally speaking, that did not happen.

[account_inactive]

I love AF.

You learn something new everyday.

[Minimalist]

Of course, early in the first century BC even that broke down when the Social Wars broke out.  But the result again was Roman toleration and compromise rather than slaughtering fellow Italians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War...0%9388_BC)

[Anomalocaris]

2nd Punic war didn't deplete Rome's eligible manpower.  Rome continued to be able to field fully manned militia army for wars on multiple fronts through the 3rd Punic war.   Later social and economic factors alluded to earlier depleted the ranks of yoeman farmers, and also made those who remained unwilling to serve.  The transition happened way before Caesar, under Marius at around 110BC.  

The Roman army had always consisted of "everyday folk".  Prior to Marius, the army consisted of Yoeman farmer citizens who had some small property, and the ability to purchase and hand down through the family a set of soldier's equipments.  After Marius the army increasing consisted of the dispossessed citizens who can't pay for their own equipment and relied on the state, and their generals, for basic equipment kit.

Even during caesar's wars, not everyone could be in the legionary army.  One has to be a Roman citizen.  That usually means one had to have been either a true Roman, or from an Italian city long allied with Rome and whose citizens were granted Roman citizenship at the end of the social wars.  The phenomenon of a permenant auxiliary army that consisted of non-citizens didn't really arise until after the start of the empire.

Later Roman legionary army didn't really become open to everyone until around AD210, when serverus granted Roman citizenship to all freemen in the empire.

Well there were other battles and Cannae and Trasimene happened over a fortnight.

The key here is Citizen. One had to be a citizen to join up. Buy their own gear. Farmer or politician.

I think the Roman , say at the time of Diocletian, was quite different to those who fought under both Pliny's. One successful, the other not.

Indeed, we have biological evidence centurions at a later date came from all over the empire. People Africanus would consider barbarians. 

I do of course also agree with you. Just adding to it, if you will.

I am not sure if Africans would have considered all of them barbarians.  More likely he would have considered many of them non-Roman allies.  There were 500 years between Africanus and Diocletian, as long as between Renaissance and now.   During this time roman concept of what is Roman had under undergone expansion commensurate with changing reality appropriate to the passage of the amount of time.   Not only did Rome expand to rule the territory of almost all of rome's former allies, but also expanded the citizenship to cover all freeman in the territory it ruled.  So the core of Roman army remained an army of Roman citizens, but the citizenship expanded to all the provinces outside Italy.   The fundamental structure of the army also changed.  No longer was Roman army primarily a heavy infantry force as it had been since the beginning of the republic.  It is now primarily a heavy cavalry force backed by medium and light infantry.  Infantry force can be raised from any body of fit young men with little to lose. Cavalry forces are much harder to recruit and train from the pool of truly dispossessed who may have never ridden a horse in their lives.  So substantial use had to be made of people who had some horse rearing tradition.

[Banjo]

Certainly. Roman cavalry dismounted before they fought so that is a bit different. And from what I have read, just about anyone not greek outside of Rome was usually considered a barbarian.

Again though I agree with you on many points.

(BTW I just woke up with a huge headache so please forgive my short answer.)

[Minimalist]

Whenever you say "the Romans did this" or "the Romans did that" you have to specify the time period.  Rome existed as an independent state from the 6th century BC to the late 5th century AD and the Eastern Roman Empire continued for another thousand years after that.

Much changed over that span.