08-28-2004, 10:03 PM
In the book 'A History of Rome', by Yan de Bohec amongst others, the cost of a legion per annum is estimated at 2.25 million denarii, based on pay alone. This was during the empire - at the time of the civil wars, paying your legions would have depended whose side you were on. Those fighting for the republic (whatever that happened to be at the time!) could draw money from the senate - however, all would have been aware that in a conflict like that the spoils would belong to the victor, and there were probably more than enough moneylenders willing to bankroll one or other competing commander in the hope of being paid back tenfold. From the sources, it seems that the soldiers pay was in arrears a lot of the time anyway.<br>
<br>
Q.Cornificius, commanding an army of about 2 legions for the republic in Africa, wrote to the senate in 43 requesting 700 sestertia - 175000 denarii - and it's been assumed that this was to pay his troops and guarantee their loyalty. Cicero wrote back to him saying that the money was not to be had, and suggested using 'loans or impost' - squeezing the provincials, in other words. We know that Brutus and co did this in the east before Philippi, and Antonius repeated the trick afterwards, so it was probably a common tactic. Decimus Brutus, in the four months after the siege of Mutina, raised an incredible seven legions in Transpadane Gaul - cut off from the senate's coffers, he could only have paid and equipped them by forced loans.<br>
<br>
As for the legions themselves, it's a murky question - as Jasper says, Keppie's the best bet - or HMD Parker's 'The Roman Legions', both of which give summaries (often rather conjectural) of legion formations during the civil wars. In general, I think their findings have been accepted by most, although they do rely on establishing a constant service history for legions which may in reality have been disbanded and reformed several times.<br>
<br>
With numbers, at least, we have some evidence - Appian writes that, at the conference of Mutina, the triumvirs had 43 legions between them (Civil War V.6), and that the war (up to Philippi) reduced this number to 28. After Philippi Octavian and Antonius retired all their veterans, leaving a core of 11 legions - Octavian took 5 and Antonius 6, although the latter also had more legions in northern Italy and Gaul under Calenus and Ventidius. Octavian gave two of his legions to Antonius and returned to Italy, where he must have rapidly raised some new ones in time to face Sextus Pompey, thereby duplicating most of the legion numbers that Antonius was using. Antonius, then, began his eastern campaign with only eight legions, amongst which have been traced the remains of the Caesarian III Gallica, V Alaudae, VI Ferrata and X Equestris (although, since all the veterans had gone home, these would not be <em>the same men</em> as Caesar had commanded!)<br>
<br>
By the time of Actium, Antonius' force had risen to around 23, and all of these new legions would have been raised in the east. They were either legio vernacula (non citizens), or the result of giving newly levied men citizenship on enlistment, and their quality was not too high - this is why Antonius kept petitioning Octavian for Italian recruits, and Octavian (knowing what was coming) kept tactfully failing to supply them. This would have been the army of the Actium campaign - although, of course, most of them stayed on shore during the battle itself. Octavian probably had a force of equivilant size (it's been suggested that the notion of Octavian's army, or his navy, being smaller at Actium was just Augustan propaganda). <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Q.Cornificius, commanding an army of about 2 legions for the republic in Africa, wrote to the senate in 43 requesting 700 sestertia - 175000 denarii - and it's been assumed that this was to pay his troops and guarantee their loyalty. Cicero wrote back to him saying that the money was not to be had, and suggested using 'loans or impost' - squeezing the provincials, in other words. We know that Brutus and co did this in the east before Philippi, and Antonius repeated the trick afterwards, so it was probably a common tactic. Decimus Brutus, in the four months after the siege of Mutina, raised an incredible seven legions in Transpadane Gaul - cut off from the senate's coffers, he could only have paid and equipped them by forced loans.<br>
<br>
As for the legions themselves, it's a murky question - as Jasper says, Keppie's the best bet - or HMD Parker's 'The Roman Legions', both of which give summaries (often rather conjectural) of legion formations during the civil wars. In general, I think their findings have been accepted by most, although they do rely on establishing a constant service history for legions which may in reality have been disbanded and reformed several times.<br>
<br>
With numbers, at least, we have some evidence - Appian writes that, at the conference of Mutina, the triumvirs had 43 legions between them (Civil War V.6), and that the war (up to Philippi) reduced this number to 28. After Philippi Octavian and Antonius retired all their veterans, leaving a core of 11 legions - Octavian took 5 and Antonius 6, although the latter also had more legions in northern Italy and Gaul under Calenus and Ventidius. Octavian gave two of his legions to Antonius and returned to Italy, where he must have rapidly raised some new ones in time to face Sextus Pompey, thereby duplicating most of the legion numbers that Antonius was using. Antonius, then, began his eastern campaign with only eight legions, amongst which have been traced the remains of the Caesarian III Gallica, V Alaudae, VI Ferrata and X Equestris (although, since all the veterans had gone home, these would not be <em>the same men</em> as Caesar had commanded!)<br>
<br>
By the time of Actium, Antonius' force had risen to around 23, and all of these new legions would have been raised in the east. They were either legio vernacula (non citizens), or the result of giving newly levied men citizenship on enlistment, and their quality was not too high - this is why Antonius kept petitioning Octavian for Italian recruits, and Octavian (knowing what was coming) kept tactfully failing to supply them. This would have been the army of the Actium campaign - although, of course, most of them stayed on shore during the battle itself. Octavian probably had a force of equivilant size (it's been suggested that the notion of Octavian's army, or his navy, being smaller at Actium was just Augustan propaganda). <p></p><i></i>
Nathan Ross
