05-21-2001, 01:02 PM
Salve,<br>
<br>
Perhaps rather than a militarisation of civilian officials it is that originally military staff got a role that was much more civilian in character. Roman officials in the early empire had always drawn on military manpower to fill their administrative offices (<i> commentarienses</i>, <i> librarii</i> etc served in provincial administration as well as unit administration). Civilians used in government included public slaves and freedmen. That in later times the civil servants were <i> milites</i> was thus in fact a continuation of earlier practice.<br>
<br>
In the later period the difference (or is it lack of sources for earlier times?) was that men could directly enter the bureaucracy rather than joining the 'real' army, which was by then called the <i> militia armata</i> (armed military service) to distinguish it from the bureaucratic <i> militia</i>. Where the army was previously almost entirely tooth and little tail, the late empire saw a growing distinction between differing functions which grew increasingly apart.<br>
<br>
That soldiers dispatched to certain functions were kept on the roll of other units, even if only for administrative purposes, was not new. It has been suggested that in Syria the <i> singulares</i> of the governor's guard were put on the books of a particular unit to simplify paperwork and supply. It was just that I wondered if there was a specific reason for picking one particular legion rather than another one for entering bureaucrats in the lists.<br>
<br>
MacMullen's book on soldiers and civilians is a good read on the subject.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Perhaps rather than a militarisation of civilian officials it is that originally military staff got a role that was much more civilian in character. Roman officials in the early empire had always drawn on military manpower to fill their administrative offices (<i> commentarienses</i>, <i> librarii</i> etc served in provincial administration as well as unit administration). Civilians used in government included public slaves and freedmen. That in later times the civil servants were <i> milites</i> was thus in fact a continuation of earlier practice.<br>
<br>
In the later period the difference (or is it lack of sources for earlier times?) was that men could directly enter the bureaucracy rather than joining the 'real' army, which was by then called the <i> militia armata</i> (armed military service) to distinguish it from the bureaucratic <i> militia</i>. Where the army was previously almost entirely tooth and little tail, the late empire saw a growing distinction between differing functions which grew increasingly apart.<br>
<br>
That soldiers dispatched to certain functions were kept on the roll of other units, even if only for administrative purposes, was not new. It has been suggested that in Syria the <i> singulares</i> of the governor's guard were put on the books of a particular unit to simplify paperwork and supply. It was just that I wondered if there was a specific reason for picking one particular legion rather than another one for entering bureaucrats in the lists.<br>
<br>
MacMullen's book on soldiers and civilians is a good read on the subject.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
