How did Roman soliders refer to their army?

[rustydoornob]

I was reading a short story my friend wrote and the commander of the roman army said, "Your home from henceforth shall be the mighty Republic of Rome."

Is that something a commander would say? it just sounds cheesy to me. Anyone know of any information that would help us settle this?

thanks

[Neuraleanus]

commander of the roman army said, "Your home from henceforth shall be the mighty Republic of Rome."

That does sound cheesy. It is my understanding that a miles's loyality was more to his dux, his commander, than to the res publica, the state. In latin the word for army is exercitus, so a more likely statement of the dux to the miles would be:

Domus tibi exercitus dehinc erit Your home henceforth shall be the army.

[Lucius Rabirius]

History tells you the answer easily: If you look at roman armies of Caesar and Pompeius, Marc Antonius and Octavian, Sulla and Marius, Octavian and Brutus/ Cassius fighting each other or the year 68/9 (I know its not republic, but the spirit is similar for armies), there cant be a very big feeling for the republic or empire, its more for centurio or commander of the army, as Neuraleanus tells.

This thing was also very good for Octavian, because after Caesar got murdered, the roman soldiers liked Octavian as a relative and heir of Caesar and favorised him. So there is no big loyality and feeling for republic. I´m sorry if i repeated myself :lol: .

[Magnus]

Welcome to RAT rustydoornob! Mind adding your real name to your signature? Forum rules. 8)

[Carlton Bach]

Pretty much as was said above. In the Republic, the army could not be anyone's home. The near-permanent militaries of the late Republic were focused on an individual warleader, so their soldiers were domiciled 'in X's umpteenth legion'. Inscriptions from the Principate usually identify the unit as the soldier's 'home'.

Of course there was always the phrase 'army' (exercitus), but I doubt it was used much in the sense we use it today. The examples I know use it in the sense of 'Roman forces in X'.

[Sallustius Metellus]

Keppie's article on the "Changing Face of the Roman Legion" attributed the switch in loyalty to several factors. The extended length of service meant that soldiers could no longer return to their communities. The increasing recruitment of non-Italians, which began with Caesar's raising the V Alaudae, meant that most soldiers had never been to Rome and were not attached to the idea of the republic. Finally, the local recruting of legions meant the soldiers were more tied to their own area than the state.

[Urselius]

There are plenty of late period coins with the inscription "gloria exercitus" (the glory of the army), so the idea of the army as an entity was certainly entertained by the Romans. Despite differences in the areas soldiers were posted to, from grey Rhine-mouth swamps to African deserts, the physical infrastructure of the army was relatively uniform. A soldier plonked down in any camp could instantly orientate himself as they were built to a very restricted number of plans. Also all units had similar routines of duties and festivals, they had the same burial clubs etc. Everywhere the army was, the culture would be very similar.

As in all human constructs there were complications: although army units were very similar in the way they worked there was a culture of fierce unit chauvanism leading to often bitter rivalry between units. This was one reason behind the relative ease with which political leaders could get Roman soldiers to fight each other savagely during episodes of civil war.