After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed by Hannibal, Arminius, Spartacus, the Civil Wars after Caesar's death, the Battle of Arausio in 105 BC (80,000 Romans killed), the battle of Carrhae against the Parthians and so on.
shareThat's why they started recruiting some of the "barbabrians" into the army. 😀
shareYes, if by "recruiting" you mean "enslaving".
I'm guessing if the Roman army used slave soldiers--or even paid ones--they would do well to import these soldiers from other parts of the empire. It's easier to look at the enemy as "less than" if they don't speak your same language, seem barbaric & uncivilized.
Yes, if by "recruiting" you mean "enslaving". I'm guessing if the Roman army used slave soldiers--or even paid ones--they would do well to import these soldiers from other parts of the empire.
Groups of Germanic or Sarmatian tribespeople were granted land to settle in the Empire, in return for military service. Most likely each community was under a treaty obligation to supply a specified number of troops to the army each year.
Well, I'm not a scholar, but it only stands to reason that the Romans had to get their fighters from somewhere.
VOLO′NES is synonymous with Voluntarii (from volo), and might hence be applied to all those who volunteered to serve in the Roman armies without there being any obligation to do so. But it was applied more especially to slaves, when in times of need they offered or were allowed to fight in the Roman armies. Thus when during the second Punic war after the battle of Cannae there was not a sufficient number of freedmen to complete the army, about 8000 young and able-bodied slaves offered to serve. Their proposal was accepted; they received armour at the public expense, and as they distinguished themselves they were honoured with the franchise.
Did you even read what you quoted? "freedmen" are not slaves. thats a technicality but there were no slaves in roman army.
shareWell, I'm not a scholar, but it only stands to reason that the Romans had to get their fighters from somewhere.
I'm not arguing.
I am a scholar who studied Classical history and you are completely wrong.
Don't comment further, your interpretations are not needed.