10-11-2007, 12:56 PM
I wouldn't have thought that what Marius did had signficant effects beyond what he did with his legions during one campaign, but then I don't believe in any set of 'Marian reforms' making fundamental changes to the Roman army anyway. But that's another argument....
Servants / slaves were a status symbol of the soldier as well as performing important functions assisting the soldier and the army with their tasks, and frequently accompanied them on campaign during both the Republican and Imperial periods - they can be found depicted on tombstone sculpture, for example. They are likely to have been people of pretty low status, and I suspect non-citizens as well as slaves, given that in the 1st century BC anyway, property qualifications for legionary service (though still existing) were to all intents and purposes ignored.
Though not armed under normal circumstances, I don't think the term 'non-combatant' can be used to describe servants / slaves attached to units / soldiers, since they clearly did get involved in combat when appropriate:
Front Strat 2.4.6
Livy 27.18
Caesar, B.G.2.27
Interestingly, when foragers and servants near Q.Cicero's camp came under attack by the Germans (B.G.6.40), the servants showed a basic military sense by making for the nearest high ground and, when dislodged, joining the legionaries who were forming up and followed the veterans in a charge into the camp and safety. It's at this point that Caesar tells us the 'camp followers' - merchants, prostitutes, soothsayers etc. - who were camping beneath the fortifications (ie: outside the camp) were wiped out. This indicates the clear difference between camp servants and camp followers.
For further information, see:
Speidel, M.P., 'The soldiers' servants' in: Ancient Society 20 (1989), 239-248 (though primarily on the Imperial period).
There's also something by Welwei, but I don't have the reference - does anyone else?
Servants / slaves were a status symbol of the soldier as well as performing important functions assisting the soldier and the army with their tasks, and frequently accompanied them on campaign during both the Republican and Imperial periods - they can be found depicted on tombstone sculpture, for example. They are likely to have been people of pretty low status, and I suspect non-citizens as well as slaves, given that in the 1st century BC anyway, property qualifications for legionary service (though still existing) were to all intents and purposes ignored.
Though not armed under normal circumstances, I don't think the term 'non-combatant' can be used to describe servants / slaves attached to units / soldiers, since they clearly did get involved in combat when appropriate:
Front Strat 2.4.6
Livy 27.18
Caesar, B.G.2.27
Interestingly, when foragers and servants near Q.Cicero's camp came under attack by the Germans (B.G.6.40), the servants showed a basic military sense by making for the nearest high ground and, when dislodged, joining the legionaries who were forming up and followed the veterans in a charge into the camp and safety. It's at this point that Caesar tells us the 'camp followers' - merchants, prostitutes, soothsayers etc. - who were camping beneath the fortifications (ie: outside the camp) were wiped out. This indicates the clear difference between camp servants and camp followers.
For further information, see:
Speidel, M.P., 'The soldiers' servants' in: Ancient Society 20 (1989), 239-248 (though primarily on the Imperial period).
There's also something by Welwei, but I don't have the reference - does anyone else?
