05-25-2006, 06:37 PM
Quote: But overall, in BOTH the Han and Rome, the soldier fights for the general. The soldier's loyalty to the general is of ultimate importance in order for the army to function right.
If the soldier respects and likes the general he will fight for him, however a soldier will fight for himself most determinedly. One thing that the Romans did quite well for an ancient society was align the interests of the state with that of the citizen. A citizen of Rome was not so much a servant to Rome but more of a part owner. Eastern regimes in the past seem to be rather top-heavy in their class structure. All of the wealth and power going to a very few people.
A peasant fighting for some tax relief might kill an enemy to gain that, but why go further? Why not just hang back and watch other people gain the victory. If your side loses run and go home. Bow to a new emporer and forget to tell him that you killed a man.
Conversely, Roman citizens had much more at stake in winning and losing battles. A winning campaign could elevate a man to a whole new lifestyle. A losing one could ruin him financially. Not to mention that by performing poorly in battle could get your considerable amount of property revoked.
Rich Marinaccio
