Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
There were no Praetorian legions in the Republican army, only cohorts and even they were a late development, usually just being a hand picked guard to generals. You should read the following articles:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/content/view/138/113/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/content/view/67/113/
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
In the II Punic War there are a good number of examples of Praetorian armies of Roman legions+allies, like a typical Consular army, I would say it was the typical Roman field army, rather than Consular or Praetorian. Maybe Consules were given a more numerous allied contingent as usually they were engaged in the main operations, but they could also just be reinforced by a Praetorian army, like in the siege of Capua.
AKA Inaki
Posts: 326
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Hello Patriarch (what's your real name??!)
1. Traditionally, a consular army consisted of 2 legions (Polybius 6.32), and Legions I-IV were those assigned to the two consuls. It may have been considered a greater honour to be recruited into those legions rather than any recruited above that number, but we know very little about that sort of thing. I'm suggesting it because the 24 military tribunes appointed to those legions were elected - probably military tribunes assigned to other legions were appointed. However, consular armies (ie: the armies assigned to or raised by consuls) frequently contained far more than two legions, basically as many as were considered necessary for the campaign assigned to the consul. Praetorian armies (ie: armies assigned to or raised by praetors) contained as many legions as were considered necessary for the campaign assigned to the praetor. At the end of the campaign the legions were disbanded. A campaign might last a few months, or several years - it varied enormously and there was no certainty about how long a legionary in the middle to late Republic might have to serve on one 'campaign'. There was no difference between legions assigned to consuls and those assigned to praetors, though see my suggestion about the honour of Legions I-IV above.
2. I see I've also covered Q.2 there too - basically the size is as necessary.
3. Sometimes consuls and praetors were retained in their commands after their year of office expired. This is known as pro-rogation. A consul might be pro-rogued for several years. Caesar's governorship of Gaul (originally a 5 year appointment) was pro-rogued in 55 BC for a further 5 years). Only consuls and praetors, and ex-consuls and praetors, were qualified to command armies by virtue of the imperium (formal political and military power) held by consuls and praetors during their magistracies. Thus Pompey's command against Sertorius was highly dubious legally because he had never held a senior magistracy and should not therefore have been allowed to command an army.
If you're pro-rogued in your command, you would probably want to retain an army that had served with you, and you would be entirely within your rights to do so. You might (pandering to the popularity of your troops) discharge some soldiers and ask for replacements from Rome. If you're not pro-rogued, or your pro-rogued command comes to an end and the campaign isn't complete (see Metellus in the Jugurthine War), you might go back to Rome with part or all of your army and discharge it, to piss off the bloke who replaces you and make life difficult for him (Roman politics is nothing if not ultra-competitive). If you'd finished the campaign, you would almost certainly return to Rome with your troops and demand a triumph, and would be unlikely to be immediately given a new command.
'Post Marian Reforms'
The 'reforms of Marius' are a modern invention. The Roman army evolved in many ways between the mid 2nd and late 1st century BC, but not because of substantial reforms undertaken by any individual. I'm writing an article on this at the moment and will let RATters know when it's published.
There is no substantial difference in the 1st century BC in the system of provincial governorship / commands that I've described above. Except that 'rules', traditions and laws were broken with increasing regularity.
