By Jeffrey T. Fowler, Ph.D.
Faculty Member, School of Security and Global Studies, American Military University
The United States government framework has its foundations in ancient Rome’s government. Rome began with its founding by the Etruscans in 753 B.C. and ended with the demise of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D. The Eastern Roman Empire continued until its fall in 1453 A.D.
By contrast, the United States has existed as a nation only since 1776. However, while the U.S. is commonly called a democracy, it is actually a representative republic founded on the Roman model.
Roman Military Started with Citizens Who Evolved into Professional Soldiers
The Roman army was initially comprised of four legions, or divisions, drawn from taxpaying males residing in Rome who could afford to arm themselves. It was a true citizen army.
As Rome expanded, citizenship and the right to serve in the army were extended to all Italians who could meet the military requirements. The Roman army, while formidable, was comprised of citizen-soldiers and not full-time professionals.
In the second century B.C., the lengthy Punic Wars against Carthage strained the citizen army to its limits. The Roman commander Caius Marius is often credited with reforming the Roman Army into a body of professional soldiers who served for 25 years. The government assumed responsibility for equipping and training these soldiers.
Auxiliary Soldiers Hired to Supplement Roman Army and Avoid Rebellions
The Roman army during this period also utilized foreign soldiers as “auxiliaries” to supplement what the army lacked. For example, the Romans were great infantry soldiers but lacked cavalry skills. To make up for this lack, the Roman army often recruited large numbers of highly skilled “barbarian” cavalry from regional villages. This cavalry was then posted to distant areas of the empire.
This strategy of moving auxiliary soldiers to the outermost areas of the Roman Empire prevented the barbarians from fomenting uprisings against Roman rule in their home territories. Some of these auxiliary units were cavalry, some were infantry, some were mixed units and some were specialized troops.
For example, Syrian archers were renowned for their marksmanship. There is evidence they served at Hadrian’s Wall in northern Britain far from Syria. At the end of their service, they were mustered out and granted Roman citizenship with its better privileges and responsibilities.
Native Italians Hired Other Soldiers to Avoid Military Service
Over the centuries, far fewer native Italians served in the Roman army because they could hire others to do their military service for them. Often, these hired soldiers were barbarians whose first loyalty was to their tribe.
By the late period of the Roman Empire, military commanders could be of barbarian ancestry. The increasing number of those serving in the Roman army who had never seen Italy or Rome tended to have less, if any, affinity for the culture they were hired to protect. That set a dangerous precedent.
US Military Policy: from Local Militias to Professional Soldiers
The United States has experimented with a variety of military models – from a citizen militia during the Revolutionary War to conscription during the two World Wars and an all-volunteer army since 1973. The U.S. military today is composed of professional volunteers, reinforced by the National Guard and Reserves.
Since the beginning of the War on Terror, National Guard and Reserve units have served actively to augment the regular armed forces. Additionally, there is an old and admirable system whereby non-citizens who enlist in the U.S. military and serve honorably gain U.S. citizenship. This is similar to the Roman auxiliary model, although at the individual level rather than at the unit level.
US Military Has Increasingly Used Defense Contractors for Various Duties
Today, only one percent of eligible Americans volunteer for the armed forces. But since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has increasingly relied on foreign and domestic defense contractors to perform military duties. When faced with unplanned military operations such as those after 9/11, the immediate need for personnel resulted in the hiring of large numbers of U.S. and foreign personnel as defense contractors to augment the uniformed military. services.
U.S. defense contractors are not hired for direct combat, but they are necessary for the security of the state and some U.S. installations abroad. Like their Roman auxiliary counterparts, they are contracted for a specific term of service and for specific tasks. Unlike the Roman auxiliaries, however, foreign personnel hired as defense contractors are not eligible for U.S. citizenship at the end of their contract.
Without hiring large numbers of contract personnel to perform specialized tasks, the U.S. military and their Roman counterparts would have great difficulty meeting their mission requirements. While the Romans typically stationed their auxiliary units far from home, the U.S. has pursued a more dangerous policy.
For example, in Afghanistan, the “Afghans First” policy meant that 75% of all personnel contracted had to be native Afghans. That policy fostered conflicting loyalties. Using locals for military and paramilitary purposes has cost American lives. A high-profile attack resulted in the killing of U.S. Major General Harold Greene in 2014. An Afghan soldier was believed to have committed the killing. It was the third such “green on blue” attack — when an Afghan policeman or soldier fires on coalition forces — that year.
Roman Immigration Policy Largely Dependent on Conquests
During the Roman Republic (509 B.C.-27 B.C.) and the early Roman Empire, immigration was largely confined to those whom Rome had conquered and enslaved. Early immigration also occurred when armed migrant tribes seeking new lands attempted unsuccessfully to conquer Roman territory. A famous example of this was the migration of the Germanic Cimbri and Teutones into Gaul (now France and northern Italy) during the period 120-101 B.C.
For 200 years, Roman immigration and border security hinged on aggressively maintaining Rome’s borders against barbarian incursions. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, some barbarian tribal leaders requested asylum within Rome’s borders. But their requests were denied based on the policy of resource sustainment. Roman emperors also made extensive use of friendly allied tribes immediately outside their borders to ensure the safety and security of the Roman Empire.
Two issues drove Rome’s approach to immigration — the security of the borders and economic vitality. For example, the city of Rome was a highly desirable location and many citizens and foreigners moved there in search of their fortune. It became an increasing burden upon Rome to feed approximately one million people even at the height of its power. Overcrowding made finding work increasingly difficult and drove down wages.
US Immigration Policy Has Changed over the Years
The U.S. has had a number of immigration models since the founding of the country. For much of our history, immigration was encouraged as the nation expanded and opportunities for a better life proliferated.
Early Rome expanded by conquering its neighbors. But the U.S. often expanded through the acquisition of land often held by Native Americans, who were then resettled on reservations. Both Rome and the U.S. became more selective about immigration requirements as their borders finalized.
The U.S. has a long history of accepting refugees. They would include those fleeing religious persecution, famine, unrest at home and other destabilizing factors such as the Huguenots, the Irish during the Potato Famine and the refugees from the Vietnam war such as the Montagnards many of whom now reside in North Carolina.
In the decades before and during the early twentieth century, immigrants experienced a rigorous health inspection processing before they were allowed to enter the U.S. at immigration centers like Ellis Island, New York. Today, federal immigration laws are again the subject of heated debate among lawmakers. Some U.S. cities have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” to protect illegal immigrants in their midst from what those municipalities view as discriminatory federal policies.
In the later period of Imperial Rome, immigration was often a result of intense pressure from barbarian tribes displacing other barbarian tribes from their ancestral territories. A tribe under pressure on Rome’s border might request asylum within the border.
But accepting foreign tribes sometimes ended in tragedy. For example, the Goths, under pressure from the Hums, asked Rome for permission to leave their homeland and cross the Danube River into the protection of the Roman Empire. This immigration was approved, but the Goths were terribly mistreated once inside Rome’s borders. They were promised land and food, but were starved and cruelly treated by the Roman population instead. Eventually, the Goths rebelled.
Some observers see a similarity between the Goths’ situation and the current immigration crisis in Europe. But this would be a false comparison.
The Goths were militarized and homogenous tribal groups who were under military pressure from the Huns, another armed and militant tribe. That emigration can hardly be compared to the men, women and children from the Middle East who have fled years of war in their home countries. They are not an armed tribal entity like the Goths.
What We Can Learn from Comparing US-Roman Military Service and Immigration Policies
There are similarities and differences between Roman and U.S. approaches to military service and immigration. Rome and the U.S. both expanded their territory through conquest and both found it necessary to hire contract personnel to supplement their armed forces.
In Rome, the Marian reforms ultimately made it easier for native Italian males to avoid military service. In the U.S., the removal of the mandatory military draft has served somewhat the same purpose as the Marian reforms. One interesting debate today is whether young women of military age should be required to register for the draft just as all young American men must do.
Given the current emphasis on contracting as a means to quickly provide needed manpower in combat zones, it may be that at some point, the U.S. will have to hire contractors for direct combat. This would move the U.S. closer to the late Roman Empire model, when soldiers increasingly fought for pay and not necessarily because they were loyal citizens of the state.
Roman immigration policy was centered on border security and ensuring the economic growth and stability of the state. The U.S. has traditionally encouraged immigration to fulfill its economic and labor requirements. In modern times, that policy has attracted multitudes of foreign students and workers with the high-tech skills necessary to sustain America’s economic lead in the world. It is a given that a great nation cannot exist in a vacuum. At the same time no nation ought to permit wholesale unrestricted immigration. However, those wishing to assimilate into the American culture and make a better life for themselves and their families should be given the chance to do so.
About the Author
Jeffrey T. Fowler, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School of Security and Global Studies at American Military University. He holds a B.A. in law enforcement from Marshall University, an M.A. in military history from Vermont College of Norwich University and a Ph.D. in business administration with a concentration in criminal justice from Northcentral University. Jeffrey is also a published author, a former New York deputy sheriff and a retired Army officer, having served over 20 years in the U.S. Army.
Comments are closed.