6 ms·

Work insanely hard from 20 to 45, retire with citizenship and land. 50% chance of survival. Seems like a very decent deal.

polpenn 3y ago
Life expectancy was probably in the late 30s to early 40s during this time so you’re basically working for the rest of your life.
- Boogie_Man 3y ago
  I can't find a good link, but I think that the average is dragged down significantly by infant death and that a life expectancy of 40 doesn't mean that you should expect to die at 40 if you've already made it to adulthood.
- pineaux 3y ago
  This is a fable. Many people reached old age in the empire and even the middle ages. A low "Life expectancy" doesnt mean people didnt grow old. It just means that many people die prematurely of (now) preventable things. Death of the mother in childbirth ( 1 in 10) Death as a child because of unsafe surroundings Death as a child because of childlabour Death because of infectious wounds Death because of plagues and sickness Death because of random violence Death because of war Death by famine Death by accidents like fire in the house, occupational hazzard or hunting. Or the sinking of a ship. All these things lower Life expectancy. But with luck and a good physique many of them could be avoided.
  - JeffSnazz 3y ago
    > This is a fable. No, it's a myth, or even better, a common misconception. A fable is a morality story.
    - strken 3y ago
      It's closer to a misleading truth or a fallacy. Life expectancy really was that low, but it was driven by child mortality, so knowing the mean life expectancy doesn't give an accurate picture of life expectancy upon joining the army in one's late teens.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      To be argumentative, perhaps Romans living to 40 is a common misconception because it is a morality story about the superiority of modern humans
  - mplewis 3y ago
    Many of the wealthy did. Not so many of the proles.
mr_toad 3y ago
The ones who got land would go on to work that land since it was often their only source of income. Maybe it was more comfortable than being in the army, but it wasn’t the sort of retirement people enjoy these days.
- ForHackernews 3y ago
  They didn't have slaves to do the labor for them?
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    Rich people did, but they weren't legionaries
- shostack 3y ago
  Did their children inherit it? If so, that may have been an important lever for leaving your children better off than you were.
- phantom_wizard 3y ago
  By the time they reach end of their suty, they had enough money to buy slave od even two, they didnt work on this land on their own - this depends on specific epoch though
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Source? I didn't think slaves were that cheap.
huytersd 3y ago
Yeah, but you have to still work the land and survive off of what it gives you. It’s not a comfortable retirement. Cops today on the other hand have it really good, they work for 20 years and then they get a pension for the rest of their lives. You can essentially be retired by 38 and outside of some rough urban areas cops don’t have to work very hard at all.
Zickzack 3y ago
Flavius Josephus writes in the History of the Jewish War against the Romans - an important source for the Roman army - that the first cohort of every legion was twice the size of other cohorts, because it included the veterans, i.e. those who had served 16 years at least. The following calculation is either simplistic or robust, depending on your view. And I am aware that there are simplifying assumptions, like the one that the rate of attrition did not depend on the service age of the soldier. There are reasons for that even. Younger soldiers might have fallen prey to infections because they encountered them the first time. Older soldiers were possibly tougher in that respect. Young soldiers took two years to learn to fight like a legionary. Old soldiers may have balanced their ageing bodies (a decade or more of gruelling service) with their experience. And yes, not all veterans would be incorporated into the first cohort, because they had higher echelon jobs in their respective cohort. But then, the good ones (long lasting ones?) would have been members of the first cohort in the first place because it was supposed to be elite. So bear with me. Josephus gives us that a Roman legion could be divided in eleven roughly even sized parts, with the veterans forming one of these eleven parts. Assuming a constant rate of attrition (see above), this means that about 8% of a legion were lost each year for a variety of reasons other than retirement, 92% made it. If we assume twenty years of service, 0.92^20 gives ~ 0.188, so roughly one fifth of the legionaries made it to retirement. If the same attrition rate applied to auxiliaries - twenty five years of service -, then about one in eight auxiliaries made it. And finally, the Pretorian guard, where the assumption of the same rate may be a stretch: sixteen years of service mean that one in four enjoyed the fruits of his post-military life.

polpenn 3y ago

Life expectancy was probably in the late 30s to early 40s during this time so you’re basically working for the rest of your life.

Boogie_Man 3y ago
I can't find a good link, but I think that the average is dragged down significantly by infant death and that a life expectancy of 40 doesn't mean that you should expect to die at 40 if you've already made it to adulthood.
pineaux 3y ago
This is a fable. Many people reached old age in the empire and even the middle ages. A low "Life expectancy" doesnt mean people didnt grow old. It just means that many people die prematurely of (now) preventable things. Death of the mother in childbirth ( 1 in 10) Death as a child because of unsafe surroundings Death as a child because of childlabour Death because of infectious wounds Death because of plagues and sickness Death because of random violence Death because of war Death by famine Death by accidents like fire in the house, occupational hazzard or hunting. Or the sinking of a ship. All these things lower Life expectancy. But with luck and a good physique many of them could be avoided.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  > This is a fable. No, it's a myth, or even better, a common misconception. A fable is a morality story.
  - strken 3y ago
    It's closer to a misleading truth or a fallacy. Life expectancy really was that low, but it was driven by child mortality, so knowing the mean life expectancy doesn't give an accurate picture of life expectancy upon joining the army in one's late teens.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    To be argumentative, perhaps Romans living to 40 is a common misconception because it is a morality story about the superiority of modern humans
- mplewis 3y ago
  Many of the wealthy did. Not so many of the proles.

mr_toad 3y ago

The ones who got land would go on to work that land since it was often their only source of income. Maybe it was more comfortable than being in the army, but it wasn’t the sort of retirement people enjoy these days.

ForHackernews 3y ago
They didn't have slaves to do the labor for them?
- LtWorf 3y ago
  Rich people did, but they weren't legionaries
shostack 3y ago
Did their children inherit it? If so, that may have been an important lever for leaving your children better off than you were.
phantom_wizard 3y ago
By the time they reach end of their suty, they had enough money to buy slave od even two, they didnt work on this land on their own - this depends on specific epoch though
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Source? I didn't think slaves were that cheap.

huytersd 3y ago

Yeah, but you have to still work the land and survive off of what it gives you. It’s not a comfortable retirement. Cops today on the other hand have it really good, they work for 20 years and then they get a pension for the rest of their lives. You can essentially be retired by 38 and outside of some rough urban areas cops don’t have to work very hard at all.

Zickzack 3y ago

Flavius Josephus writes in the History of the Jewish War against the Romans - an important source for the Roman army - that the first cohort of every legion was twice the size of other cohorts, because it included the veterans, i.e. those who had served 16 years at least. The following calculation is either simplistic or robust, depending on your view. And I am aware that there are simplifying assumptions, like the one that the rate of attrition did not depend on the service age of the soldier. There are reasons for that even. Younger soldiers might have fallen prey to infections because they encountered them the first time. Older soldiers were possibly tougher in that respect. Young soldiers took two years to learn to fight like a legionary. Old soldiers may have balanced their ageing bodies (a decade or more of gruelling service) with their experience. And yes, not all veterans would be incorporated into the first cohort, because they had higher echelon jobs in their respective cohort. But then, the good ones (long lasting ones?) would have been members of the first cohort in the first place because it was supposed to be elite. So bear with me. Josephus gives us that a Roman legion could be divided in eleven roughly even sized parts, with the veterans forming one of these eleven parts. Assuming a constant rate of attrition (see above), this means that about 8% of a legion were lost each year for a variety of reasons other than retirement, 92% made it. If we assume twenty years of service, 0.92^20 gives ~ 0.188, so roughly one fifth of the legionaries made it to retirement. If the same attrition rate applied to auxiliaries - twenty five years of service -, then about one in eight auxiliaries made it. And finally, the Pretorian guard, where the assumption of the same rate may be a stretch: sixteen years of service mean that one in four enjoyed the fruits of his post-military life.