<snip>
> Bah! This is one of those statistical misconceptions that always
> annoys me.
>
> Peter is right. Consider: The Roman Empire recruited soldiers on the
> strength of a land grant after 25 years in the legions. If most people
> in your society don't survive a peaceful sedentary life past 35 (as
> I've seen argued, though not here) then who'll ever be attracted to a
> dangerous life on the frontier with a promised reward only a very few
> would ever collect.
There's an amusing anecdote in this.
The legions had the best surgeons and physicians of the Roman civilization. The legionaires that didn't acually get killed during their service actually lived five years longer than the average citizen.
All that healthy excercise and learning about a good diet.
But. On the other hand. Paying off those full service veterans _was_ very expensive. The percentage of troops that survived to get the payoff wasn't large, but it had to be large enough that common people would see those well-to-do ex-legionaires about. Them being a known and respected part of community was the major adverticement for the legions.
It's useful that the real payoff was after twenty years of service. Most roman soldiers just didn't survive twenty years of campaigning.
-Adept
Powered by hypermail