What happened to Roman soldiers who fought for the losing side in a civil war?

[Kovax]

As far as I can gather from Gaius Julius' "The Gallic Wars", a Legion which revolted and was defeated was disbanded, with harsher penalties (including decimation - killing every 10th man to instill fear) at the discretion of the victor. Net result was that the officers responsible for the revolt were generally punished severely, and the individual Legionaries forfeited any accumulated tenure and pensions, having to essentially start over at the bottom to meet their recruitment obligation. For a 20 year veteran, that was close to a "life at hard labor" sentence, while for a new recruit it would have been a mere inconvenience, since they had little time invested to lose.

Julius' threat/offer to disband the 10th Legion and send it home when it rose up in revolt meant that all of its massive accumulated pensions and loot from the lucrative Gallic Wars would have been forfeited to the state. While it would have meant freedom from service in that particular case, it would also have meant returning home penniless. The legion almost unanimously chose to follow him through whatever it took to finish the civil war, and eventually return home either rich or dead.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Almost permanent civil wars destroyed educate elite, taxation which you mention, trade and ability to govern.

Last known battle where Roman legions were mainly used was battle of Andriapole (378 AD), after this battle Roman professional army was gone because centuries of almost permanents civil wars and battles.

What rubbish is this!?

Rome didn't suffer near permanent civil war, it sort of had a long stretch of them back to back during the Crisis of the Third Century but during the Fourth Century things calmed down somewhat and when they got bad during the Fifth Century Rome was already falling apart in the West so it's to be expected that civil war broke out.

Rome's decline is due to a number of factors including but not limited to the Crisis of the Third Century and religious turmoil during the Fourth Century and a string of ill suited rulers and/or bad decisions as well as economic collapse, likely climatic disruptions and migrations by first the Germanics and then the Huns etc.

 

[Wagonlitz]

or you can have my favorite time travelling emperor drag a hundred thousand home.

Who was that?

 

[icedt729]

What rubbish is this!?

The best part is that he dates the decimation of the Roman officer corps to the crisis of the third century... which ended with Roman recovery under a string of emperors who were all drawn straight from the officer corps. The Danube legions were kingmakers from then on.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

The best part is that he dates the decimation of the Roman officer corps to the crisis of the third century... which ended with Roman recovery under a string of emperors who were all drawn straight from the officer corps. The Danube legions were kingmakers from then on.

Indeed if what he said was true then Rome wouldn't have even made it into the 5th century let alone survived the 3rd.

 

[Lord Tim]

It's not as if there's a settled answer to this question. It seems to have varied from place to place and emperor to emperor. Some units got disbanded (the Praetorians bu Constantine I after his victory), others simply got sent back to their normal posts. The officer corps, particularly if they were known partisans of the loser, seems usually to have come off worse than the troops. Auxiliary units rebelling in support of independence movements was another matter, but even there the response wasn't always harsh.

 

[Kovax]

As I pointed out, disbanding a Legion for some infraction wasn't uncommon, causing the unit to forfeit to the state any accrued seniority, pensions, and shares of loot taken. That meant starting over at the bottom in another unit, but many units weren't disbanded for being on the wrong side of a civil war. Stronger penalties were sometime applied (including decimation) for extreme cases. The officers apparently got harsher treatment on occasion, but even that seems to have been at the discretion of the victor or Senate.

 

[DoomBunny]

All this brings up a point which I think (with my albeit somewhat under developed knowledge of the period) contrasts Rome with many other empires and goes a long way to explaining its greater success. Rome was at heart incredibly pragmatic, capable of on the one hand of great generosity or compromise, and on the other of the complete and utter annihilation of an enemy. In short, it would seem to me that Rome mastered the carrot and stick approach, having a field full of very tasty carrots and a very large spike studded stick dipped in poison to back it up.