Roman Republican Civil War Legions

[Patrick Waterson]

the caliber of Roman strongmen wasn't particularly high, Marcus Aemilius Scaurus., abandoning the siege of Petra for 300 talents, or Aulus Gabinius who restored Ptolemy XII  for a bribe of 10,000 talents
I seem to remember Herod the Great having to bribe Romans to either fight with him as they'd been told to do, or to go away and turn a blind eye.

And Rome had a reputation for integrity.

I suppose one could say that the 'Roman strongman' in the above cases was significant in one respect, namely that he was the one worth bribing in order to get results ...

[Jim Webster]

one wonders how far down the chain of command the bribe had to percolate, and at what level the chance of loot was enough

The Roman reputation for integrity seems to have been largely held by Romans and even they always seemed to regard it as being of a previous generation
Cato the Younger seems to have come as something of a shock to his generation 

[aligern]

Its no different from the Victorians or likely any imperialists. They were convinced of their own moral probity whilst doing the most immoral and venal things. Imperialism is theft and often murder on a grand scale and self enrichment was as attractive to the British aristocracy as it was to the Roman...or indeed the Macedonian. Aristocrats (mostly) don't regard other people as human on the same scale as themselves, including their own troops. So anyone who conquers on the scale of the Romans, the Mongols, the Turks  or the Arabs, the Greeks, the Barbarians, the French, the British is going to be led by people greedy and venal.  If they were not hungry for money and power they would stay on the farm and read literature or screw slavegirls.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

They might in addition hold banquets, Lucullus being the archetypal case in point.

The trick when building an empire is to be less venal/corrupt/immoral than the present incumbent.  Contrasts are often more important than absolutes.

[Jim Webster]

They might in addition hold banquets, Lucullus being the archetypal case in point.

The trick when building an empire is to be less venal/corrupt/immoral than the present incumbent.  Contrasts are often more important than absolutes.

and also to ensure that a suitably influential group of locals benefit from the opportunities corruption brings. Gives them a vested interest. I think that may have been one of the strengths of the East India Company 

[Patrick Waterson]

And give the local potentates a good thrashing when they step out of line.

This was to a great extent the British and Roman way of empire-building: take your time, start by trading or otherwise contacting a local prince/chief, help him against his neighbours, get into the habit of helping him against his neighbours, let his neighbours ask you to help them against each other, start giving them hints as to who is next in line for succession - and pocket the gold and other things they shower on you, because otherwise they will doubt your sincerity and feel insulted.

In essence, let them draw you in and establish yourself as the trump card in their mutual rivalries.  Once you become the deciding factor in any conflict, you are well on the way to making them permanent 'allies' until they run out of heirs, at which point you graciously assume government of their territories.

There is one further critical consideration: you must stay ahead of the competition.  Very few empires are built from a single power flexing its muscles in an otherwise placid world; more often, two or more dynamic powers are snatching opportunities from each other with the local princes/populations and their own intrigues and wars as backdrop. 

Or you can do it Thutmose III's way: cut out the middleman and go directly for the most powerful opponent, take him down and then pick up the waverers.

That said, I think we are wandering slightly off topic here.

[Jim Webster]

true
But as a general summing up

Western legions of the civil wars probably mainly in mail as more and more equipment came through with less and less men wandering about with no armour

Eastern legions (the dividing line drawn vaguely and without mentioning whether Africa was eastern or western) presenting a somewhat less uniform appearance with a wider variety of armour and helmet types, again with less men with no armour as time went on.

[Patrick Waterson]

Probably not a bad summary, especially for the aspiring figure collector/painter.

I would still think lack of armour to be the exception rather than the rule, but short of borrowing a time machine to go back and check it would be hard to find firm evidence.

[Jim Webster]

Probably not a bad summary, especially for the aspiring figure collector/painter.

I would still think lack of armour to be the exception rather than the rule, but short of borrowing a time machine to go back and check it would be hard to find firm evidence.

I think it's only the figure collector/painter/wargamer who likes diversity in his units who needs worry. There is probably no real difference in the quality of the units other than the accepted inferiority of some hastily raised legions anyway.