[3] Long service, alongside the training undertaken during wartime, allowed legions to cultivate skill at arms and unit cohesion.
[4] The development of these skills and not being required to send soldiers home to attend to the agricultural needs of the state ensured many successful military campaigns.
[5] However, it was very rare that spoils from an army’s victories equaled the money it took to win them – in fact, only half of the campaigns resulting in triumphs produced riches greater than the payments of the involved soldiers.
[3] The siege was described as a campaign in which the army served for a time longer than usual, which prompted the Senate to decree '...that the soldiers should receive pay out of the public treasury, whereas up to that period every one had discharged that duty at his own expense.'
[6] This view is not supported, with warfare in Rome's early city-state military service was considered an obligation without remuneration (stipendium) for soldiers.
[2] Throughout the history of the tax, it had been opposed by plebeians, and incited by tribunes,[8] yet it was the authority of the Senate which saw it enforced, repaid when circumstances changed, and determined depending on the number of soldiers deployed and the material goods they demanded.
[15] After the defeat of Macedon in 167 BCE, Rome began to function without the Tributum because of booty accumulated through battle and the decrease in legions which needed material support.
[17] Citizens in the provinces had continued to pay unless they were subject to immunity, as was seen in the case of Egypt,[18] but that did not free them from their obligation to hand in a declaration for the census.
[20] In terms of exemptions, “those of the last century” (a kind of sixth class below the five property ratings), the proletarii or capite censi, were neither taxed nor liable for military service.