I've read that Roman soldiers were often involved in building major infrastructure projects (aqueducts, roads, etc.) when they weren't actively on campaign. Is this a tradition specific to the Romans? If so, why would other armies not do this?

by everybodyclench
Tiako

I can't say for certain because that would require having a much wider array of knowledge than I possess, but I can say that military involvement in civil projects is not a feature in the armies i am familiar with (Classical and Hellenistic, Persian and Song Chinese). Granted, it is possible that these were involved in civil engineering and they simply didn't have the epigraphic habit that the Romans did, but I somewhat suspect not. The reason is because the Roman army was unique for being professional, full time soldiers. The Persian and Song armies were semi-professional, essentially particular divisions of an army would be settled in a particular area en masse, so the frontiers were inhabited by "soldier settlements" that could be called upon if needed but were usually employed in the sort of labor any other settlement would have. The Hellenistic armies were basically mercenaries, and classical Greek armies were levies. So I would say the answer is that Roman armies were unique not only in their extreme capability of engineering but also because for much of the time they were standing around without much to do.

That being said, the Assyrians may have been an exception, I am just not terribly familiar with them.

celticstoneman

I have read of the graves of legionaires being found with various construction tools included in what was their packs. Remember they built an enclosed camp EVERY day after a twenty to thirty mile March.They also built Hadrians wall with a small mile fort every mile and the major forts at about eight miles these were all made of stone.