So I've been taking a bit of a dive into ancient history, reading books, watching documentaries and listening to podcasts. I'm up to the Roman Republic now, just got past the Punic wars and now am learning about the early difficulties the Romans faced with the sudden growth from a small state to a global power. More specifically it was during a podcast by George Carlin (which I usually use as a jumping off point, recently ordered a book on Olympias and am looking for good books on Hannibal ATM if anyone has any good suggestions)
Anyway in the podcast Dan is talking about how as the Romans expanded and an influx of wealth and slaves that meant a lot of wealthy Romans bought up land and created estates and this in turn meant less of the lower classes owned land. This apparently had an effect on their armies as Romans were required to own land to serve in the army? Carlin then goes on to say the senate was at odds with itself trying to give the poorer people land so they could serve while the rich tried to maintain their wealth and land. Giving the lower class land was purported as the 'obvious solution' and maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't the easiest thing to do make it so non-landowners could serve? I don't really get why it was so important? I mean for one, giving conquered lands to soldiers seems to have been a thing, so theoretically all soldiers who were in successful conquests could've eventually been land owners? Bonus to that, those men might not mind being garrisoned in the new territory so much cause they're owned land is there and not back in Rome. You would also have people who aren't farmers so you could essentially create a professional military instead of a draft type deal. Maybe they do this eventually, I haven't got that far yet, and maybe Dan Carlin just hasn't explained this part very well but it seems like no one seemed to think of this idea despite it appearing quite obvious, maybe that's just modern lenses though.
It seems to be quite important at least at this time for soldiers to be landowners, I'm just looking for some more insight into this, perhaps there's something I'm not seeing or maybe my information is incorrect. I did try to Google this specific question, maybe I didn't phrase it right but I got no answers to this specific question.
Apologies if I butchered any facts, please correct me if I have. I aim to learn. Thanks for any responses!
In the times of the Roman Republic, military service was expected of the citizienry and every soldier needed to provide his own equipment based on his wealth, which was almost ubiquitously land ownership of various sizes.
Most of the Early to Middle Republican legions were made up of citiziens which had to provide their own equipment, and what was supposed to be purchased and therefore their position within the order of battle (the triplex acies, the triple deployment) was mandated by what gear they could afford. This was very much the case between the VI-IV centuries B.C. when the Roman military was not yet configured as a professional, salaried force, thus reliying on the citizienry to go to war as part of their service to the State. Later down the line, after the reforms of Gaius Marius in 107 B.C., the military service would be open to all Roman citiziens including the capite censi, those who didn't fit in the timocratic census due to their lack of wealth, becoming a standing, paid army.
In this case, we can understand why owning land was a very important matter to the Romans both on the military spectrum (only landowners could muster enough resources to supply their equipment in order to perform as quality troops, since poorer Romans could fight as light skirmishers or velites whom could not afford any sort of armour, but only javelins).
Giving conquered land to soldiers both as spoils of war and (more importantly) as pension for their military service when a legion was disbanded (usually after huge losses or at the end of the current campaign) served a double purpose, solved by the same move. It provided upright and loyal citiziens a conspicous compensation for their duty to the State, a paramount obligation which was expected and respected by Roman custom (the mos maiorum), and also placed veteran soldiers in colonies and towns on the borders of a newly acquired territory, forming a sort of permanent garrison. We know how important was the compensation of the veteran legionaires when Virgil laments that his neighbour's farm has been confiscated to be given to a retired soldier, or by Suetonius when in his Vita Divi Iulii tells that Caesar's testament included the payment of a sum of money to the legions large enough to buy a decent-sized farm.
On a sidenote which partially stems away but can be helpful to understand more of the Roman way of thinking, is that land ownership was the only way to radicate the economic, social and cultural model of true Roman values and customs. The Mos Maiorum, the "customs of the forefathers" was deeply connected with the agrarian society of the origins, so much so that Cato the Censor, a politician and rhetoric, wrote an entire treaty (De Agri Cultura) describing the workings and the importance of a well-maintaned estate. Later on, when Rome becomes a Mediterranean superpower, emperor Augustus prohibited senators from owning trade ships because it conflicted, once more, with proper Roman custom.
The FAQ I'm an ancient Roman and I want to join the army. How do I sign up? by /u/Celebreth gives an in-depth description of army formation over a long period of time and across classes, so that should be helpful with understanding the context surrounding your question.
The idea that soldiers should be landowners fits into an idealized model of Roman warfare. Cincinnatus is a good example of this idea: he is often depicted with his plow, to symbolize his return to his farmland after his term as dictator. Under this idea, Romans were simple farmers who went to war to defend their land. There was the idea that a man who owned land would have more at stake in protecting Rome. As combat got farther afield, this idea held less weight. Part of the landowner rule was also about power and wealth. These were the only people who could afford to equip themselves for war, and they were the people allowed to engage at the highest levels of government. They didn't want to give up this power by including others.
The system was founded on these ideas, but they did not last for the reasons you point out. Non-landowners eventually were allowed in the military. This solved the shortage of labor, but introduced other problems which the elite Romans probably wanted to avoid. Men without property did not have outside wealth to fall back on, so they became heavily indebted and aligned with their commanders. This is one reason why in the later empire so many generals become emperor: they had what were essentially their own armies backing them up. In fact, when a new emperor came into power, he went to great trouble and expense to give soldiers a donative, a gift or bonus, as a way of garnering their support. The army changed from something based on an idea of "civic duty" to more of a monetary, mercenary system. It also became a way for a non-landed, non-citizen to raise their status.
To clarify one more point: you mention giving land to soldiers in conquered territory, but I want to point out that this was a reward (along with citizenship) after completing 25 years of service. So even those men do no have a stake in land and they don't even know where the future allotment will be as they are in service.