Romans were soldiers

DelanceyPlace.com has a selection from Taken at the Flood by Robin Waterfield:

Republican Rome was truly a warrior society. Ten to fifteen percent of the adult male population was in the army, a number that reached twenty-nine percent in the war against Hannibal and Carthage. Small wonder, since it was one of the principle sources of income for both the country and the generals and soldiers that fought those wars:
Republican Rome was a warrior society, then, from the aristocracy downwards (except that the very poorest citizens were not allowed, yet, to serve in the army). Every year between ten and fifteen percent of the adult male population was under arms, and in times of crisis more: an incredible thirty percent at the height of the Hannibalic War in 213. And everyone benefited, not just from the booty and spoils, but from the intangible benefits of security and the city's increasingly formidable reputation. Over time Rome became adorned with visible reminders of military victories: temples built in fulfillment of a vow taken in wartime; elaborate statues of conquerors, inscribed with blunt reminders of their victories. I killed or captured 80,000 Sardinians, boasted one general on a prominently displayed inscription, and this was not untypical. Most monumental inscriptions dating from the middle Republic and, by the end of the second century, the city was crowded with them, focused largely or wholly on military achievements. The qualities the Romans most admired in a man were best developed and displayed in warfare.
In short, a state of war was not only considered 'business as usual' in Rome by the entire population, but was not considered undesirable, especially by Rome's aristocratic leaders. It is far harder to recover the motives of the ordinary soldier, but several of Plautus' plays (of the third and second centuries) suggest that the attraction of warfare for them too was profit. It was bound, then, to be relatively easy for the Romans to go to war; and it was equally easy to present the wars as justified self-defense or protection of weaker neighbors. Slight pretexts could be taken as serious provocation. This is not to say that Rome was the aggressor in every war it fought, but the facts remain: Rome was almost continuously at war in the early and middle Republic (500-150 BCE, in round numbers), every opportunity for war that the Senate offered was accepted by the people of Rome, and the benefits were recognized by all.

Rico says not much has changed in two thousand years, has it?