>>17980365
>This is not even touching on how corrupt even joining the military was and how you had to bribe soldiers to join your cause
This is a Republican thing. Imperial generals couldn't afford to pay for their troops out of their own pockets.
>just paying Germans to fight for them as they were cheaper and actually available because already existing Roman legionaries were blocking new citizens from enlisting because that'd eat into the bribes they got
Emperors like Diocletian just enforced conscription to make people join the army en mass. The only real 'bribe' they got were donatives for ascension or a certain year for the emperor and that was paid at a fixed rate for each soldier, so more soldiers didn't mean less of it for the individual.
I guess you could still describe the tendency for soldiers to throw their weight behind their general as corruption, but that's not really uniquely Roman.