RomanArmyTalk

To answer many of the latest posting I think I will need two days to cover everything, and that’s omitting the absurdities. And some are not aware that the history of early Rome was written by other writers long before the birth of Livy. And when all else fails label it anachronistic, or should I say the favourite tool of the inept academic. As to money, the Roman monetary system is still an enigma to many academics. The good ones believe it should not be treated in the same fashion as our monetary system. Do you really think that when Cicero bought a vial for 100,000 secteres, some slave pushed a barrow full of the coins to the villa owner?

Dear Academia

I say this, you love to sprout that Livy and Dionysius use of the term cohort for the late 6th century is anachronistic. However, as no one in academia has any idea of what the size of a legion was or how it was organised in the late 6th century, what is your evidence that the legion was not organised into cohorts?

Once upon a time academia, you told us the cohort was only introduced with the Marian reforms but now you prefer to say it was introduced in 210 BC. This has come about because Polybius mentions the term cohort for the year 210 BC. Bell introduced this theory in 1966 and it was not widely accepted because it was in conflict with the Marion theory, and many an academic had accepted the Marian theory. However, a new generation of inept academics, whom lacking any ability or original thinking have embraced Bell’s theory (apparently they want to be seen to be different to the Marian theorist). I guess academia follows Maoism who was continually changing the red book on a yearly basis. So dear academia, what will the next theory be for the introduction of the cohort? And as you have no idea of the size and organisation of the late 6th century legion, or any legion, could you please just admit it and put a stop to this stupidity as too many have jumped on your idiotic bandwagon.

Quote:To answer many of the latest posting I think I will need two days to cover everything, and that’s omitting the absurdities. And some are not aware that the history of early Rome was written by other writers long before the birth of Livy. And when all else fails label it anachronistic, or should I say the favourite tool of the inept academic. As to money, the Roman monetary system is still an enigma to many academics. The good ones believe it should not be treated in the same fashion as our monetary system. Do you really think that when Cicero bought a vial for 100,000 secteres, some slave pushed a barrow full of the coins to the villa owner?

Dear Academia

I say this, you love to sprout that Livy and Dionysius use of the term cohort for the late 6th century is anachronistic. However, as no one in academia has any idea of what the size of a legion was or how it was organised in the late 6th century, what is your evidence that the legion was not organised into cohorts?

Once upon a time academia, you told us the cohort was only introduced with the Marian reforms but now you prefer to say it was introduced in 210 BC. This has come about because Polybius mentions the term cohort for the year 210 BC. Bell introduced this theory in 1966 and it was not widely accepted because it was in conflict with the Marion theory, and many an academic had accepted the Marian theory. However, a new generation of inept academics, whom lacking any ability or original thinking have embraced Bell’s theory (apparently they want to be seen to be different to the Marian theorist). I guess academia follows Maoism who was continually changing the red book on a yearly basis. So dear academia, what will the next theory be for the introduction of the cohort? And as you have no idea of the size and organisation of the late 6th century legion, or any legion, could you please just admit it and put a stop to this stupidity as too many have jumped on your idiotic bandwagon.

Such vitriol! Nothing like a spirited debate.

As to currency, Roman didn't mint bronze as coins (nor sestercie) in the 6th century BC, so I don't see how someone could have had a net worth of 100,000 of them to qualify for the 1st Class. Similarly, Dionysius uses Greek currencies in describing the amounts, which also are not accurate to the setting of 6th Cent. BC Rome. Meaning the description is anachronistic. The property requirements of the Servian constitution would have had to have been tallied in a manner that actually existed during its time. Same goes for the swords. Did Livy just not know Rome hadn't been introduced to the Spanish yet so couldn't possibly have copied their swords? Or did he just use the term for the sword that was popular in his own day? Me thinks the latter. As for the cohorts, who rightly knows? Maybe the 6th century legions had them, maybe they didn't. Other sources don't describe them at that early time period. Somebody is wrong.

Also, in regards to the war tax, Livy 4.36, 10.46, and 23.41 all state that the war tax was used substantially, if not wholly, to pay soldier's salaries, not to pay for arms. In addition, Livy 27.9 states the Socii also had to pay the war tax and I doubt Rome was buying them arms as well. Lastly, Plutarch's Life of Cato the Elder 5.6 states that military transportation costs were also paid for by taxes, so that's another thing taxes would have went for. Mules and horses are another. In addition, the war tax could go for paying for provisioning an army (men and beasts eat a lot), as well as buying ships, and other commodities not related to actual arms carried.

Another interesting couple of lines dealing with arms comes from Polybius' description of the Dilectus. After the "candidates" are chosen, placed in legions, and sworn in, but not placed into classes of soldier type yet, they are released:

"The tribunes in Rome, after administering the oath, fix for each legion a day and place at which the men are to present themselves without arms and then dismiss them." (Pol Hist 6.21.6)

Now I might be an inept academic but to me that sounds like the men already had their own arms before they were even put into their classes. If they were issued state owned arms, when did this occur? The next time the legion meets, the men are placed into classes and maniples/turmae within their legion. After, the following occurs:

"The tribunes having thus organized the troops and ordered them to arm themselves in this manner, dismiss them to their homes." (6.21.1)

So the whole day is spent taking roughly 5,000 men and organizing them into coherent classes of infantry and putting them into subunits, no easy task in of itself. At the conclusion, right before they are dismissed, the soldiers are told to arm themselves in the manner they are assigned (by class type) and then given another report date. So I think this can be used as evidence that, according to that source, at that time period, in those circumstance, the soldiers provided their own arms.

Bryan wrote:
As to currency, Roman didn't mint bronze as coins (nor sestercie) in the 6th century BC, so I don't see how someone could have had a net worth of 100,000 of them to qualify for the 1st Class.

I thought we had an agreement (on your insistence) we do not to reply to each other’s postings. I’ve honoured it to date. As to the monetary issue, as I stated it is too contentious and no academic has gotten to the bottom of it to fully understand it. The Romans could have had a system of credit money, which is discussed in “The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans,” by W.V. Harris. However, from the same book, comes this:

“That metal bullion weighed out on the balance normally served as an antecedent, if not in many cases a prerequisite, for the introduction of coinages in the ancient Mediterranean world is not a new idea. The principle was recognized at least as early as Aristotle, who explains at Politics 1257a how metals came to be used for monetary exchange. At first men simply determined the value of the metal by size and weight; but later they impressed a stamp on the metal, as an attestation of the amount, in order to ‘save men the trouble of determining the value on each occasion. Roman antiquarians knew that their coinage, too, was preceded by a long period in which bullion, in this case bronze bullion, aes rude, was weighed out in monetary transactions. Bullion hoards and votive deposits, many of them huge, dating down to the third century bc, when Rome began to cast bulky pre-weighed coins of bronze, have been recovered widely throughout Italy.3 Moreover, from written sources we learn that such primitive bronze money of amorphous lumps and cast bars was employed by the Romans in all manner of payments, from paying fines—literally, weighing fines (pendere poenas) like the 300 asses imposed in the Twelve Tables for breaking the bones of a free man—to the process of mancipatio, the solemn procedure for selling property by bronze and scale (per aes et libram) that involved the weighing out of bronze by the libripens, ‘the suspender of the scales’, before witnesses. Citizens used it to pay their property tax or tributum to the state treasury, the aerarium. Finally, the state used it in its payment of the stipendium militare, the ‘weighed heap’ of bronze for military service.”

Are you serious about starting a discussion on Roman money Bryan. As to the sword, it is flippant what he calls it. All I know is he is talking about a sword and that is fine by me. You bring up a couple of examples, but does that mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Bryabn wrote:
At the conclusion, right before they are dismissed, the soldiers are told to arm themselves in the manner they are assigned (by class type) and then given another report date. So I think this can be used as evidence that, according to that source, at that time period, in those circumstance, the soldiers provided their own arms.

No, it doesn’t prove anything, well to me nothing. It can also be interpreted that the soldiers are dismissed, and then they go to the state armoury, are issued their kit according to the wealth and age, then on the report date turn up.

Quote:No, it doesn’t prove anything, well to me nothing. It can also be interpreted that the soldiers are dismissed, and then they go to the state armoury, are issued their kit according to the wealth and age, then on the report date turn up.

The only reason to organise a muster into wealth groups is to determine who can afford to bring what equipment. It was a very common practice from the Bronze Age right through to the end of the Medieval period. Each group is ordered to turn up with specific gear and if a person can't afford to do this then he is relegated to a lower wealth group with less expensive equipment requirements. If he can't meet the minimum equipment requirements then he is refused permission to fight at all. The modern concept of a state owned arsenal filled with gear that is doled out to recruits is actually very rare historically.

Dan wrote:
The modern concept of a state owned arsenal filled with gear that is doled out to recruits is actually very rare historically.

There is a reference if memory serves me well, of Cicero mentioning state arsenals. I haven’t got the time just now to dig this out.

Steven wrote:
As to the monetary issue, as I stated it is too contentious and no academic has gotten to the bottom of it to fully understand it. The Romans could have had a system of credit money

Notice I never wrote earlier that Romans didn't have currencies or a method of tallying wealth. But aes rude aren't coins, they are ingots or just chunks of bronze with no standard measurement. They sure aren't the as coins. Like I wrote in my earlier post, the manner in which Livy and Dionysius both describe the currency used in the Servian Constitution is WRONG. The currency types used then were not asses, minae, or drachma, those are anachronistic terms.

Steven wrote:
As to the sword, it is flippant what he calls it. All I know is he is talking about a sword and that is fine by me.

As for the Spanish Sword, while some might not care a fig over the anachronistic use of such a description, I find it pretty good evidence of another quick and easy demonstration that Livy uses anachronistic concepts. While a sword might just be a sword to some people, regardless of the historical meaning of it, then a legion might just be a legion, a cohort a cohort, and other fine details can likewise be ignored. I guess its totally cool to describe Napoleon's infantry carrying AK-47s, because its flippant what to call those things that go bang.

Let's think this through logically; if the initial claim is that Livy never uses anachronistic concepts, and then he is proven to have used them, doesn't that mean Livy's writing is anachronistic? If 2+2=5, then I guess Steven is right.

Stevne wrote:
No, it doesn’t prove anything, well to me nothing. It can also be interpreted that the soldiers are dismissed, and then they go to the state armoury, are issued their kit according to the wealth and age, then on the report date turn up.

For that to be possible, it first would mean completely ignoring the previous line that deals with Polybius stating that after the first day of the Dilectus, the men are dismissed and told specifically NOT to bring arms for the next day. Now take note, this is before they are even put into their classes, so a man wouldn't 100% know what class type he would fall into. Would he serve with the Principe? The Triari? As a cavalryman? Makes sense not to bring arms in that case. But to bring them, they must have already possessed them, meaning the state hadn't issued them.

Next, you are describing something that would never be quick and easy. First, this is supposed to have happened all in one day (in the winter, meaning shorter daylight hours), after the time necessary to take nearly 5,000 men, organize them individually into infantry/cavalry classes and then put them into organized subunits under actual leaders. What you're describing is an extremely complex procedure. If you've ever worked with large groups of people, you'd know this is NOT an easy task. Let's do the math on this:

Let's say it only took 30 seconds for one individual to be issued his equipment (which is EXTREMELY conservative, if not impossible). If one line existed to issue equipment, it would mean 5,000 men would take 150,000 seconds, or 2,500 minutes, or 41.6 hours to get issued equipment. So if ten lines were made, which would require a massive structure and logistical support in the form of slaves, that would mean it could be done in a little over 4 hours. And this is after spending the whole day herding 5,000 men into soldier classes and into maniples/turma. All during the winter season, where daylight is 9-10 modern hours long, in a time where all public functions cease after dark. Now make believe that each individual takes one whole minute to gather their equipment. That means a single line will take 81 hours and ten lines would take 8 hours. If legions were armed by the state, it wasn't happening in one day.

Further, the quick mass issuing of equipment like you describe would entail huge warehouse somewhere in a secured area, which from what I know, didn't exist at this time. It would have to be absolutely massive to contain the arms necessary to equip the 8-10 legions that were on average fielded yearly during much of the Middle Republic (P. Brunt). That means large enough facilities or multiple separate armories to contain the panoply necessary for 40,000-125,000 soldiers in any given year. We know certain temples in Rome had collections of captured arms taken as spoils in previous wars and that these were sometimes used to arm scratch forces during emergencies but enough to equip every Roman? Not in this time period, that capacity didn't exist. And what about the hundreds, if not thousands of state owned slaves or bureaucrats, that would be necessary to run these warehouses and to assist the minimum 20,000 men in the consular legions (not counting the praetorian armies also raised) that would need arms issued yearly? Did Rome possess the bureaucratic structure that would be necessary to care for, account for, and issue this large amount of equipment? Nope.

In sum, your assertions have a few obvious problems. One is that you completely ignored the first piece of evidence from Polybius that stated the men were told to report and NOT bring arms, meaning they already possessed them at a time when their military class distinction hadn't been confirmed. That alone is evidence that your theory has holes in it. Second is that it appears you were never in any situation in real life to experience the complexities of large groups of people getting issued equipment of any kind or being organized into a cohesive force, because if you had you would know its not something you can do quickly or easily, and would thus alter your theory. Third, I already know that these few measly points aren't enough evidence to change your mind, as enough evidence doesn't exist to ever do that. Got to give it the ol' college try though.

Quote:For that to be possible, it first would mean completely ignoring the previous line that deals with Polybius stating that after the first day of the Dilectus, the men are dismissed and told specifically NOT to bring arms for the next day. Now take note, this is before they are even put into their classes, so a man wouldn't 100% know what class type he would fall into. Would he serve with the Principe? The Triari? As a cavalryman? Makes sense not to bring arms in that case. But to bring them, they must have already possessed them, meaning the state hadn't issued them.

Not as cavalryman. Equites were elected separate, from Equestrian class..

Quote:

Quote:For that to be possible, it first would mean completely ignoring the previous line that deals with Polybius stating that after the first day of the Dilectus, the men are dismissed and told specifically NOT to bring arms for the next day. Now take note, this is before they are even put into their classes, so a man wouldn't 100% know what class type he would fall into. Would he serve with the Principe? The Triari? As a cavalryman? Makes sense not to bring arms in that case. But to bring them, they must have already possessed them, meaning the state hadn't issued them.

Not as cavalryman. Equites were elected separate, from Equestrian class..

Per Polybius, Equites were part of the legion and would have been there on the day of the Dilectus. Further, a controversial theory exists that not every cavalryman was a member of the Equestrian Order. There is evidence of members of the First Class that also would have also served as cavalry, the equites equo privato, who purchased their own horses. This could have become a necessity when Rome began fielding more and more legions but hadn't dropped the property requirements for the Equestrian Order. This would explain why the Equites went from being chosen last to first at the Dilectus, as those that had property requirements that made them eligible for the equestrians could be assigned to the infantry if not needed as cavalrymen. So a wealthier member of the 1st Class could show up on day one and two of the Dilectus and not know whether he'd serve as an infantryman or cavalryman.

Quote:Dan wrote:
The modern concept of a state owned arsenal filled with gear that is doled out to recruits is actually very rare historically.

There is a reference if memory serves me well, of Cicero mentioning state arsenals. I haven’t got the time just now to dig this out.

We know that by the late republic and empire periods that Rome had started issuing equipment to troops but this is one of the exceptions, not the rule. For three thousand years the most common way to equip troops was to require specific wealth classes to provide specific gear purchased and maintained at their own expense. Evidence of a Roman state arsenal dating to the relevant time period would be more helpful.

Quote:We know that by the late republic and empire periods that Rome had started issuing equipment to troops but this is one of the exceptions, not the rule. For three thousand years the most common way to equip troops was to require specific wealth classes to provide specific gear purchased and maintained at their own expense. Evidence of a Roman state arsenal dating to the relevant time period would be more helpful.

You are correct. At the same time Rome started supplying arms in great quantities was also the time period when class and wealth stipulations were abolished and also coincided with the Dilectus, for the recruitment of Roman legions, no longer occurring in Rome itself, as after the Social War, legions were frequently raised in other locations of Rome's territory by imperium holding Roman magistrates.

FYI, Steven is referring to Cicero's Cicerco. pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo 20.

Cicero’s work references the consuls Marius and Valerius equipping senatorial supporters with arms (a collection of possibly hundreds, maybe at most a few thousand, individuals, not multiple legions) taken from temples and public armories to be used in a street battle in the forum against the rabble army of the tribune Saturninus during the December 10th, 100 BC Revolt of Saturninus. That temples with weapon caches and public armories existed is obvious, Rome didn't just throw away or give away all the arms collected during war, captured or extra, nor other extraneous equipment. It would have needed to be stored and maintained. But this is a far cry from the massive support structure necessary to equip all the Roman legions. Hundreds of thousands of individual pieces of equipment would take up a lot of space and require a ton of upkeep and support.

Bryan wrote:
Third, I already know that these few measly points aren't enough evidence to change your mind, as enough evidence doesn't exist to ever do that. Got to give it the ol' college try though.

Well you guessed right. I can't ignore those references to the state handing out the kit. Much of the responses are not evidence, just opinions or interpretations. They are interesting none the less.

Now can we go back to our agreement?

Quote:Bryan wrote:
Third, I already know that these few measly points aren't enough evidence to change your mind, as enough evidence doesn't exist to ever do that. Got to give it the ol' college try though.

Well you guessed right. I can't ignore those references to the state handing out the kit. Much of the responses are not evidence, just opinions or interpretations. They are interesting none the less.

Now can we go back to our agreement?

If the source supports your theory then its a good reference and is absolute proof but if it conflicts then either its opinion, interpretation or the source itself just got it wrong. That's some good history. My inept academic professors in school would have loved that mindset.

And about our agreement, I welch. But I'll keep it to a minimum. I don't want you wasting too much time here responding to posts when you're so close to finishing the book and being published.

Do I get a signed copy if I stop replying to your posts? :-)

Byran wrote:
My inept academic professors in school would have loved that mindset.

Well I hope your professors practice what they preach. Too many don’t. I been told by a few retired professors in my lifetime how the standards have dropped among academics. I am not a lone voice, I have posted comments on this very forum written by other academics lamenting the same thing.

Byran wrote:
I don't want you wasting too much time here responding to posts when you're so close to finishing the book and being published.

I suppose I am to believe that was not written with sarcasm?

Byran wrote:
Do I get a signed copy if I stop replying to your posts?

Is this the first case of blackmail on RAT? I have made it public on this very forum what my intentions are. I am following a plan outline by Professor Ridley to publish a certain number and then freely distributed them among the libraries around the world. Professor Ridley will be the one deciding which libraries will receive a copy. I am keeping a small number to give to those who helped me throughout the project. Three copies are already allocated to RAT members.

One thing this discussion has made me realise is about the focus of me research. The title of the book is “The Roman Army: Decoding Its Pythagorean Organisational Development.” So focusing on the history of the soldier’s pay and whether the state issued the weapons are not the focus of the book, which is about the history of the legion’s organisation. I’ll have to give it some thought.

Quote:I am following a plan outline by Professor Ridley to publish a certain number and then freely distributed them among the libraries around the world. Professor Ridley will be the one deciding which libraries will receive a copy. I am keeping a small number to give to those who helped me throughout the project. Three copies are already allocated to RAT members.

While deferring to the wisdom of Prof. Ridley, I hope that this does not mean that, apart from the copies that you distribute personally, the rest disappear into the maws of the libraries, never to be seen again. I recall that, about ten years ago, I tracked down a published French thesis on Roman military law that interested me. The British Library did not have it and the only copy that I could find in the whole of the UK was in the library of Balliol College, Oxford. Although I had no connection with the college, they kindly let me study it. It was published in 1907 and the pages were still uncut!

I would like your book have as wide a circulation as possible and to be properly reviewed in respected academic journals and I wonder if they would trouble to do this, if it were not available on the open market. There may well be reviewers who do not accept your thesis but I want to see the arguments for and against and to assess the merits and demerits of each, before reaching my final conclusion.