+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Rorarii and Accensi (/showthread.php?tid=13709)
Rorarii and Accensi - SigniferOne - 09-30-2008
Hi folks,
Is there a consensus for how the Rorarii and Accensi were used in a pre-Polybian legion, for example during the Samnite Wars?
For those of you who've played Rome Total War, you'll understand how difficult it is to find a role even for the three "stock" republican types, viz. Hastati/Principes/Triarii. Oftentimes you're tempted just to recruit massive armies composed just of the Principes (the best of all worlds), and you really have to wreck your brain to try to maintain three different types of infantry units.
Given that, how did the Romans manage to squeeze in two more battlefield roles into the situation?
I'm just having a difficult time trying to imagine how five different battle-lines would've been used in an engagement, especially since the last two were unreliable and thus for all intents and purposes useless.
Rorarii and Accensi - Spurius Papirius Cursor - 10-01-2008
Hi SigniferOne
This link of any help?
[url:hkc77ryw]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6622/legions.html[/url]
Cheers
SPC[/url]
Re: Rorarii and Accensi - SigniferOne - 10-01-2008
Kind of, but not really. I already know the overall statistic on the Rorarii/Accensi numbers, and understand that they stood in the last two lines behind the Triarii. What I don't understand is simply how they could've be used for anything.
As again, I'm referencing RTW here: on a conceptual level it's very difficult to think of three separate (but equivalent) heavy-infantry types, and to try to find battlefield uses for them. As I said again, in RTW I could be perfectly happy recruiting my whole army from the Principes, and then not have to worry about other pesky infantry details. So recruiting Hastati and Triarii is already taxing, not just in some silly game but on a tactically conceptual level, as a battlefield commander.
I don't understand what possible role adding two more lines ofthe Rorarii and the Accensi could serve; especially if the Triarii were the last and strongest line anyway. What, did the Romans expect that if the Triarii broke the Rorarii would hold the line instead? Not very likely!
So why have them? Why didn't the Romans just absorb the Rorarii/Accensi into the frontal Principes/Hastati lines? In other words, what tactical advantage did these extra 2 lines give, or what social roles/orders necessitated that they stand separate from everyone else? They just seem so useless.
Rorarii and Accensi - Spurius Papirius Cursor - 10-02-2008
Hi James
I was looking more at the author's reference to Delbrűck which considers this interpretation of the R&A as non-combatants:
"(Delbrűck) considers the Leves, the skirmishers, to be a part of the 40 man Rorarii unit assigned to each Hastati maniple. For the 10 Hastati maniples that would place some 200 skirmishers directly in front of the battle line. These are the men who would retreat through the gaps in the Hastati line.
He also mentions that there may have been other skirmishers on the flanks; possibly the other 20 Rorarii of the Hastati maniples. (Delbrűck) does not believe the Rorarii of the Principes and Triarii maniples were combat soldiers at all, but rather were unarmed assistants. The Accensi, he says, were totally misinterpreted by Livy. These were the 6 orderlies of the cohort.
In muster formation the three 40 man Rorarii units would stand behind the 60 man Triarii maniples. Behind them would stand the 6 Accensi orderlies. This gives the number of 186 men as "sub Signis." (My paragraphing)
I know little about the early republican era and have only encountered Delbrűck in references as above. However, I think Livy deserves scrutiny and wonder whether this may be a case where it was warranted. If the roarii (and the accensi) that are linked to the Triarii were, in fact, admin types, they may not have been on the battlefield at all, but back in the defensive marching camp.
I'd gained the impression - again with the caution I know little about this period - that if "the battle came to the triarii", then their job was to act as a rearguard, slowing the enemy down by holding formation and retreating in good order while the rest, under their cover, beat a fleet retreat back to the encampment.
Anyhoo
If it helps, tell your friends - if not, don't tell anyone.
Cheers
Howard/SPC
Rorarii and Accensi - Paullus Scipio - 10-02-2008
Hi Howard!
Nice to see a fellow Brizvegan here......
D The relevant section of Livy is VIII.8 :
"At first the Romans used the large round shield called the clipeus,[/i][hoplite shield] afterwards, when the soldiers received pay, the oblong shield called the [i]scutum was adopted. The phalanx formation, similar to the Macedonian of the earlier days, was abandoned in favour of the distribution into companies (manipuli); the rear portion being broken up into smaller divisions.[ see post] The foremost line consisted of the hastati, formed into fifteen companies/maniples, drawn up at a short distance from each other. The company/maniple had twenty light armed soldiers(leves) who carried a long spear (hasta) and short iron javelins,(gaesaque), the remainder carried shields/scuta. This front line consisted of youths in the first bloom of manhood just old enough for service. Behind them were stationed an equal number(15) of companies/maniples, called principes, made up of men in the full vigour of life, all carrying shields and furnished with superior weapons. This body of thirty companies [Hastati and Principes]were called the antepilani. Behind them were the standards under which were stationed fifteen companies/maniples, which were divided into three sections called vexillae/banners; the first section in each was called the pilus, a single vexillum consisted of 60 men to every standard (vexillum), two centuriones and a vexillarius/banner-bearer, the company(ordo) numbering 186 in all. The first vexillum led the triarii, veterans of proved courage; the second the rorarii, younger men and less distinguished; the third the accensi, who were least to be depended upon, and were therefore placed in the rearmost line."
Now, I would interpret this to mean that the Triarii consisted of three parts (vexilla/banners); one part the Pilani/Triarii, the veterans; one third Rorarii, younger and less distinguished; and one third Accensi, least reliable.
Most lexica translate 'Rorarii' as 'light armed', but I doubt this since Livy has alkready described the skirmishers/Leves.
'Accensi' simply means attendants, and is used of attendants on magistrates, for example.
To me it seems that the front third of the Triarii were the best of the veterans, the middle third younger and less distinguished veterans, bolstered by their attendants/servants/batmen bringing up the rear of the 'line'(ordo) of Triarii, thus there were only ever three lines; Hastati, including 'leves' who ran out to skirmish;Principes, the main battle line; and Triarii, themselves split into three sub-divisions, from front to rear, but forming a single 'third line'.
I hope this solves SigniferOne/James' problem !!
Rorarii and Accensi - Spurius Papirius Cursor - 10-02-2008
Hi Paul - Hi James
If Delbrűck has been paraphrased correctly, both by myself and where I sourced the reference to him, I gather he was trying to juggle the figure of 186 with the implications of that number. I'd love to see the actual text one day to see his reasoning.
But, Paul, you've got me thinking now. My current focus (and headache) is the late Roman Army. Earlier, I came across another reference to "standard" or "flag" referring to the troop-echelon carrying it. Well, yeh, OK. But at the same time (I have a few tabs up) I'm reading about subdividing an echelon (by ranks). Best-armoured at the front, more-lightly (or not) armoured behind. And, I'm coming across references to phalanxes in this early Byzantine period. (Sorry, can't source those last two.) A fourth bit was about the necessity for soldiers to multitask, specifically exhorting recruits to learn to use a bow. Which suggested that those with nothing else to do behind the armoured front line could gainfully employ themselves loosing off missiles over the heads of those in the combat line (in fact, I've probably read that somewhere too).
I can, however, source the "flag" and the "bow" bits - Maurice's Strategikon: [url:ltd6z5et]http://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&id=ihDmbG-BhXsC&dq=strategikon&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=frlnjRpayb&sig=Uxng5g4TM_5h8wzz7TbNUD0OroY#PPA15,M1[/url] pages 12 & 15.
So, what's my point? Well, I'm wondering (drawing a longish bow) if history wasn't repeating itself in the 6th century AD?
Assuming Paul's interpretation is in the right direction. I'm not convinced I'd have had the skivvies out in the field but then, why not? If the triarii (close formation spearmen) had to become involved, then might not they benefit from someone behind gainfully employing themselves as above? Last line behind the triarii brings the ammo, second line fires it, front line stonewalls as best it can.
Hmmm..................
Thinking
Cheers
Howard/SPC
Re: Rorarii and Accensi - Frank Chadwick - 10-07-2008
I like Duncan Head's take on this issue (ARMIES OF THE MACEDONIAN AND PUNIC WARS, 1982). He argues that the Accensi were unarmed camp servants who were armed as an emergency expedient during the Latin War (the war fought by Rome against their Latin Allies). He has two pieces of evidence.
1. That's what the name means -- attendants. The fact that the only time Livy ever mentions them in combat is in 340 during the Latin War says something. Certainly when all of Rome's allies, who normally provided half the field army, turned on them, there was a sudden and desperate need to get more men in the field.
2. The fact that their commitment in battle the one time they are mentioned came as a surprise to their Latin opponents (who were, after all former and soon-to-be-again allies, and so should know something about how the army worked) suggests that they were not routinely armed and committed.
As to the rorarii, I have not yet found an explanation which I find convincing. Head says that they probably are a duplicate reference to the leves, or at least were simply light infantry attached to the triarii, as the leves were light infantry attached to the hastati. His argument for this is a reference in Livy to there being "no reserves behind the triarii," which does indeed suggest that the rorarii fought in front of the triarii rather than forming an additional rank behind them. He also argues that they were probably light troops since they are noted as running into battle. Much as I respect Head's reasoning and research ion most subjects, I just don't find these arguments very compelling. Athenian hoplites, after all, ran into battle on occasion, but that hardly makes them light troops.
But the truth is I have no better explanation to offer.
Good luck on this one.
Frank Chadwick
Rorarii and Accensi - Spurius Papirius Cursor - 10-11-2008
I'm all out of ideas but I hope this thread keeps going. It's an area I'd like to know more about. Good luck James.
Howard/SPC
Re: Rorarii and Accensi - SigniferOne - 10-14-2008
Quote:Now, I would interpret this to mean that the Triarii consisted of three parts (vexilla/banners); one part the Pilani/Triarii, the veterans; one third Rorarii, younger and less distinguished; and one third Accensi, least reliable.
This is what I have the problem with. Why would you want to put the less reliable men behind? And the even less reliable ones behind them? The whole Roman military philosophy revolved around dismissing the countless numbers of weak proletarians completely; the remaining smaller force of middle-class soldiers was then imbued with the utmost military valor and armor. To include reliably weak soldiers seems to go completely against such a military philosophy; and to put them in the back seems to go even against plain common sense. Why not "train them up" a little bit and then put them up front? I don't get it.
Re: Rorarii and Accensi - antiochus - 10-15-2008
Although it may appear there is contradictory information about the rorarii this does not necessarily mean the information is incorrect. If Varro states the rorarii opened the fighting by skirmishing, and Livy claims the rorarii were in the fourth line, then perhaps Varro is writing about a period when the rorarii were “trained up,â€
Re: Rorarii and Accensi - Watcher - 10-19-2008
"Our sole authority is a single chapter in Livy (viii.8) , but it "is equalled by few others in compressed richness of information," and is in itself sufficiently intelligible, although tortured and elaborately corrupted by Lipsius and others, who were determined to force it into harmony with the words of Polybius, which represent, it is true, most accurately the state of a Roman army, but of a Roman army as it existed two centuries afterwards. According to the plain and obvious sense of the passage in question, the legion in the year B.C. 340 had thrown aside the arms and almost entirely discarded the tactics of the phalanx. It was now drawn up in three, or perhaps we ought to say, in five lines. The soldiers of the first line, called Hastati, consisted of youths in the first bloom of manhood (florem juvenem pubescentium in militiam) distributed into fifteen companies or maniples (manipuli), a moderate space being left between each. The maniple contained sixty privates, two centurions (centuriones), and a standard bearer (vexillarius); two thirds were heavily armed and bore the scutum or large oblong shield, the remainder carried only a spear (hasta) and light javelins (gaesa). The second line, the Principes, was composed of men in the full vigour of life, divided in like manner into fifteen maniples, all heavily armed (scutati omnes), and distinguished by the splendour of their equipments (insignibus maxime armis). The two lines of the Hastati and Principes taken together amounted to 30 maniples and formed the Antepilani. The third line, the Triarii, composed of tried veterans (veteranum militem spectatae virtutis), was also in fifteen divisions, but each of these was triple, containing 3 manipuli, 180 privates, 6 centurions, and 3 vexillarii. In these triple manipuli the veterans or triarii proper formed the front ranks; immediately behind them stood the Rorarii, inferior in age and prowess (minus roboris aetate factisque), while the Accensi or supernumeraries, less trustworthy than either (minimae fiducia manum), were posted in the extreme rear".
by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.
Re: Rorarii and Accensi - antiochus - 10-20-2008
Quote:"behind them stood the Rorarii, inferior in age and prowess (minus roboris aetate factisque), while the Accensi or supernumeraries, less trustworthy than either (minimae fiducia manum), were posted in the extreme rear".
by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.
Thank you for the translation by W. Smith, available at the Bill Thayer site. But what is the premise of your posting?
Rorarii and Accensi - Paullus Scipio - 10-21-2008
Spurius/Howard wrote:
Quote:Assuming Paul's interpretation is in the right direction. I'm not convinced I'd have had the skivvies out in the field but then, why not?...the use of camp servants and even slaves to support their masters in the field was quite common, especially in an emergency or if outnumbered... ( we hear of it in Greek warfare, for example - e.g. Thermopylae or Plataea) and it is likely that servants participated in many battles but were simply "unworthy of mention" in the literature .
Frank wrote:
Quote:I like Duncan Head's take on this issue (ARMIES OF THE MACEDONIAN AND PUNIC WARS, 1982). He argues that the Accensi were unarmed camp servants who were armed as an emergency expedient during the Latin War (the war fought by Rome against their Latin Allies). He has two pieces of evidence....I would agree that this is highly plausible, especially as we only hear of the 'Accensi' once, in the Latin War.
1. That's what the name means -- attendants. The fact that the only time Livy ever mentions them in combat is in 340 during the Latin War says something. Certainly when all of Rome's allies, who normally provided half the field army, turned on them, there was a sudden and desperate need to get more men in the field.
2. The fact that their commitment in battle the one time they are mentioned came as a surprise to their Latin opponents (who were, after all former and soon-to-be-again allies, and so should know something about how the army worked) suggests that they were not routinely armed and committed.
If this were the case then an interesting possibility suggests itself. The first two lines consisted of 15 Maniples of, each consisting of 'paired' (Prior and Posterior) centuries of 30 men plus a Centurion, which were the 'building blocks' of the Legion, as I have referred to elsewhere. It would be consistent with this if the 15 Maniples of the Third line consisted of a 'Prior' century of Triarii ["veterans of proved courage"](30 men) and a 'Posterior' century of 'Rorarii' ["younger men and less distinguished"]( 30 men). Because the standards are with this third line, each century is called a 'vexillarius' rather than a century. ( it is possible/likely that Livy has it wrong in thinking the 'accensi/attendants' also carried a standard, but perhaps they did, if only to bolster their status/morale, and to help the ruse that they were 'Triarii))
Then, for the purposes of the Latin War, as Duncan has postulated, in the absence of Latin Allies, the Legions are re-inforced by the camp-servants/attendants etc ["least to be depended upon"]('Accensi') and this is the army which Livy describes.
No surprise that servants/attendants, probably ill-armed ( though with at least helmet, scutum and spear, since they are mistaken for Triarii by their Latin foes) and with no/little training, are less dependable than their masters and are largely there to 'make up the numbers'.
In the battle that Livy describes,(VIII.9.9) the 'Rorarii' run out between the 'Antepilani' (Hastati and Principes) and join battle. The Latins seemingly are not surprised by this and possibly commit their own equivalents, and the struggle continues. Meanwhile the 'Triarii' continue to kneel in the rear, while the Consul prevaricates on whether to commit them yet. Finally he commits the 'Accensi' instead and, in Livy's words:
"No sooner had they gone up, than the Latins, supposing their enemies had done the same, sent in their own 'Triarii'. These, having fought fiercely for some time, and worn themselves out and broken or blunted their spears, yet were driving back the (Roman) foe, and supposed that they had already won the field and penetrated the last line, when the Consul cried out to the Roman 'Triarii'.....When the 'Triarii' had got to their feet, fresh and sound in their glittering armour, a new and unforeseen array, they received the 'Antepilani' into the gaps between between their files (implying they were still in 'open' order; elsewhere Livy tells us that the 'Triarii' 'closed up'and fought as a solid line), and, raising a shout, threw the enemy's front ranks into disorder...."
Points to note here:
1. The 'Rorarii' are clearly 'heavy/close order' Infantry of the third line who fight 'hand to hand', and most unlikely to be 'light' troops who seem to have been shieldless missile-men at this time.(notwithstanding Varro's comments)
2. They come as no surprise to the Latins, hence are likely to be an established part of the 'normal/typical' Roman Army of the time.
3. The 'Accensi', if a new scratch force drawn from the Proletariat were armed with at least scuta, spears and helmets if they were mistaken for 'Triarii' ( there was a precedent for raising troops from the Proletariat like this - on at least one occasion in the war against Pyrrhus)
4. Despite being the 'least reliable' the 'Accensi' fight sufficiently well to exhaust the Latin 'Triarii', even if they do give ground.
5.The real 'Triarii' wear 'glittering' armour i.e. metallic, probably implying that even at this early date(340 B.C.) the 'Triarii' were largely mail-clad.
6. The 'Triarii' apparently kneel, and initially stand, in 'open' ( 6 ft frontage per man) order, and the antepilani withdraw through the "gaps between their files" ( see Warfare in the Classical world - Warry; for how I believe/postulate the Roman ranks stood in open order in a 'quincunx' formation, to allow 'Antepilani' throwing of 'Pila', before closing up into 'close' order (3 ft frontage per man) just before contact....the Greeks and Macedonians did the same, though their drill was based on files and not, as the Romans, on ranks)
7. The total numbers for the Legion would be :
Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Rorarii and Accensi; 15 Maniples x 60=900 each.Leves 20 x 15 maniples =600
Total for Legion 5,100 plus 150 Centuriones and 75 Vexillarii
Grand Total: 5,325 plus 300 Cavalry = 5,625.
(At VIII.8.14 Livy says " There were customarily four legions raised of 5,000 foot each, with three hundred horse to every legion..." which is approximately correct, but in general at this time and later it is apparent that legions numbered 4,000-4,200 foot - correct if one excludes 'Accensi' as being an 'emergency' levy)
This then, seems to me the most likely explanation of 'Rorarii' and 'Accensi'......that the former were a normal part of the third line, along with 'Triarii' at this time, and the third line was equal in numbers to the first two ( by Polybius' time, they had disappeared, leaving the 'Triarii' third line only half as many as the first two) and that the 'Accensi' were raised from the Proletariat who normally functioned as attendants/servants/batmen, just for the emergency of the Latin War (340 B.C.)
Both are almost certainly, going by Livy's account, 'Heavy' Infantry ( notwithstanding Varro, who may have been speaking of 'Rorarii' of a different era...the trend throughout the history of the Roman Army is for the proportion of light infantry to be turned into the more valuable heavy variety - witness the demise of the later 'Velites', turning the whole Legion into 'Heavy' Infantry)
Rorarii and Accensi - Paullus Scipio - 10-21-2008
Antiochus/Steven wrote:
[quote]I have found Livy’s account of the legion (VIII eight) is taken from various sources and Livy does not tell us he has changed his source. Take for example the 186 men he describes which would seem he is discussing a grouping of trairii, rorarii, and accensi plus centurions etc. Now this is where it gets deceptive, the mathematics fits for the numbers of trairii, rorarii, and accensi plus centurions etc., but what I have found is Livy is in actuality giving the number of officers, optios, and standard bearers for the entire legion, which does amount to 186 men. It’s just mathematical coincidence. Livy’s legion is a snapshot of the various command structures and his description is quite easy to follow if one inserts a few more “full stopsâ€
Re: Rorarii and Accensi - antiochus - 10-21-2008
Paullus Scipio wrote:
Quote:Could you elaborate on why you think this is so?
Just revealing some of my research. The number of centurions, optiones and standard bearers plus the remaining six officers comes to 186 men. If you take the legion at Zama of 6200 men, the additional 200 are the 186 men rounded to 200. Even though Livy does not say who is being referred to as you correctlly pointed out, those 186 men represent the number of centurions, standard bearers and optios.
I'm not asking anyone to accept this, but in the future I can back it up. Livy has it slightly muddled and the 186 men remains consistent since the introduction of the centuriate legion (before the maniple legion). There is a major political event that saw the introduction of the centuriate legion of 60 centuries. Before that the army was divided or organised depending on the situation. Dionysius makes a reference to this. So if a consul was given a campaign believed to be more threatening, he got the larger army.