+- 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: Rome versus Pyrrhus (/showthread.php?tid=15057)
Rome versus Pyrrhus - Timotheus - 04-29-2009
When Rome battled Pyrrhus of Eprius fought had the Roman legion fully converted from phalanx fighting to the three lines of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii?
As I understand it that was the battle line used during the First Punic War so I was wondering when the conversion became complete.
Finally what was the sword used by the Romans before the gladius was adopted?
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - M. Demetrius - 04-29-2009
Can't answer the first question with certainty, but the second needs clarification.
Romans used more than one sword before the various versions of the Gladius. How far back you are talking about will affect the answer. Probably the immediate predecessor was the "Gladius Hispaniensis", a longer, narrower, more curved-edge blade. Before that, Roman panoply was pretty much like Greek, Samnite, or Etruscan...it all depends on the century you choose. (Century being a measure of time in this instance, not a group of soldiers)
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Timotheus - 04-29-2009
I was interested in the immediate predecessor. So it sounds like the Romans moved to a shorter wider blade for easier use in formation and wider wounds from stabbing.
The first part I will have to research further. I know at one point there were 7 or 8 lines based on the wealth of the Romans and what group it put them in. I am just not sure when the 7 lines were converted to 3 and which of the two Pyrrhus faced.
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Matthew Amt - 04-29-2009
Quote:I was interested in the immediate predecessor. So it sounds like the Romans moved to a shorter wider blade for easier use in formation and wider wounds from stabbing.
Well, as with most things, it's more vague and complicated than that. For starters, "gladius" simply means "sword", and can be used to describe most anything that we might call a "sword". So I'm assuming you mean the immediate predecessor to what we call the Mainz style gladius? That would indeed be the hispaniensis, which was generally narrower but longer. But note that the hispaniensis was in use for almost 200 years, right alongside other styles, so the perceived advantages of other blade styles were apparently not overwhelming.
Before the gladius hispaniensis, things are a little murky. There were various swords in use, some derived from earlier Greek styles, others native developments, but most of what we know comes from artwork rather than archeological finds. There just isn't much to go on!
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Phalanx300 - 04-30-2009
Quote:When Rome battled Pyrrhus of Eprius fought had the Roman legion fully converted from phalanx fighting to the three lines of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii?
You should see this page:
http://www.europabarbarorum.com/faction ... units.html
Rome's army at Pyrrhus's time was the Camillan one. Its from a Historical accurate mod of a game.
At this time only the Triarii would still fight as Hoplites.
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Quintius Clavus - 05-01-2009
To add a bit to what Matt Amt said, at this time soldiers were all property-owning citizens, who purchased their own equipment. Therefore, one's wealth and one's taste affected one's armor and weapons. These items did not enter the depositional record in part due to the private ownership and also to the fact that Roman armies did not usually stay in existence beyond a single campaign season.
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - antiochus - 05-07-2009
Quote: To add a bit to what Matt Amt said, at this time soldiers were all property-owning citizens, who purchased their own equipment.
But this is contrary to the primary sources which clearly indicate the State supplied the equipment. The following references by Dionysius confirm the soldier’s armament was State issued:
III 57 (between 578 and 535 BC), “But King Tarquinius, having for the ensuing year armed all the Romans and taken as many troops as he could get from his allies, led them out against the enemy.” V 44 (503 BC), “the other consul, Menenius, having armed all the men of military age, marched out with them in good order and discipline to the assistance of those upon the hill.” VIII 16 (488 BC), “Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius, raised as large an army as they could from the register of citizens…They also got ready a great quantity of money, corn and arms in a short time.” IX 18 (477 BC), “Then at last the Romans thought themselves safe and arming the youth that were in the city, they took the field.” XI 24 (450 BC), “Appius and Spurius supplied their colleagues who were in the field, with arms, money, corn and everything else of which they stood in need.”
Livy is also forthcoming with references of State issued armament: III. 7 (463 BC), “Quintus Fabius was in command of the city; all men of military age were, by his instructions, armed.” III. 14 (460 BC), “the consuls were in a dilemma: to arm the people and not to arm them...they did finally distribute arms, though on a limited scale.” III. 18 (460 BC), “troops were enrolled and arms issued.” III. 20 (460 BC), “Valerius armed the people for the recovery of the Capitol.” (III 15) The consuls were afraid either to arm the plebeians or to leave them without arms. Arms were however, distributed, not indiscriminately, but only, as it was an unknown foe, to secure protection sufficient for all emergencies. (III 17) He ended his speech by saying that he was taking up arms, and he summoned all the Quirites to arms.…The tribunes had better order arms to be taken up against P. Valerius the consul, as they forbade them to be used against Appius Herdonius. (III 18) They decided that help should be sent, the men of military age were enrolled, arms were distributed. (III 20) At the time when P. Valerius supplied the people with arms for the recovery of the Capitol, they all took the oath to muster at the consul's orders, and not to disband without his orders. We, therefore, issue an order that all of you who took that oath appear under arms, tomorrow, at Lake Regillus. III. 42 (449 BC) “the senate…decreed a supply of arms to be sent to Tusculum to replace those that had been lost.” V. 39 (390 BC) they decided that the men of military age and the able bodied amongst the senators should…withdraw into the citadel…after getting stores of arms and provisions. VI. 2 (389 BC), when he (Marcus Camillus) had completed the enrolment and equipment of the army, he formed it into three divisions. VI. 6 (387 to 386 BC), You, Quintus Servilius, are to mobilise and equip a second army and keep it encamped in the city, ready for action…A third army must be recruited by Lucius Horatius…Lucius Horatius is to provide arms, missiles, corn and everything else to meet the demands of the situation.
In addition to the references cited above by Dionysius and Livy, both Gellius (Attic Nights XVI X 12), and Valerius Maximus (II 1), mention the distribution of “public arms.”
Now there are numerous more for most periods and sadly I have not been collecting them all but I think I better start again.
Quote:Therefore, one's wealth and one's taste affected one's armor and weapons.
So therefore you propose the legion did not have a homogeneous array of weapons, but everyone turned up with what he liked? How would this impact on tactics and training?
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Theo - 05-08-2009
Guys,
I see on Amazon that there is a biography of Pyrrhos due out later this year!
Theo
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Matthew Amt - 05-09-2009
Quote:Quote: To add a bit to what Matt Amt said, at this time soldiers were all property-owning citizens, who purchased their own equipment.
But this is contrary to the primary sources which clearly indicate the State supplied the equipment. The following references by Dionysius confirm the soldier’s armament was State issued:
Zoiks! Mr. James, THANK YOU! Fascinating stuff, and a clear demonstration of the perils of relying on secondary sources! One might haggle a little on whether this all refers to state funding, or private funding by wealthier individuals (perhaps even at state request), but clearly it ain't "every man for himself" across the board. Gotta read more...
Quote:Quote:Therefore, one's wealth and one's taste affected one's armor and weapons.
So therefore you propose the legion did not have a homogeneous array of weapons, but everyone turned up with what he liked? How would this impact on tactics and training?
The assumption has been that each man equipped himself, but according to some set of guidelines. So shields would all be the same general style, etc., and a hastatus would know to have pila rather than the lighter javelins used by velites, for instance. No, can't quote a source on those guidelines! No idea if they were law, regulation, or simply tradition...
So, now we have to throw out all kinds of assumptions! I love research. IS there firm evidence that each man was equipping himself according to wealth at some point? Or when that practice started?
Valete,
Matthew
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - SigniferOne - 05-12-2009
Quote:But this is contrary to the primary sources which clearly indicate the State supplied the equipment. The following references by Dionysius confirm the soldier’s armament was State issued:
III 57 (between 578 and 535 BC), “But King Tarquinius, having for the ensuing year armed all the Romans and taken as many troops as he could get from his allies, led them out against the enemy.” V 44 (503 BC), “the other consul, Menenius, having armed all the men of military age, marched out with them in good order and discipline to the assistance of those upon the hill.” VIII 16 (488 BC), “Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius, raised as large an army as they could from the register of citizens…They also got ready a great quantity of money, corn and arms in a short time.” IX 18 (477 BC), “Then at last the Romans thought themselves safe and arming the youth that were in the city, they took the field.” XI 24 (450 BC), “Appius and Spurius supplied their colleagues who were in the field, with arms, money, corn and everything else of which they stood in need.”
Livy is also forthcoming with references of State issued armament: III. 7 (463 BC), “Quintus Fabius was in command of the city; all men of military age were, by his instructions, armed.” III. 14 (460 BC), “the consuls were in a dilemma: to arm the people and not to arm them...they did finally distribute arms, though on a limited scale.” III. 18 (460 BC), “troops were enrolled and arms issued.” III. 20 (460 BC), “Valerius armed the people for the recovery of the Capitol.” (III 15) The consuls were afraid either to arm the plebeians or to leave them without arms. Arms were however, distributed, not indiscriminately, but only, as it was an unknown foe, to secure protection sufficient for all emergencies. (III 17) He ended his speech by saying that he was taking up arms, and he summoned all the Quirites to arms.…The tribunes had better order arms to be taken up against P. Valerius the consul, as they forbade them to be used against Appius Herdonius. (III 18) They decided that help should be sent, the men of military age were enrolled, arms were distributed. (III 20) At the time when P. Valerius supplied the people with arms for the recovery of the Capitol, they all took the oath to muster at the consul's orders, and not to disband without his orders. We, therefore, issue an order that all of you who took that oath appear under arms, tomorrow, at Lake Regillus. III. 42 (449 BC) “the senate…decreed a supply of arms to be sent to Tusculum to replace those that had been lost.” V. 39 (390 BC) they decided that the men of military age and the able bodied amongst the senators should…withdraw into the citadel…after getting stores of arms and provisions. VI. 2 (389 BC), when he (Marcus Camillus) had completed the enrolment and equipment of the army, he formed it into three divisions. VI. 6 (387 to 386 BC), You, Quintus Servilius, are to mobilise and equip a second army and keep it encamped in the city, ready for action…A third army must be recruited by Lucius Horatius…Lucius Horatius is to provide arms, missiles, corn and everything else to meet the demands of the situation.
Wow superb research, +laudes.
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Paullus Scipio - 05-12-2009
Well, I'll just sound a note of caution, whilst joining in the applause for Antiochus'/Steven's post.
There is the well-known description in Polybius III.6.23 "...Besides these arms the common soldiers place upon their breasts a breastplate of brass a span square, which they place over the heart and call the 'heart-protector'(pectorale]); but those who are rated above 10,000 drachmae wear instead of this a coat of mail ( called lorica)"
Clearly each man's personal wealth/worth affected his equipment. How to reconcile this? ....obviously, each man could replace his 'State Issue' gear with better equipment purchased privately, and evidently men above the level referred to often (had to?) did so. This suggests to me that in fact, as in later times, the soldier paid for his equipment by compulsory deductions from his pay. Consider also that in 207 BC, when Claudius Nero embarked on his epic march to the Metaurus to confront Hasdrubal, he was joined on the march by many retired veterans - where did their arms come from ? The answer seems to be that having purchased their arms - state issued or private - they retained them in retirement. In fact it was Hasdrubal's observation of "old shields" in the Roman ranks ( and the double trumpet call of two Consuls present) that gave the game away....
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - antiochus - 05-13-2009
Quote:Mathew wrote: So, now we have to throw out all kinds of assumptions! I love research. IS there firm evidence that each man was equipping himself according to wealth at some point? Or when that practice started?
Yes there is, read the following.
Quote:Paullus wrote: There is the well-known description in Polybius III.6.23 "...Besides these arms the common soldiers place upon their breasts a breastplate of brass a span square, which they place over the heart and call the 'heart-protector'(pectorale]); but those who are rated above 10,000 drachmae wear instead of this a coat of mail ( called lorica). Clearly each man's personal wealth/worth affected his equipment. How to reconcile this?
Quite easily. When describing the Servian reform, Dionysius (IV 19) states:
“As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating.”
This means those who could afford better armament, such as worn by Class I paid a higher war tax for the better equipment. According to Dionysius, in 507 BC, when the Romans found themselves under siege from the Etruscan king, Lars Porsenna, to deter the poor from betraying the city, Dionysius (V 22) states the senate:
“had a vote passed that they (the poor) should be exempt from all the public taxes which they had paid while the city was under the kings, and also from all contributions for military purposes and wars, looking upon it as a great advantage to the state merely to make use of their persons in defending the country.” On the same episode, Livy (II 9) comments:
“The plebs were exempted from the payment of harbour-dues and the war-tax, so that they might fall on the rich, who could bear the burden; the poor were held to pay sufficient to the State if they brought up their children.”
Later as a measure to reimburse those who paid the war tax, for the campaign of 503 BC, Dionysius (V 47) states: “This booty (taken from the Sabines) having been sold at public auction, all the citizens received back the amount of the contributions, which they had severally paid for the equipment of the expedition.”
In 406 BC, with the introduction of pay for military service Livy (V 10) states “And now, to crown all, they even had to pay a war-tax, so that when they returned, worn out by toil and wounds, and last of all by age, and found all their land untilled through want of the owner's care, they had to meet this demand out of their wasted property and return to the State their pay as soldiers many times over, as though they had borrowed it on usury.”
What the tribune is saying is that although the men are being paid while on campaign, because of the duration of the campaign, the soldier’s pay will not be enough to pay for the war tax on the equipment, which in the end will leave the soldier in debt like previous past campaigns.
So with the hastati, they paid a lower war tax on their equipment in accordance with their class and the type of armament issued, as did the principes and triarii.
Quote:Paullus wrote: ....obviously, each man could replace his 'State Issue' gear with better equipment purchased privately, and evidently men above the level referred to often (had to?) did so.
Where is the proof?
Quote:Paullus wrote: This suggests to me that in fact, as in later times, the soldier paid for his equipment by compulsory deductions from his pay.
Yes the war tax.
Quote:Paullus wrote: Consider also that in 207 BC, when Claudius Nero embarked on his epic march to the Metaurus to confront Hasdrubal, he was joined on the march by many retired veterans - where did their arms come from?
Armament distribution points within municipalities. Not every soldier went to Rome to be enlisted. Consuls enlisted armies in provinces.
Quote:Paullus wrote: The answer seems to be that having purchased their arms - state issued or private - they retained them in retirement. In fact it was Hasdrubal's observation of "old shields" in the Roman ranks (and the double trumpet call of two Consuls present) that gave the game away....
Sorry Paul, but the statement about the old shields is so ambiguous it cannot be even remotely considered evidence. What does old mean? Worn out? If used then they could indicate troops with combat experience. Does old mean the colour of shields was standardised as red at the beginning of the Second Punic war then by Senate decree changed to blue after Cannae? Therefore, Hasdrubal, seeing old red shields, with blue shields now confirms new troops had arrived. We could debate this with no conclusion to the end of time.
Add to the other references on arming troops we have Livy II 27 495 BC Every man must be given liberty again before arms were put into his hands. Livy (XXIX 1) “arrived in Sicily (205 BC), Scipio organised his volunteers into their ranks and centuries. He picked from them 300 men, all young and of exceptional physical strength and vigour, and kept them with him unarmed and ignorant of the reason why they were neither posted to centuries nor furnished with equipment.”
Polybius (VI 21) also states “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.” The next step is the men are sorted out into velites, hastati, principes and triarii. Then in VI 26, Polybius adds “The tribunes having thus organized the troops and ordered them to arm themselves in this manner, dismiss them to their homes. When the day comes on which they have all sworn to attend at the place appointed by the consuls —each consul as a rule appointing a separate rendezvous for his own troops, since each has received his share of the allies and two Roman legions.”
What is being said is the men are divided into their troop type governed by class, then sent to the armoury and issued with the necessary equipment. Then they return home with the equipment and assemble at a place ordered by the consul. The war tax was abolished in 168 BC.
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Epictetus - 05-13-2009
Excellent! Previously, I had been swayed by T.J. Cornell. He argues (in part):
Quote: Indemnities began a regular feature of Roman military policy in the fourth century, and frequently entailed the requisitioning of military supplies, such as clothing and equipment, for the Roman army. This indicates that Roman soldiers were no longer serving at their own expense, but were receiving food and equipment, in addition to wages, as a regular condition of service. If this practice was already established in the 390s, as seems likely, it would be reasonable to connect it with the reforms of 406 BC. This conclusion is consistent with the hypothesis that from that time service in the legions was no longer the preserve of a wealthy group who could afford their own armour and weapons, but had been extended to all citizens who could meet a relatively modest property qualification.
Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome
(I had argued for this in the thread State issued equipment before the Marian reforms?, by the way.)
But now I think you have me convinced, Steven. Once again, excellent research and excellent post.
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - Jesper D - 05-15-2009
Hello,
As I understand it the romans did away with the phalanx in the late 4th century to be replaced by the more flexible maniple system suitable to the hilly terrain of Italy. However the early maniple system consisted of one line of skirmishers/swordsmen(hastati) and two of spearmen(principes, triarii) not to mention the specialized skirmishers(velites) attached to each line. The principes is believed to have changed from spears(hasta) to pila and gladii around the middle of the third century thus becoming the classical principes.
During the conflict with Pyrrhus I suppose the Spearmen outnumbered the the skirmisher/swordsmen and thus the equipment would not have differed much from that of spearmen in a phalanx formation while the style of fighting and tactics with the maniples would have been significally different.
My two cents would be on that state issued equipment met a minimum standard quite early thus supplying perhaps pectorales to the hastati, while the higher census classes probably would prefer or was made to buy their own better gear.
It is quite ironic that the state provided the richest of the rich with a free horse... Equites Equo Publico... Tradition I suppose..
Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus - antiochus - 06-28-2009
Jesper, quoting Cornell (The Beginnings of Rome) wrote:
Quote:If this practice was already established in the 390s, as seems likely, it would be reasonable to connect it with the reforms of 406 BC. This conclusion is consistent with the hypothesis that from that time service in the legions was no longer the preserve of a wealthy group who could afford their own armour and weapons, but had been extended to all citizens who could meet a relatively modest property qualification.
Cornell is wrong.
References as supplied by me, show state issued armaments long before 406 BC. Much of Cornell’s interpretation of the Servian constitution is flawed. :oops: :oops: :oops: Unfortunately, for him, he relies on Fraccaros (spelling) theory for the military aspect of the Servian constitution, that the three classes amounts to 60 centuries (40 + 10 + 10), and this represents a legion. There is one aspect of the Servian constitution that is not discussed by academics and concerns the references by Dionysius and Livy the voting favoured the rich with 98 votes versus 95. Strangely this matter is not raised during the Struggle of the Orders. Everything else from land reform to entering the consul is fought over but nothing on the inequality of the voting system. Now Dionysius does state the century assembly became more democratic over time, so if it was not an issue during the Struggle of the Orders, then it must have become very democratic at a much earlier date. To become democratic, the organisation must have changed, which means the mathematics have changed. And this is what happened. Dionysius and Livy have used sources detailing two different century assembly organisations. Livy’s comment the number of iuniores and seniores had doubled by his day is correct, but he has taken this from a later reform of the Servian organisation which equates to that given by Cicero of 70 centuries of Class I and not 80 centuries as listed in 530 BC. If the number of centuries in the Servian organisation of 530 BC is doubled, for its military aspect, you end up with an exact Polybian legion. So in a nutshell, the organisation as given in the 530 BC Servian organisation is corrupt.Quote:As I understand it the romans did away with the phalanx in the late 4th century to be replaced by the more flexible maniple system suitable to the hilly terrain of Italy.
Oh yes the old chestnut of the maniple being introduced after the Romans encountered the Samnites, :roll: :roll: :roll: those hills people whose military science had all of Italy in awe. Seem to remember once reading were Einstein stated he got the basis of the theory of relativity from the Samnites. :twisted: :twisted: And those hapless Romans trapped at the Claudine Forks in 321 BC, and the disgraceful surrender that followed, all due to them not having the little maniple organisation. :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh if they had, they would have won the day. Now those great academic minds that propose the Romans copied the maniple from the Samnites forget one important fact. Livy (VIII eight) describes the Roman legion in 340 BC as already consisting of maniples (some 19 years before Claudine). So how do they explain this? Easy! Livy has corrupted the sources by introducing his maniple legion at too an early date. Great analysis.
Now about that the belief the maniple was introduced to better operate in the hilly terrain of Italy, in the first Samnite war a consular army did operate against the Samnites in hilly terrain without any problems. In fact they used their light armed to slip between the Samnite outposts. Next is the ridiculous myth perpetrated by modern historians that the Samnites did not fight conventional battles and instead used tactics of ambush and evasion. Really!!! Any historian worth his salt only has to read Livy’s Books VIII to IX to notice there are 15 regular battles between the Romans and the Samnites, with the Samnites forming up in a single acies. The Caudine Forks ambush was not a typical Samnite tactic, and according to Livy (IX. 31), in the final desperate years of the Third Samnite war, and as a result of a loss of confidence from many defeats, the Samnites adopt a policy of avoiding open battle unless they had the advantage.
One must realise soldiers are not stuck to bases like wargame armies. And there is references to maniples in the Roman army long before the Claudine Forks. Plutarch writes the maniple was archaic and of Latin origin. No one confessing to studying the Roman army can ignore these references.
Quote:However the early maniple system consisted of one line of skirmishers/swordsmen(hastati) and two of spearmen(principes, triarii) not to mention the specialized skirmishers(velites) attached to each line. The principes is believed to have changed from spears (hasta) to pila and gladii around the middle of the third century thus becoming the classical principes.
I’ve compiled all the battle accounts of the Servian army from any source I can get, and on first appearance the text is contradictory and confusing. However, all we are getting is different little aspects of a battle, described in varying ways. But it does makes sense and has many parallels with the maniple legion. This explains why it was a simple process to change the Servian army into a maniple legion.
Quote:During the conflict with Pyrrhus I suppose the Spearmen outnumbered the skirmisher/swordsmen and thus the equipment would not have differed much from that of spearmen in a phalanx formation while the style of fighting and tactics with the maniples would have been significally different.
As stated, the differences between the Servian army and the maniple legion are minor. Both fought in multiple lines and both conducted line relief. The Servian army did not fight in the same manner as the Greeks. In fact the Italiote peoples display a superiority in fighting than the Greeks, which are in comparison, unsophisticated and unimaginative.
Quote:My two cents would be on that state issued equipment met a minimum standard quite early thus supplying perhaps pectorales to the hastati, while the higher census classes probably would prefer or was made to buy their own better gear. It is quite ironic that the state provided the richest of the rich with a free horse... Equites Equo Publico... Tradition I suppose.
The reason why the state supplied the horses is because all equipment for war was provided by the state, so no need to for anyone to buy their own equipment or parts of it. Now if the men had to provide their own equipment, I would imagine it would have been very difficult to levy artillerymen. Plus who brings the tent? My viewpoint will not change
– “the state issued the equipment, which includes all the equipment necessary for the army.”