+- 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: Why were the Triarii differently equipped? (/showthread.php?tid=24250)
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Nathan Ross - 09-26-2014
Quote:35 years old man during ancient times would be in much worse physical condition than modern men of the same age.
I wouldn't be so sure. I suspect that a fit and healthy 35-year-old of the 2nd century BC, accustomed to a simple diet, constant exercise and regular arms training since youth would be in much better physical shape than the average 35-year-old today, accustomed to sitting at a computer all day and maybe going 'running' once a week!
Quote:average length of life in ancient times was hardly more than 55-60 years or lower.
Life expectancy in the ancient world is hard to estimate, and confused by massive infant and child mortality (something like 50% of children dying before the age of 10), disease and death in childbirth. A man who survived into his 20s, however, could expect to live into his 60s, and overall age demographics do not appear to be that different to the 19th century. (see Karen Cokayne's Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome for more about this)
Varro (in Censorinus, de natalis) divided the span of a life into periods: puer (childhood) from 1-15, adolescens from 15-30, iuvenis (youth) from 30-45, senior (maturity) 45-60 and senex (old age) from 60 onwards. 60 was also the age at which a man was no longer liable for jury service.
So it seems that a man of 35-40 was by no means considered old or incapable, and plenty of Romans lived into their 60s and older. Perhaps their fitness wasn't so great at that age, although there will have been exceptions. In a much later era, at Lincoln in 1217, William Marshall led the English army in battle, in person and in full armour - he was aged about 70. He won the battle too...
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Bryan - 09-26-2014
Quote:i would be quite careful believing such old men were really present... average length of life in ancient times was hardly more than 55-60 years or lower.. 80 year old men would be exceptional.. and his physical condition questionable.
When discussing averages, I think that its important to remember that while many people lived to be 55-60 max or shorter, many also lived longer. It was known that even during the later Roman period that long serving veterans of military service generally lived healthier lives than the average person, due to frequent exercise and a hardy diet. While the extreme age reported for the Silver Shields is probably an exaggeration to some degree, they were noted by many sources to have been a picked unit of the best infantry in Alexander's army, who were already veterans of some time when Alexander had chosen them to march east in his earliest campaigns against Persia. Further, there are many reported cases in Greek and Roman history of men in their 50s to late 60s still actively campaigning. Examples would include many centurions who were in theirs 50s, as reported through their funerary steles. While war fighting is generally said to be a young man's game, having a unit like the Silver Shields, made up of picked fit veterans even close to or in the "senior citizen" age bracket, doesn't mean they weren't physically able to perform the duties of soldiering, especially fighting. They were a chosen force, selected due to their abilities and experience, and placed in a highly prestigious military unit. In other words, they weren't the average old man. Neither were the Triari. Unless desperate for numbers, unhealthy or decrepit elders would not be selected at a Dilectus.
Here's a good article about the Silver Shields from Michael Park. He states they were probably in the late 50s, 60s.
The Silver Shields: Philip's and Alexander's Hypaspists
imagine 45 years old Triarii facing 18-20 year old Hastati..
The 18 year old soldiers would probably die.
You're discussing battle as if its all about physicality and not about the psychological state. While fast and agile, that 18-20 year old Hastati is probably a tiro, never having even been in a battle before, inexperienced in warfare, and personal combat. Meanwhile, though older and probably a bit less physically fit, the Triari soldier would have fought in numerous wars, probably countless skirmishes, battles and sieges. More so, having lived that long, it would demonstrate too that the veteran is a survivor. Experience in fighting counts for something.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Walhaz - 09-27-2014
Another argument for the aggressive usefulness of the triarii is the simple fact that they were included in the legion at all. Rome was capable of calling on vast reserves of manpower. During the 2nd Punic War Hannibal wiped out something like 16 legions in less than three years, but the Romans had raised just as many and more even before the shock of Cannae wore off. I seriously doubt that the pragmatic Romans would bother with calling up 600 decrepit old reservists to guard the legion camp when they had the manpower reserves to call up 600 able-bodied 18-20 year olds who could accomplish the same task. Basically what I'm saying is that if there were any benefit to an army made up entirely of 18-20 year olds, then the Romans could very well have fielded armies like that, but they didn't. And if they included 35-46 year olds, then those 35-46 year olds could do the same things as the younger soldiers because if they couldn't, well then there just wasn't any point to bringing them at all and they would have been replaced with younger soldiers.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Michael Kerr - 09-27-2014
In an armed conflict situation in Republican Rome I think it essential to have a reserve or third line of older hard headed experienced soldiers who probably can't hurl a pilum like the younger troops any more but with their battle experience would be quite handy if things were going badly for a wavering Roman legion. IMHO.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Mark Hygate - 09-27-2014
The actual average ages of the Polybian/Manipular army is entirely dependent on the subset of men chosen from the whole.
- the Velites are the youngest (and will contain at least some entirely inexperienced new soldiers); they are not normally expected to engage in close combat
- the Hastati form the front line and will contain the youngest and fittest of the battle-fighting legionnaires, under the command of experienced centurions; they are most likely there to both prove themselves and absorb the initial and earliest part of the battle
- the Principes containing the prime soldiers, therefore, are the main battle line, and, hence the name, responsible for either: backing up the Hastati if in trouble (as attested); replace the Hastati and hopefully overcome the now more tired enemy (who haven't probably changed lines in any way it seems); or exploiting any early breakthroughs
- the solid and dependable older soldiers, with most (likely) experience, form the Triarii (and not, as noted, with any different armour), are armed with a standard spear as a, mainly, defensive option, equally efficacious at holding off infantry or cavalry and so perform their primary role as a reserve. I do not believe the standard hasta-spear ever goes out of use, throughout the period, simply because of its flexibility.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - MonsGraupius - 09-27-2014
Can you tell me your source for this?
Thanks
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - MonsGraupius - 09-27-2014
On what basis are you suggesting a single line of 8?
I'm open to the possibility but I would like to see some evidence.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Mark Hygate - 09-28-2014
Quote:Can you tell me your source for this?
Thanks
Mike, if that's at me...
Then an interpretation of Polybius, with a heavy dose of trying to determine how the Roman army fought.
I am certainly happy to try and defend that view (which is only my view) against all comers.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - JaM - 09-29-2014
Actually, Connoly mentioned that at the draft, all poorest men were sent to navy. then each of four legions made their pick on remaining men. at the Legion assembly place, men were divided into groups, where poorest men, who couldnt afford own armor fought as leves/velites, while others were divided into Heavy Infantry based on age. So, actually, there were most likely even older men amongst Leves/Velites..
And regarding age, of course there are exceptions, but, they are just that. exception to the rule. 20 years old men will be able to move around in his armor carrying heavy shield and several javelins for much longer, than 40+ veteran. if they were so effective as you mention, then why exactly they were left out guarding the camps at Cannae?
Connoly also mentioned another important fact - if Legion got reinforced for more men, amount of Triarii was not increased. It was the same no matter what.. again, if Rome had large pool of available men, wouldnt they call more such experienced veterans into their ranks?
Yet, the whole issue of Roman Manpower is a bit problematic. Rome didn't had infinite pool of men, as it is often presented. Exactly the opposite. Rome only called to arms citizens of certain amount of wealth. Middle Class.. Size of Middle class depends on economy of state, yet, if you keep losing men from this class, your economy will get hurt as well. During crisis after Cannae, Senate lowered the census.. they didnt had another 80000 men from Middle class who would step in to replace losses.. but they had much larger pool of Proletariii lower class, who while didnt had money for own equipment, were willing to take arms.. those legions raised at that time, were not as well equipped as standard legions, there was just not enough of armor for everbody, so majority of men fought without armor, just with the shield and probably helmet..
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Mark Hygate - 09-29-2014
Quote:Actually, Connoly mentioned that at the draft, all poorest men were sent to navy. then each of four legions made their pick on remaining men. at the Legion assembly place, men were divided into groups, where poorest men, who couldnt afford own armor fought as leves/velites, while others were divided into Heavy Infantry based on age. So, actually, there were most likely even older men amongst Leves/Velites..
And regarding age, of course there are exceptions, but, they are just that. exception to the rule. 20 years old men will be able to move around in his armor carrying heavy shield and several javelins for much longer, than 40+ veteran. if they were so effective as you mention, then why exactly they were left out guarding the camps at Cannae?
Connoly also mentioned another important fact - if Legion got reinforced for more men, amount of Triarii was not increased. It was the same no matter what.. again, if Rome had large pool of available men, wouldnt they call more such experienced veterans into their ranks?..................
I have enjoyed Connolly's book(s) for a goodly while, but have found what I am sure are mistakes - and hence why I have tried, whilst I rely on a seemingly good translation and the help of kind translators like 'Macedon' here, to rely only on the original sources - in this case Polybius.
My translation doesn't mention the velites being the poorest, merely the youngest - only age***. This makes perfect sense, as service in the velites would likely devolve on those with little, or at first no, battle experience. It may be quite likely that the youngest may be the poorest (of the class they happen to be in), but that's only because they will probably not have inherited yet (I am sure sons served with fathers sometimes, even though the choosing process may avoid it).
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the triarii being left out of guarding the camps (and specifically Cannae), but in detailing the camp duties Polybius is quite clear what the triarii's role is - that they guard the horses of the cavalry turma(e) camped to their rear; a much more 'suitable' role for them given their higher status (closer to braziers and their tents), than guarding the perimeter of the camp.
As to the 'triarii always number 600' and thus, I now believe, the erroneous deduction that the hastati/principes maniples increase in size with the larger legion(s) raised in extremis; I have detailed my conclusions here - Polybius/Manipular Legion - (and referred to them before). It's all to do with deployment widths and that deeper ranks than 3 with spears achieve nothing.
That is also provides a direct evolutionary path to the post-Marian legion is, of course, essential.
***My apologies - a re-read is always worthwhile rather than recollection - the first reference to the velites in Polybius does say "...and poorest", but later descriptions do not. It still seems to be an age division, however.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - JaM - 09-29-2014
im questioning it mostly due to fact age has nothing to do with wealth. you can be young, but if you from well suited family, you will have relatively good equipment, and there are no mentions of Velites running around in heavy armor.. It is especially strange with Polybius mentioning 10000drachmae wealth as a prerequisite for Mail, which would cost around 200-300 drachmae (bronze musculata was said to cost 300 drachmae and it was considered to be the most costly armor as it had to be made specifically for the wearer, otherwise it would not fit). yet if some family had wealth of 10.000 drachmae, they would most likely afford quite good equipment for all sons going into war, no matter their age..
Am not fond of Connoly translations either, he made a lot of assumptions based on incorrect translations, like for example the whole portion about Carthaginian Pikes, which he concluded because of use of word Sperai.
oh, and regarding Triarii at Cannae, i remember reading about them being left guarding the camps, while Principes and Hastati fought the Carthaginians. Later some of them were killed when Carthaginians attacked the camps, but most of survivors were from those units inside.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Mark Hygate - 09-30-2014
Quote:im questioning it mostly due to fact age has nothing to do with wealth. you can be young, but if you from well suited family, you will have relatively good equipment, and there are no mentions of Velites running around in heavy armor.. ...............
.........................................
oh, and regarding Triarii at Cannae, i remember reading about them being left guarding the camps, while Principes and Hastati fought the Carthaginians. Later some of them were killed when Carthaginians attacked the camps, but most of survivors were from those units inside.
As noted in the velites thread, I too see no real correlation between age and wealth when it comes to the detail of the Polybian/manipular legion. If you are young with limited experience, then you are naturally and sensibly assigned to the velites to 'learn the trade'; the fact that you can afford to easily equip yourself later with the "full panoply" is immaterial.
The fact that 'poorer' citizens serving in the heavy element(s) didn't have to wear a full mail hauberk may be true, but I am sure they would have acquired some post battle(s).
As to Cannae, I must admit I've never seen that. From the numbers detailed and the subsequent continued existence of the surviving 'Cannae legions' and their use(s); I have thought that the 10,000 men left in the camp North of the river were two full legions (either 2 Roman or 1 Roman and 1 Socii - given that they continued and weren't allowed to return to Rome I wonder more about the former, but the latter is possibly more 'usual'). So not just the triarii elements.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Urselius - 09-30-2014
The Roman infantry of the Manipular legion were the middle class at war, the rich boys were on horses and could run away much more easily.
If you consider that most of the older men would have inherited wealth on the deaths of their fathers, then on average the Triarii would have been more wealthy than the other classes. The same thing was found in Medieval Europe, most men married in their thirties (usually to 15 year old girls), precisely because that was the typical age when they had inherited land (or the right to farm a parcel of land) from their fathers; before this happened they could not afford to support a wife and family.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - JaM - 09-30-2014
I would be not so sure about post battle aquirance of Mail.. after all, only Celtic Nobles of certain statue would use it, and ordinary Legionarii would not commonly face somebody like that.. so while some of them could acquire it this way, it would be not some kind of a reliable source of Mail within Roman Legions..
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Corvus - 09-30-2014
Regarding the age and function of the Triarii:
I tihnk that the asumption that younger soldiers (hastati nd principes) are better in combat is totaly wrong.
First of all there is nothing more worth than combat expirience and maturity. Secondly, a man who is 35, 40 can be in great physical shape and remember that romans were on campaigns a lot, so they were prety fit.
You can take as a modern example the SAS, the soldiers there are usually in their 30ties/ 40ties