+- 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: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms (/showthread.php?tid=27412)
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Bryan - 08-25-2016
18-19th century musketry tactics required dress rank and files for maximum effectiveness. Romans did not, they benefited from having more room for individual movement, which meant looser formations, less rigidity. Besides, at Pharsalus, Caesar's infantry stopped mid charge on their own, redressed, and then charged again.
Altogether there is just not enough information on this subject to say "The Romans fought this way..."
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - JaM - 08-26-2016
it has nothing to do with musketry.. i have used it as example.. its a simple fact that its much easier maneuvering in a column than maneuvering in a line..
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Bryan - 08-26-2016
And it's easier to maneuver a single file than a column. Romans didn't do that either. British, they didn't either. There is no proof that the Romans maneuvered forces just before battle from column to line, as if they were Napoleonic French battalions.
Romans didn't often fight in column, there bread and butter was a fighting line, where there width exceeded their depth. They likely had some gaps between units, probably filled with skirmishers or armed calones; though the gaps may have been as wide as a maniple and left in the line during contact. Cannae is a battle where the Romans essentially went into it with maniples in column, and its specifically stated that it was unusual, and a reason they lost.
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Paullus Scipio - 08-31-2016
Gentlemen, I have come somewhat late to this discussion, but feel I can add something useful. Much of the discussion revolved around classes and the monetary values assigned to them, but such discussion is rather futile, because the figures given by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus as going back to the time of the legendary "Servius Tullius" ( 6th C BC) are clearly an invented anachronism.
If you look at the numismatical history - the dates of which are well-confirmed by archaeology, and not just for Rome, but all Italy - coins etc being common finds, what is called the 'as' in coins did not exist before 269 BC.( and changes into sestertii around the time of Sulla). Prior to that there were bronze bars weighing a roman pound, ( aes libra) - which were in use around the time of Pyrrhus . Prior to that, lumps of bronze slag, of indeterminate weights were used in barter, but not as currency ( aes rudera = red bronze: perhaps 600-300 BC)...... So no '100,000 asses' in "Servius Tullius" time - unless you want to argue each Class 1 Roman was worth 45 tons of bronze !! ( as he has come down to us, this King is unlikely to have existed, though A "Servius Tullius" MAY have existed) , or even within 100 years of it....
Pliny mentions "Servius Tullius" inventing money too - especially the 'Aes Signatum'. This is, perhaps, because it is 'necessary' to have money in existence IF the 'classes' and their worth are to be accepted. Unfortunately archaeology demonstrates that such 'Aes Signatum' - lumps of bronze stamped with bull designs etc do not date prior to 300 BC. Pliny gets the date right for the introduction of silver coins - 269 BC, but numismatics/archaeology show he got the type of coin wrong. Didrachms were issued, not the Denarius. [ Pliny nat Hist XXXIII.3.13; Livy Epitome.XV] ). Consider too, early 'mancipation' formulae ( 'per Aes et Libram' = by bronze and scales) whereby a citizen swore property was his, and then before witnesses, a lump of bronze was weighed and agreed as a 'price' for it. This is a crude barter system obviously, and not a monetary transaction. Or consider that in the reign of "Numa Pompilius Rex" (traditional reign 716-674 BC ) a 'donativum' of 2.5 libra weight is recorded as being 'aes incusam' = cut from bronze. Archaeology supports this with a find of an eighth C hoard of bronze adze/axe heads, all damaged and 'cut' or broken......
Other evidence that even crude money in the form of bronze 'barter bars' came late to Rome comes in the archaeological finds of hoards dating around mid-fifth century, and literary evidence referring to a crude barter/monetary economy - the Lex Aternia Tarpeia of 454 BC, the Lex Menenia Sestia of 452 BC and of course the Twelve Tables of 451 BC.
The first Roman crude coins are large,cast bronze, weighing exactly a 'libra/pound' and date to after 290 BC, the end of the Samnite wars......
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Bryan - 08-31-2016
Just an aside, since last post makes me very away I'm not the only person having issues with it, the new RAT feature with the copy-paste function sucks. Paste something into the body of a reply and it comes out a different font and size than the standard text font and size. Admin, can you fix this?
(08-11-2016, 09:07 AM)Steven James Wrote: Bryan wrote:
Also, century and tribes are two completely separate things.
How about instead of telling us, you educate us by showing us?
Jaroslav wrote:
its from a work i got from academia.edu called 225BC: Polybius Account of the Telamon campaign by Steven James.
Yes I’ve read this paper. What Steven didn’t tell us is how to calculate the size of a legion from the tribal system. He definitely deserves a good flogging. But he has his reasons and that is by doing so, he will have another battle on his hands from his dedicated critics, so I will do it for him.
Following Polybius that a legion consisted of four classes, by adding up Classes I to IV in the 35 tribes, the result is 126,000 men. Now if anyone knows something about the Pythagorean cosmos, a tone equals 126,000 stadia. By dividing the 126,000 men of Classes I to IV by 35 tribes, the result is 3,600 men per tribe. This is the core size of the legion. If I want an emergency legion, then I have 46,200 iuniores of Class V (proletarii) to call up, which when divided by the 35 tribes gives the Romans an additional reserve of 1,320 men to add to the legion. However, if I only call up 1,200 men, then the legion increases to 4,800 men.
Steven’s paper on Pharsalus shows that by using a legion of 3,600 men, the army numbers given by Caesar, Appian, Plutarch, Orosius and Eutropius make sense.
(08-31-2016, 01:01 AM)Paullus Scipio Wrote: Gentlemen, I have come somewhat late to this discussion, but feel I can add something useful. Much of the discussion revolved around classes and the monetary values assigned to them, but such discussion is rather futile, because the figures given by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus as going back to the time of the legendary "Servius Tullius" ( 6th C BC) are clearly an invented anachronism.
If you look at the numismatical history - the dates of which are well-confirmed by archaeology, and not just for Rome, but all Italy - coins etc being common finds, what is called the 'as' in coins did not exist before 269 BC.( and changes into sestertii around the time of Sulla). Prior to that there were bronze bars weighing a roman pound, ( aes libra) - which were in use around the time of Pyrrhus . Prior to that, lumps of bronze slag, of indeterminate weights were used in barter, but not as currency ( aes rudera = red bronze: perhaps 600-300 BC)...... So no '100,000 asses' in "Servius Tullius" time - unless you want to argue each Class 1 Roman was worth 45 tons of bronze !! ( as he has come down to us, this King is unlikely to have existed, though A "Servius Tullius" MAY have existed) , or even within 100 years of it....
Pliny mentions "Servius Tullius" inventing money too - especially the 'Aes Signatum'. This is, perhaps, because it is 'necessary' to have money in existence IF the 'classes' and their worth are to be accepted. Unfortunately archaeology demonstrates that such 'Aes Signatum' - lumps of bronze stamped with bull designs etc do not date prior to 300 BC. Pliny gets the date right for the introduction of silver coins - 269 BC, but numismatics/archaeology show he got the type of coin wrong. Didrachms were issued, not the Denarius. [ Pliny nat Hist XXXIII.3.13; Livy Epitome.XV] ). Consider too, early 'mancipation' formulae ( 'per Aes et Libram' = by bronze and scales) whereby a citizen swore property was his, and then before witnesses, a lump of bronze was weighed and agreed as a 'price' for it. This is a crude barter system obviously, and not a monetary transaction. Or consider that in the reign of "Numa Pompilius Rex" (traditional reign 716-674 BC ) a 'donativum' of 2.5 libra weight is recorded as being 'aes incusam' = cut from bronze. Archaeology supports this with a find of an eighth C hoard of bronze adze/axe heads, all damaged and 'cut' or broken......
Other evidence that even crude money in the form of bronze 'barter bars' came late to Rome comes in the archaeological finds of hoards dating around mid-fifth century, and literary evidence referring to a crude barter/monetary economy - the Lex Aternia Tarpeia of 454 BC, the Lex Menenia Sestia of 452 BC and of course the Twelve Tables of 451 BC.
The first Roman crude coins are large,cast bronze, weighing exactly a 'libra/pound' and date to after 290 BC, the end of the Samnite wars......
Is there a secondary source that gives the basics of the currencies?
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Paullus Scipio - 08-31-2016
Bryan wrote:
"Is there a secondary source that gives the basics of the currencies?"
Not sure what you are asking here, Bryan. There are a number of fairly modern texts that give histories of Roman numismatics, and I drew on several in composing my post, e.g. "Roman Coins" H.Mattingly ( reprint 1962) Methuen & co; "Roman Silver Coins" vol 1 Seaby; The "Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman coinage" and many others, and also online sources readily found using Google. Be aware that many are written with coin collectors in mind, but those specified cover the history as well.
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Gunthamund Hasding - 08-31-2016
Paul you are right in your own way but of course we know other coins were around (greek Etruscan?) so they might be circulated at the time. I read somewhere that the production of the roman coins started in326 BC but will have to find the reference. of course that using asses for Tullius age is an anachronism
Bryan a very short summary here:
http://www.ancient.eu/coinage/
On roman coins quite a good page is here:
http://www.2-clicks-coins.com/article/history-of-roman-coins.html
although many more are extant
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Paullus Scipio - 08-31-2016
(08-31-2016, 06:24 AM)Gunthamund Hasding Wrote: Paul you are right in your own way but of course we know other coins were around (greek Etruscan?) so they might be circulated at the time. I read somewhere that the production of the roman coins started in326 BC but will have to find the reference. of course that using asses for Tullius age is an anachronism
Bryan a very short summary here:
http://www.ancient.eu/coinage/
On roman coins quite a good page is here:
http://www.2-clicks-coins.com/article/history-of-roman-coins.html
although many more are extant
Coins in Italy came fairly late, though I agree foreign money may have had a limited circulation among merchants in trade. Nevertheless, as I indicated in my post, 'barter' was the norm in the 5 BC, and down to the 3 BC........
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Robert Vermaat - 08-31-2016
(08-31-2016, 01:36 AM)Bryan Wrote: Just an aside, since last post makes me very away I'm not the only person having issues with it, the new RAT feature with the copy-paste function sucks. Paste something into the body of a reply and it comes out a different font and size than the standard text font and size. Admin, can you fix this?No. And yes. But I'm not going to.
It has to do with the reply function. If people quote in their post (and I'm trying to get you guys to stop quoting quotes) it's not possible to react within that quoted post. You have to cut and paste the quotes you want into your reply and write your reaction below that.
Sometimes it looks like a mess. That can only be helped by using the 'quick edit' function after you posted, and remove all the html stuff about double quotes, fonts and clours. Just did that myself in my latest reply. Can't do it for you I'm afraid.
Best advise I can give you? Copy the post you want to quote into a word document. Paste the pasage into your reply between ['quote']['/quote]. A bit more work, but 100% more readable.
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Renatus - 08-31-2016
Am I missing something? If I want to quote from a post, I click on 'Quote' at the bottom of the post, click on 'Quote these posts now' at the bottom of the reply box, delete what I do not want and enter my reply. Where's the problem?
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Crispianus - 08-31-2016
From what I can see the system will allways quote the last post whatever I do, except when posting by quick reply...
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Bryan - 08-31-2016
Problem isn't from quoting other posts, it's from copying and pasting from internet. It comes up in weird font and size.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(08-31-2016, 04:05 AM)Paullus Scipio Wrote: Bryan wrote:
"Is there a secondary source that gives the basics of the currencies?"
Not sure what you are asking here, Bryan. There are a number of fairly modern texts that give histories of Roman numismatics, and I drew on several in composing my post, e.g. "Roman Coins" H.Mattingly ( reprint 1962) Methuen & co; "Roman Silver Coins" vol 1 Seaby; The "Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman coinage" and many others, and also online sources readily found using Google. Be aware that many are written with coin collectors in mind, but those specified cover the history as well.
Siege of Veii is often quoted as first instance of formal stipendum. What form of currency were they paid in?
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Paullus Scipio - 08-31-2016
Bryan wrote:
"Siege of Veii is often quoted as first instance of formal stipendum. What form of currency were they paid in?"
The short answer is they weren't paid in any form of monetary currency, because money didn't exist in 405-395 BC ! (see above)
Livy[V.3-5] describes how the soldiers were content to be paid, but angered by the corollary that now they were expected to serve all year round, through the winter. He does not however describe how they were paid. In fact, the siege of Veii is not the first time we hear of pay for Roman soldiers, but from another passage [IV.36] we learn that in the year 421 B.C. the tribunes had proposed that the occupiers of the public land should pay their 'Vectigal' (a tithe) regularly, and that it should be devoted to the payment of the troops.
We can however, make a fair deduction on how they were paid. The word 'stipendum' itself comes from stips (“alms, small payment”) and pendere (“pay, weigh”). So something that could be weighed, and was the produce of a tithe, which can only mean grain/corn ( and perhaps, judging by later practise, clothing too). This is somewhat confirmed by the fact that even after the introduction of coinage, the legionary continued to be paid in grain ( and a clothing allowance) etc, the value of which was deducted from his nominal 'salary', so that in fact he continued to be paid 'in kind' (topped up with money) right down through Imperial times, generally paid three times a year......
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Flighty - 11-18-2017
(08-01-2016, 06:38 PM)Bryan Wrote: Overall, most of the reforms attributed to Marius are done falsely.
Hey Bryan, My dissertation is discussing the reforms of Marius and how much he actually contributed to them, was hoping you could point me in the direction of some sources you used for the comment here.
RE: Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms - Steven James - 11-21-2017
Flighty wrote:
My dissertation is discussing the reforms of Marius and how much he actually contributed to them, was hoping you could point me in the direction of some sources you used for the comment here.
Sources are: Julius Exsuperantius (1–9), Plutarch (Marius 9), Sallust (The War with Jugurtha 86), Valerius Maximus (2 3)
Valerius Maximus writes that Marius wanted to abolish the military levy by property class because Marius believed it was an arrogant form of selection. Julius Exsuperantius accredits Marius with conscripting the capite censi as soldiers, who had no property, and further writes that Marius, being a lowborn, his sole purpose was to destroy the nobles, and proclaimed himself as the enemy of their power.
I have a tendency to follow Julius Exsuperantius, that Marius conscripted the capite censi and nothing else. As for entry into the legion being governed by property class, I believe this was abolished as part of the reforms of one of the Gracchian brothers, either Tiberius Gracchus or Gaius Gracchus. Cassius Dio (24 83 7) has Gracchus proposing “certain laws for the benefit of those serving in the army, and further disturbing and overturning all established customs.”
Tiberius Gracchus, via his agrarian legislation, advocated the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, because many of the male population was suffering from acute poverty. According to Plutarch (Tiberius Gracchus 9) made this speech:
“The wild beasts that roam over Italy, he would say, have every one of them a cave or lair to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy the common air and light, indeed, but nothing else; houseless and homeless they wander about with their wives and children. And it is with lying lips that their imperators exhort the soldiers in their battles to defend sepulchres and shrines from the enemy; for not a man of them has an hereditary altar, not one of all these many Romans an ancestral tomb, but they fight and die to support others in wealth and luxury, and though they are styled masters of the world, they have not a single clod of earth that is their own.” (5)
Plutarch (Gaius Gracchus 1 4), (5 1) writes that “Gaius Gracchus was fond of war and was quite well trained for military service, his only reported military reform (the lex militaris) mentioned was he ordained the state to provide the soldier’s clothing at public cost without deducting anything from the soldier’s pay and prohibited the enrolment of iuniores below the age of seventeen years.”
So the reforms that began with Tiberius Gracchus were undertaken by his brother Gaius Gracchus, which I believe was the abolition of the property class for entry into the legion. However, I think the capite censi were still exempt from entry into the legion, but were then incorporated into the levy system by Marius, an action which met the approval of the senate. Without the senate’s approval Marius as consul could not have done it by himself, as he did not have the necessary legislative powers to do so.