foundation army - Printable Version +- 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: foundation army (/showthread.php?tid=6050) |
foundation army - JP Vieira - 06-27-2006 Hello on researching for the foundation army of Rome, i came across with the vilanova culture. Is there any other culture (besides the etruscan) that mighthave influenced roman in the foundation period? Best regards JP Vieira Re: foundation army - Jona Lendering - 06-27-2006 That depends a bit on how you define foundation, influence, and Rome. The Greeks have influenced the Villanova culture and the Etruscans; perhaps Greek influence (phalanx warfare) was direct, or perhaps through ports like Antium, or perhaps through Etruria. A tough question. Do not rule out Carthage. There are indications that the consulship was influenced by the Carthaginian suffetes (more...) and R. Yaron, "Semitic elements in Early Rome", in Alan Watson (ed.), Daube noster. Essays in Legal History for David Daube (1974 Edinburgh), an article that has unfortunately been ignored. Re: foundation army - drsrob - 06-28-2006 Quote:HelloBasically, the Villanovan culture is the immediate predecessor of the Etruscan culture. The latter developed out of the former through a process of simultaneus Hellenizing and Orientalizing. In Latium a similar but different culture existed; the Latial culture. This developed into the Latin culture through a similar proces, additionally influenced by the Etruscan cultural development. Their is indeed also evidence for early Phoenician influence in Rome. Re: foundation army - JP Vieira - 07-02-2006 Hi Thanks for the reply. I am researching as to produce an illustration of the roman warriors of the middle 8th century BC. I am not sure as we can speak of Roman at this time, but this is the term I will use, for simplicity. When Is there a first record of a Roman army? Best regards JP Vieira Re: foundation army - Jona Lendering - 07-02-2006 I think the first reference to a real urban army of the city of Rome is the document included in Livy's first book, chapters 42-43. Re: foundation army - drsrob - 07-05-2006 Quote:I think the first reference to a real urban army of the city of Rome is the document included in Livy's first book, chapters 42-43.Not quite. The earliest references in Livy are: Quote:[...] Ex bello tam tristi laeta repente pax cariores Sabinas uiris ac parentibus et ante omnes Romulo ipsi fecit. itaque cum populum in curias triginta diuideret, nomina earum curiis imposuit. Id non traditur, cum haud dubie aliquanto numerus maior hoc mulierum fuerit, aetate an dignitatibus suis uirorumue an sorte lectae sint, quae nomina curiis darent. Quote:[...]Multitudini tamen gratior fuit quam patribus, longe ante alios acceptissimus militum animis; trecentosque armatos ad custodiam corporis quos Celeres appellavit non in bello solum sed etiam in pace habuit.Each curia supplied 100 men to the army. This is a basically a centuria or "hundredship". It seams reasonably certain that the "celeres" and the "equites" are the same men. Re: foundation army - Jona Lendering - 07-05-2006 Yes, but are these reliable? I always have a feeling that they are too neat, too standard, too legendary. Servius Tullius' reforms sound more plausible and fit into the sixth century. So that's why I referred these, and not to Romulus. Re: foundation army - Commilito - 07-05-2006 The Etruscans themselves were influenced by the peoples of Magna Graecia, the Greeks in southern Italy starting around 700bc. Villanovan culture itself is descended from Hallstatt culture, a bronze age culture of Europe and the Alps. It has also been shown that Illyrian peoples occasionaly migrated to Italy during the foundation period of Rome, so their culture may have come to Rome as well. good luck. Re: foundation army - drsrob - 07-05-2006 Quote:Yes, but are these reliable? I always have a feeling that they are too neat, too standard, too legendary. Servius Tullius' reforms sound more plausible and fit into the sixth century. So that's why I referred these, and not to Romulus.On the contrary, the "reforms of Servius Tullius" are a far to complicated system for this early period. The Roman Army of the Regal period and early republic was as far as we can tell a hoplite army (phalanx). Quote:Quem "classicum" dicat M. Cato, quem "infra classem". 1 "Classici" dicebantur non omnes, qui in quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines qui centum et viginti quinque milia aeris ampliusve censi erant. 2 "Infra classem" autem appellabantur secundae classis ceterarumque omnium classium, qui minore summa aeris, quod supra dixi, censebantur. 3 Hoc eo strictim notavi, quoniam in M. Catonis oratione, qua Voconiam legem suasit, quaeri solet, quid sit "classicus", quid "infra classem".This suggests that the Servian system originally contained only a single class, the later 1st. And this class just happens to be armed with hoplite equipment. Quote:[...]Classi quoque ad Fidenas pugnatum cum Veientibus quidam in annales rettulere, rem aeque difficilem atque incredibilem, nec nunc lato satis ad hoc amne et tum aliquanto, ut a veteribus accepimus, artiore, nisi in traiectus forte fluminis prohibendo aliquarum nauium concursum in maius, ut fit, celebrantes naualis victoriae uanum titulum appetivere.Of course this classis cannot have been a fleet as Livy rightly states. It was however the army consisting of only a single classis. A single class of 40 (junior) centuries comes very close to the curiate system of 30 centuriae. The original purpose of the Servian reform was IMO probably to include a large group of men that could not easily be absorbed by the curiate system. The extra classes must have been added much later. Re: foundation army - Jona Lendering - 07-06-2006 Of course, dear Rob, you're right that the document quoted by Livy is from the early or mid-Republic (as is also indicated by the amounts of money mentioned). But even then, the army of Servius Tulius -an army of one or many classes- can be seen as historical; whereas Romulus' army is legendary. Re: foundation army - drsrob - 07-06-2006 Quote:Of course, dear Rob, you're right that the document quoted by Livy is from the early or mid-Republic (as is also indicated by the amounts of money mentioned). But even then, the army of Servius Tulius -an army of one or many classes- can be seen as historical; whereas Romulus' army is legendary.Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that the foundation army is organized according to the Servian system. All sources agree that this system was created by Servius Tullius, the last king but one. This must have taken place in the late sixth century BC, so something else existed before. The curiae certainly existed earlier and a centuriate system based on the curiae seems almost to speak for itself. (Of course that might have been the case for Roman writers too :wink: ) |