Republican 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: Republican Army (/showthread.php?tid=7196) |
Republican Army - SOCL - 10-23-2006 I realize that the Roman Army has changed various times in its extended history, but I'm really interested in knowing a few specific things concerning the Republican Army, specifically pre-Marian and post-Marian/pre-Augustan. Now, if I understand correctly, before the Marian reforms, there were three major (but not only three total) types of soldiers: -Hastati -Principes -Triarii Following the Marian reforms, they did away with this class-like structure, but it wasn't as though they jumped from that structure to the lorica segmentata-wearing legionaries of the First Century CE. Could someone give me some sort of brief outline of the types of soldiers and changes that occured as the Mid-Late Republican Army evolved into the Imperial Army of the First Century CE? Also, perhaps some sources on where to read on these sort of matters since most of my studies have been in Roman culture rather than the Roman Army in specific. Re: Republican Army - Kate Gilliver - 10-23-2006 Greetings, Saul Unfortunately things aren't so clear as to be able to talk about the 'pre-Marian' and 'post-Marian' Roman army in terms of organization - it is unlikely that Marius undertook significant alterations to military organization, in particular we should be very cautious about attributing to Marius the introduction of the cohortal legion that is campaigning in Gaul with Caesar. At some point between the date of Polybius' description (mid-ish 2nd century BC) and Caesar's campaigns in Gaul in the mid first century BC, the manipular legion of Polybius evolved into the cohortal legion and equipment became 'uniform' (by which I mean everyone had pilum, gladius and scutum, not that they all looked exactly the same). It's probably the result of a variety of things, including military and socio-economic pressures - as you indicate, the change from an army organized according to age / status / wealth to one that wasn't. Unfortunately I can't really do the subject justice here, but I am trying to write something on it elsewhere!! What I would strongly recommend is getting hold of Lawrence Keppie's really excellent book The Making of the Roman Army which provides the best explanation of the way the Republican army evolved into the professional force of the principate. Re: Republican Army - L C Cinna - 10-23-2006 I agree with Ms./Mrs. Gilliver. The process is not that clear. There are a few major points which can be used to kind of structure the whole thing a bit. We have Polybios discription of the 2nd Punic war and the manipular legion and we have the description of the battles of Scipio. Scipio's deployment and use of the different types of troops might be seen as a first important tactical development in the process of transforming the army from one system to another(Scipio might not have been the first one to do something like this but the first we know about who did this on purpose). What he did is use principes, hastati and triarii all in the same way at Zama when he expanded his line. This is a rather big change in tactics imho. If you decide to change the use of your troops like that, meaning being more flexible in their use it is the next step to have the majority of your troops equipped the same way so you can use any unit from the 3rd line for example anywhere on the battlefield or position your troops in duplex acies quickly if the situation requires without having the problem of considering that the troops are equipped differently. This is a decision up to the commander of course and it doesn't mean because Scipio was successful with that at Zama that everyone followed his idea. So we can only guess but it seems that Roman commanders started to deploy their troops more freely during the next say 100 years. then we have a change in the social structure of the time caused by wars, population movement and other factors.would take too long to go into detail here. I don't believe Marius invented something completely new. He saw the changes in tactics and society and reformed the army. The equipment and structure of the army during late republican times was pretty much up to the commander. Some of the finds of the Caesarian periode and some literary evidence show that the troops were equipped as the situation and finances allowed.Just take Caesar's troops recruited in Gaul for an example, or the types of helmets used from the "standard" montefortinos, the coolus to the very cheap Mannheim type which doesn't even have cheekpieces. The real big step and major reform took place under Augustus. sidenote: there are quite some discussions about the "segmentata wearing" imperial legionaries here. maybe you are interested and might want to read some of the very interesting threads on the forum about that topic. My personal opinion is that the majority of the legionaries always used chainmail but that's just mine. just thought you might be interested in that as well. oh and the names hastati, principes and triarii continued to be used in the imperial army even if there was no real difference in equipment anymore Re: Republican Army - Matthew - 10-23-2006 An don't forget about the Velites, etc... Try this link for some reasonably recent previous discussion of Polybius' Republican Army: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=10529 Matthew James Stanham Short survey - drsrob - 10-24-2006 The basic differences between the Polybian and the Caesarian legions can be surmised as follows. (The list is not exhaustive, by the way) Armament and equipment:
In a cohors the manipuli would be posted side by side with the senior unit in the position of honour on the right. We can assume that the abolition of the spear (hasta) was a result of this tactical change, but we don't know this. The same goes for the disappearance of the age-difference between the various manipuli. That the triarii took up position on the right can be deduced from the fact that their very name was dropped and replaced by that of pilani. The velites were last mentioned in the same battle of 86 BC. The antesignani were first mentioned by Caesar when describing the events of 49 BC. There are good clues suggesting that the latter were a continuation of the first.
According to J.B. McCall the Citizen cavalry ceased to be called out from the Social War (90 BC) onwards. The only certainties are however, that it still existed in 102 BC and probably in the 90ies and that Caesar had none in 58. Re: Republican Army - Mitra - 10-24-2006 Rob Probably antesignani can be used also for light infantry, but in latin literature the term is like ordo: the context make the sense. In Livius (with sources much anterior to Caesar) the term indicate the astati (the Varro phrase is a confirm, after the velites we have the hastati) . But we find it also like prima acies, vanguard, and crack soldier. With prima acies sense it is also in Frontinus; in Caesar the 5 references have 3 different significations. We find also antesignanus with the sense of official, leader (also chief-bandit). I have found only a parallel with greek text, for the sense of Josephus's guard Longophoroi. ciao Re: Republican Army - SOCL - 10-24-2006 Wow! Thanks for all the feedback! I had already read the Ploybius account of the Roman Army during the Second Punic War, I just wasn't sure if there was elsewhere. And I do also realize that the changes we today call the "Marian Reforms" were not necessarily started (or ended with) C. Marius, but rather are simply called that because he is best known among those that reformed the army. You see, I'm writing an essay/paper for school concerning this topic, more or less. In it, I am attributing the CARS/Modular Brigade reforms of the U.S. Army to the Marian Reforms of the Roman Army. Let me explain. The U.S. Army through the CARS program transformed the Army from a regiment-based fighting force to a division-based fighting force. In the present, the Army is taking these reforms one step further in making the U.S. Army into a brigade-based fighting force (similar to the British Army) wherein brigades are modular, meaning they can be transferred from one divisional (or higher) command to another, or can operate independantly. Now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the so-called "Marian" Reforms did the same thing in taking the Roman Army from an older, less effective fighting formation to a better-suited force. Just as how the cohort was an extraordinary unit, the brigade in the U.S. Army only as recently as World War II and the Korean War was also a rather temporary, unusual unit formed for a specific mission. So the Marian Reforms changed the Roman Army from manipuli-centered legions to cohort-centered legions in the same way the current reforms have taken the U.S. Army from regiment-centered divisions to brigade-centered divisions. Do you believe this comparison is adequate? Is there a name for the type of legionaries we have in the inter-reform period between the Polybian Roman Army and the Augustan Roman Army, specifically the Civil Wars, post-Marian era? This may be a short era, but wouldn't this be the era of change from the hastati/principes/triarii-styled forces to segementata-wearing forces. For instances, on pages 14 and 15 of Peterson's The Roman Legions Recreated in Colour Photographs, we see type of legionary described as being post-Marian, likely "[representing] a legionary of Marius, Caesar, or Augustus". He is clearly different from the hastati/principes/triarii of the Ploybian description, but do we have a name for this type of legionary? I mean, is there some form of even informal designation for the legionary of this period? Lastly, what is the difference between "legionary" and "legionaire" (other than the obvious spelling differences)? When is one appropriate and the other? Re: Republican Army - Tarbicus - 10-24-2006 Quote:Lastly, what is the difference between "legionary" and "legionaire" (other than the obvious spelling differences)? When is one appropriate and the other?I don't think there is a difference; a Roman legionary is a member of a Roman legion, a French legionaire is a member of the French Foreign Legion, etc. They're both members of legions, just as a policeman is in the Police force, a fireman in the Fire Brigade, a rifleman in a Rifle Division, a British legionary in the British Legion. Re: Republican Army - drsrob - 10-24-2006 Quote:RobYou are correct for the most part. However...
The meaning of words changes continuously and there is no a priori reason why antesignani should be an exception. Re: Republican Army - Matthew - 10-24-2006 Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion). There is no real term to describe post Marian Legionary, as far as I am aware. Also, be aware that the frequency of Lorica Segmentata amongst the Legions in the Late Republican and Imperial periods is an ongoing debate... (much like everything else!) Re: Republican Army - SOCL - 10-24-2006 Quote:Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion).I have heard this. Would this mean that it would be appropriate for a reenactor to wear hamata when reenacting as a late-1st Century BCE/early-1st Century CE legionary? What sort of helmet, then, would be appropriate for this situation? Peterson's book depicts the legionary wearing a Montefortino helm, but would certain versions of the Coolus be appropriate as well? So would it be adequate to say that a legionaire is a soldier of the French Foreign Legion, while a legionary is a soldier of the Roman Army? Re: Republican Army - drsrob - 10-24-2006 Quote:No, legionaire is French for legionary; it's as simple as that.Matthew:wtck4uxi Wrote:Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion).[...] Re: Republican Army - Mitra - 10-24-2006 Quote:signiferi. The next sentence described the distinction of centurions. For Vegetius we must take in count the great variety of sources, where old republic and imperial sourcesis mixed. Can be a error think Vegetius have a real idea of antesignani. Probably he think to commander and officials legionary guards (not light infantry but with lighter armour), but it is a hypotesis. Quote:L(ucius) VALERIUS CO The text affirm "antesignan arms" an arm category not the arms of a corps, how Le Bohec have found in castrum III legion armouries Quote:The antesignani were equipped differently from normal legionnaries. According to Vegetius this equipment was lighter than that of the rest. This would mean that they were light infantry or skirmishers, which was exactly how they operated in Caesar, BC, 1.43. But Vegetius affirm they are grave armatura, only with lighter armour. Quote: You translate expeditos like light armed, but the term indicate troops without impedimenta in primis (heavy or light). The procedure in march agmen is to leave heavy infantry units expedita in front or rear of army (view this in BJ, maniples expediti, cohortes expedite) like the extraordinarii in polybian army (and in effect two times in Livy text we can view probably the antesignani indicate the extraordinarii). THis is the much probable sense in of Caesar 3.75 where the fight is on the Ceasar rearguard, and is only for reference the 3.75 that in 3.84 Ceasar use again antesignani. The "ad pernecitatem armis" isn't especially typical to this troops in this Ceasar passage, can be only a temporary situation. Re: Republican Army - SOCL - 10-24-2006 Quote:Oh, I see, now. Sorry, I initially misunderstood.Ter. Catalonius Luciano:3sg5tnal Wrote:No, legionaire is French for legionary; it's as simple as that.Matthew:3sg5tnal Wrote:Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion).[...] Re: Republican Army - drsrob - 10-24-2006 Quote:Vegetius quotes from various sources, true. Somewhere he apparantly found a reference to antesignani having lighter armour than ordinary legionnaries. That much should be certain. I don't think the text permits replacing antesignani with another categorydrsrob:3paedkct Wrote:signiferi. The next sentence described the distinction of centurions. Quote:so there were special arms for antesignani!Quote:L(ucius) VALERIUS CO Quote:Only when he opposes them to largely unarmoured menQuote:The antesignani were equipped differently from normal legionnaries. According to Vegetius this equipment was lighter than that of the rest. This would mean that they were light infantry or skirmishers, which was exactly how they operated in Caesar, BC, 1.43. Quote:The latter is correct. About the rest: I'm talking about the Caesarian period and as I already indicated, I think that antesignani meant something else before and during the later empire. Therefore the fact that Livy uses it differently is IMO beside the point.Quote:Then why does he not say principales? The words are almost mutually exclusive. The most important principalis of the century was the optio, who certainly stood behind the ranks, rather than in front of themM. TVLLI CICERONIS PHILIPPICAE 5.12:3paedkct Wrote:V. Legem etiam iudiciariam tulit homo castus atque integer iudiciorum et iuris auctor. In quo nos fefellit. Antesignanos et manipulares et Alaudas [...] he has selected Greeks. Oh the fine bench of judges, Oh the admirable dignity of that council!"The comparison is from "simple soldiers (gregarii) and antesignani of Alauda legion (the unit preferred by Antonius)" in this phrase probably the sense is of principalis. The same in Ceasar I.57 where the comparison is with the centurions. |