EUREKA - Roman army troops

[antiochus]

M Demetrius wrote:
The velites didn't stand and fight as a "line", but moved in and out of the ranks as needed, as skirmishers generally do.

You make the presumption the velites make up the four classes. What if this is wrong?

M Demetrius wrote:
Each of these had alternative titles, the first being known as the first legion or the first squadron and the others accordingly; the fourth, however, had a third title, that of the triarii, after the term used for that part of the army."

Polybius reports that the Roman fleet numbered 330 vessels, organised into four squadrons. Now if we divided 330 vessels by four squadrons the result is 82.5 vessels per squadrons. So what are we to make of this? Polybius got it wrong? Yet his infantry numbers are very good, how could he get the vessels numbers wrong? In the Roman world, the number four is associated with a square. In military terms, two men in front and two men behind them make a square. However, the formation at Ecnomus is a V and in Roman mathematics the number three is or three points makes a triangle. If we divided 330 vessels by 3 the result is 110 vessels in three divisions. Now just for the sake of debate, what if on the battlefield, one class is merged with another class to form three battle lines consisting of four classes. What if at Ecnomus they are using the principal of separating the vessels into their four classes instead of the standard three battle lines?

M Demetrius wrote:
The footnote for this excerpt reads, "The Roman army was traditionally grouped into four classes, velites, the skirmishing troops, hastati, men in the flower of youth, principes, those in the prime of manhood, and triarii, the seasoned veterans. Here the triarii may have been a nickname for those to whom amphibious warfare was new, 'the oldsters' in other words.

Yes I understand. The footnote comments that triarii MAY HAVE BEEN A NICKNAME. So the source of the footnote is not 100% sure. Just guessing perhaps?

M Demetrius wrote:
The Roman fleets were not always divided into four squadrons,

That is true. However can we keep it on Ecnomus which is the case in question, which clearly has the navy divided into four.

M Demetrius wrote:
and although they won this particular exchange, it seems more coincidental that the groups were in such a categorization.

How does it seem more coincidental? Because he does not mention the triarii at the battle of Bagradas, Trebbia or Cannae, is that an indication they are not there?

M Demetrius wrote:
FTR, though, Polybius didn't name them, he's reporting on the names given to the units quite some time before his own time. Historians are like that, you know....

But is Polybius actually reporting, as you believe on the names of units before his time. He does describe the legion consisting of hastati, principes and triarii, which many believe is the legion of his day. So if this is the case, he would have been very familiar with such terms.

Paul wrote:
Furthermore, for each of the four 'classes' to each have manned a squadron would be contrary to how it is thought ancient naval battles were thought - for the squadron you postulate was manned by 'velites'

If I understand you correctly, you include the velites in the four classes? Is there evidence to support this? Varro cites only four classes are landholders. Dionysius states there are six classes? Polybius writes that the tribunes choose the poorest to form the velites. So which class or classes does the velites belong to? Your interpretation of the classes simply follows the path of least resistance, which allocates the triarii to class one, the principes to class II, the hastati to class III and the velites to class four. However, if this was so, that means in the Servian constitution, the 40 centuries of class one are triarii, and of the same age as the triarii. This leaves 10 centuries of principes, 10 centuries of hastati and 10 centuries of velites. So in the maniple legion, the triarii would have ten centuries more than the combined total of the hastati, principes and velites (40 versus 30). What happens to class five, which numbers 15 centuries? Are they ignored? Lots of questions Paul. How do you make it all fit?

Now if you cannot ascertain with any certainty which class or classes the velites belong to, then how you or anyone be assured they belong in one of the four classes that make a legion. Could they once have been the ascriptivi? How about the leves? Or what about the accensi? Or how about all of the above.

Mr Campbell wrote:
I don't know which is more reprehensible. That you deliberately set us up, like lab rats, to see who would "fail" to perform your test of scholarship, or that you, yourself, have twisted Josephus' words to suit your thesis.

Interpret it as you will. I was interested in ascertaining what would be the area of focus in Josephus passage that people gravitate to. That is all. But if you feel it had malicious intent, quite truthfully Mr Campbell….I couldn’t care less as you have a habitual habit of trying to place negative connotations on most of my postings.

Duncan wrote:
Let's be clear: Josephus says that "he proclaimed [or, by extension, produced/created] differences [or, by extension, divisions] among the soldiers". If you wish to argue that Josephus selected his soldiers according to some social class system, you'll have to better than that.

Well if you have a problem with it, take it up with William Whiston, A.M. translator of “The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged,” Hendrickson Publishers. See page 634 “He also distributed the soldiers into various classes, whom he put under captains of tens, and captains of thousands.”

I also have come across another translation sometime back that used the term classes.

Mike Bishop wrote:
To be fair, it is the detailed textual analysis of the ERM undertaken by Schenk* (followed by others) that strongly suggests (at the very least) Vegetius was employing early sources, rather than just the terminology. Vegetius has all too often been used by scholars as a sort of quantum mechanical Galdriel's mirror - they see in it what they want.

For me personally, Vegetius’ reference to hastati and principes defines their class and therefore provided a very useful tool to define which part of the legion’s organisation he is referring to. Vegetius (II 8) reference to the principes of the first cohort controlled 150 men, and the second centurion of the hastati, also controlled 150 men, adds up to 300 men, which equates to a tagma. For me, such similarities invite investigation.

Sean wrote:
But respectfully, Steven, the bit about creating distinctions among the soldiers is a small point in a passage about adding more officers and drilling the men. Its interesting, but Josephus doesn't appear to have believed it was crucial.

How can you speak for Josephus? The Roman class system is extremely important. Look at the Servian organisation. The class system defines what armour you wear, which determines how you fight. It is a soldier’s identity, and it determines how the Romans organise the legion. Alter the class structure and you change the organisation of the legion. There is a period in Roman history called the Struggle of the Orders, which is about the class struggle.

Sean wrote:
Lots of people here will be interested in your book when it comes out, but speaking for myself, I don't think I can judge your argument until I see it in full

I understand. However, the division of the Roman fleet into classes at Ecnomus is not even mentioned in the book. I don’t need it. I do a breakdown of the army at Sicily, in Africa and the deployment at Bagradas. But here, being a discussion group, I have been trying to open people’s minds to looking at the primary sources differently. To shift the focus so to speak. I made my breakthrough in understanding the primary sources by applying the “what if” methodology. So for example, if the traditional view believes the four classes contained the velites, which has not advanced our understanding of the Roman army, what if the velites are not one of the four classes. I was taught that history is about asking the right questions. And that is so true because the right questions produce the right answer. I enclose a comment from a historian, yes published with Pen and Sword and with another book at the printers, who I share my work with.

“But, really, it is wonderful to hear how your research continues to come together. I wanted to let you know, I've learned a lot from you, following your Roman voyage. And I don't mean just about Rome (but that, too, in huge piles!), but, for instance, about respect for sources, in the sense of presuming that few chroniclers spend time simply to invent a tale, but may be fairly presumed to be making the attempt to pass on knowledge as they know it -so it behooves the researcher to at least begin from a (sceptical) presumption that what comes down to us was written as the recorder understood the case to be, and then allow other evidence to contradict, corroborate, or otherwise revise that story. I take far more care, now, to see how seemingly contradictory or competing stories MIGHT, in fact, BOTH be truthful, in so far as different observers might have different perspectives or interpretations of the same event, differed in emphasis, sense of time, or scale of importance. Learned a lot, too, about the self-inflated academic vs the disciplined amateur - naturally, the adjectives could be swapped in any number of cases -but you've clearly demonstrated the case that there really is something constructive about open-minded discipline and genuine rigour that can propel faithful research into really interesting terrain.”

So how do we align contradictory information to support other supposedly contradictory information? Let’s take the African campaign beginning with Ecnomus and ending with the battle of Bagradas. Appian, Eutropius and Orosius give the Roman army at 30,000 men, while Polybius has 15,000 men at the battle of Bagradas. Lazenby’s (The First Punic War page 103) approach is “although Appian, Eutropius and Orosius give Regulus over 30,000 men, it can hardly be true that his numbers had doubled since he had been in Africa.” Lazenby has no idea that by dismissing these numbers he has created his own road block. However, earlier Lazenby (page 85) cites with 120 marines on board the 330 Roman vessels, the 39,600 marines equates to “four legions and their attached allied cohorts.” From this point it all goes wrong for Lazenby.

Let’s look at the information differently. With two consuls, 39,600 men equates to 8 legions each of 4950 men (39,600 divided by 8 = 4950). For simplicity, each legion is rounded up to 5000 men. Therefore the army numbered 40,000 men. Before leaving Sicily, of the 8 legions, the best men are picked. What this means is the Romans take from the army, those units at full strength and create the required number of legions. After leaving two legions in Sicily, that is 10,000 men, the army arrives in Africa with 30,000 men or six legions. Now we have reconciled Appian, Eutropius and Orosius with Polybius’ marines. Then the primary sources mention half the army returned to Italy, which leaves three legions or 15,000 men, which again reconciles with Polybius’ army numbers for the battle of Bagradas of 15,000 men and 500 cavalry. The 500 cavalry is rounded down and my research shows more allied than Roman, which could indicate of the three legions, one is Roman and two are allied, but this is conjecture. So what we now have is Appian, Eutropius and Orosius giving the size of the Roman army at the beginning of the campaign in Africa and Polybius those that remained behind.

How simple is that! It is so simple it is embarrassing, yet this campaign and the (imaginary) contradictory army numbers has constantly eluded academia because they are too entrenched in finding fault with the primary sources due to the fact they have developed a chronic mistrust of the primary sources.