08-04-2016, 08:13 PM
The Servian Laws had Class V requirements at 11,000 asses. They were lowered over time as Rome suffered from manpower issues and recruitment, especially during the crisis of the 2nd cent. BC. Polybius reports that only 4,000 asses were needed to qualify for Class V, that was during the 140 BC period, and Cicero reports 1,100-1,500 asses (depending on translation), citing the times before he writes. In emergencies, like after Cannae, census requirements weren't lowered, they were ignored, which is how not only Proletariat were able to join, but also legions of slaves promised their freedom.
I'm of the mindset that most body armor, that is which covers the torso, is more a luxury than a requirement to survive ancient warfare. The Roman method of fighting meant that the primary means of defense was the shield and the helmet. The pectorale/cardiophylax was small enough that it actually covered little of the torso, barely covering the vitals (heart, lung, liver), and yet it was a primary type of infantry armor for hundreds of years, well into the Late Republic, I'd say probably into the time period of Caesar's wars. Which says to me that torso armor was more of a psychological benefit than of actual usefulness; it allowed the wearer to feel like he was invulnerable, which might make them fight harder, with less fear to protect oneself and fight defensively. Many Greek hoplites of the Peloponnesian War, the thureophoroi, many of the Gallic tribal warriors, later Germans and Dacians and Britains, and many others, they came to battle to fight as line infantry and wore nothing on their torsos, besides maybe a tunic, and yet they were all known to be rather effective at times. Shield and helmet is all someone really needs, the rest is luxury.
I'm of the mindset that most body armor, that is which covers the torso, is more a luxury than a requirement to survive ancient warfare. The Roman method of fighting meant that the primary means of defense was the shield and the helmet. The pectorale/cardiophylax was small enough that it actually covered little of the torso, barely covering the vitals (heart, lung, liver), and yet it was a primary type of infantry armor for hundreds of years, well into the Late Republic, I'd say probably into the time period of Caesar's wars. Which says to me that torso armor was more of a psychological benefit than of actual usefulness; it allowed the wearer to feel like he was invulnerable, which might make them fight harder, with less fear to protect oneself and fight defensively. Many Greek hoplites of the Peloponnesian War, the thureophoroi, many of the Gallic tribal warriors, later Germans and Dacians and Britains, and many others, they came to battle to fight as line infantry and wore nothing on their torsos, besides maybe a tunic, and yet they were all known to be rather effective at times. Shield and helmet is all someone really needs, the rest is luxury.
