04-20-2019, 02:35 AM
Mark, I am not sure who you have directed your questions to? Myself or Michael.
Mark wrote:
Currently wading through my second reading of Livy now I've acquired a rather weightly tome to sit on my lap; I'd like to pick up on a couple of the details mentioned above to add to my understanding if at all possible...
There’s a passage in Dionysius (4 16) I must have read over 100 times. However, two weeks ago, in another reading of the same passage, something fell into place concerning how the iuniores and seniores were equally divided into 40 centuries in the Century Assembly. It was like understanding the passage in a new light. I guess research is rereading and more rereading until the penny drops.
Mark wrote:
Is the reference to the "eighteen equestrian centuries" from Livy I,36? If so, does it not specifically refer to 3 centuries being doubled to 6 - which would imply, that in this case, the 'century' is 300 equites? The 'Servian' military detail in I, 43 would then seem to imply that this was doubled again to a total of 12 'centuries', which could well mean 3,600 equites?
Here is one translation of the passage. Livy (1 36 “Even on that occasion Tarquin was deterred from making changes in the names or numbers of the centuries of knights; he merely doubled the number of men in each, so that the three centuries contained eighteen hundred men. Those who were added to the centuries bore the same designation, only they were called the "Second" knights, and the centuries being thus doubled are now called the "Six Centuries."
It is a confused passage. The three centuries containing 1,800 men would allocate each century 600 men. So someone has confused the original three centuries with the 18 centuries at a later date, thereby having a threefold increase in the cavalry, which would allocate the three tribes each 600 cavalry. The doubling from three centuries to six centuries is acceptable, with the original three centuries (300 men) being the prior and the additional three centuries (300 men) the posterior.
According to Cicero (The Republic 2 36), Tarquinius Priscus “organised the cavalry in the form which it retains to the present... and doubled their number to 1,200.” Livy has Servius Tullius originally established 12 centuries of cavalry and then added an additional six centuries of cavalry, bringing the total to 18 centuries of cavalry. Festus (334M and 452L) has an additional 600 cavalry termed the sex-suffragia meaning “supporters” was created sometime after the other 12 centuries of cavalry.)
The chronology for this period has been doctored to a varying degree. Zonaras claims nothing of importance happened during the reign of Servius Tullius. This comment has been ignored by many and never investigated. In Livy’s account, I would change the name Servius Tullius to Tarquinius Superbus, so it reads “Tarquinius Superbus originally established 12 centuries of cavalry and then added an additional six centuries of cavalry.” Tarquinius Superbus did this so that Class I in the Century Assembly had the balance of power. This could explain why the additional 600 cavalry were given the name “supporters,” as this was their primary role….they would always vote in the manner Tarquinius Superbus decreed. After the exile of Tarquinius Superbus, the 18 centuries of cavalry were reduced to 12 centuries of cavalry.
Mark wrote:
In '480BC' is the detail of 1,200 cavalry from a different source than Livy?
For Veii, the source is Dionysius (9 13) At Veii, there are two consuls present, four legions and 1,200 cavalry. That would give each consul command of two legions and 600 cavalry. In another battle Livy (3 62) mentions that the Roman cavalry of two legions amounted to 600 men. In 495 BC, while fighting the Auruncans, Dionysius (6 33) allocates the Roman cavalry commander Aulus Postumius Albus, 600 cavalry. So both authors are consistent.
Mark wrote:
The last simple query is based upon the reference to Polybius and the Velites - for there are indeed 1,000 Velites in the standard Polybian legion (1,200 in the enhanced one); so would appreciate an elucidation of the point, if possible?
It’s a conclusion gained from studying all of Polybius; military numbers related to the Roman army. However, the 1,000 velites could be due to rounding of the numbers. It’s a little minefield Polybius has left us with.
