Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
EUREKA - Roman army troops
#46
Quote:By dividing 480 men by 6 which equates to 6 centuries of eighty men. Why six centuries? This is dictated by the tribal levy with the tribal subunits levying 8 men per decurion. Ten decurions make a century. So technically the Romans are correct in naming 80 men a century as they originally came from a century. But the maniple doesn’t so follow this procedure which would explain why it is termed a maniple (different grouping arrangement).
A different grouping arrangement indeed.
So, how do you envisage squeezing a manipular legion into a cohortal structure? Would each of your centuries have a different mix of velites, hastati, principes and triarii?
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#47
Quote:Some historians have written some brilliant ground breaking work, but this work unfortunately has long been oeverlooked.

I'm researching the Roman conquest of Italy for a forthcoming book, so I will be looking into your subject. Please post some references to these overlooked works.

Thanks,

R
Reply
#48
Phil wrote: quite understand your position regarding publishers, no point hurrying it if you don't have to.

At present having no publication deadline allows me to go off on a tangent and research other leads. For example, I came across information discussing the Etruscan cosmos. Seems the Etruscans divided the cosmos into zones, something the Romans did not do. Now these zones and subdivisions of the zones by the Etruscans made me wonder if from these cosmic zones were then duplicated as the military organisation for the Etruscan army.


Steven James
Reply
#49
Quote:A lot of this goes to explain why the tribes increased in increments of two. There is one period with an increase of four, but this is still two increments of two. All this shows an ongoing strategy of expansion...

Is it the Mennonites who split the group into two once they reach a certain number, half of whom form a new colony elsewhere? This keeps the social group manageable with less risk of internal conflict. For a modern business parallel see W.L. Gore & Associates (makers of Gore-Tex) management philosophy that rejected the traditional pyramid structure, and implemented a lattice structure. Highly successful and keeps productivity and ingenuity within a growing company whilst preserving co-operation.
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company- ... story.html

Do you not think that the location of new colonies could have more to do with local resources than provocation? If a competing city-state had already colonised an area or was located there it stands to reason that the resources in that location were good (or they wouldn't be there in the first place), so it would make sense to locate your own colony in or near that region to also take advantage of such resources? But, where other city-states would prefer not to go there, simply to avoid conflict, the Romans showed more willingness to not be bullied off the 'turf'. It doesn't mean they had a deliberate policy of provoking war, just that they felt there were enough resources for them as well, but if a competitor didn't think so, tough. The likelihood may have been that no matter where you colonised there would always be someone nearby who objected, so what the hell; "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" The alternative could be famine and internal social conflict.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#50
"I have for the period of the centuriate legion, at present, 14 references from 4 ancient writers citing the State supplied the armament. I also have numerous references for this occurring during the period of the maniple legion. I also have numerous references of a war tax imposed by the State for military equipment supplied to their soldiers, separate from those citing the arming of the proletarians by the State...."

Most interesting, Antiochus/Steven, as it goes against accepted wisdom. Could we have, for a starter, at least the most significant of those references-cites? I'd love to see and check them

Best Regards
Reply
#51
Fernando Quesada wrote: Most interesting, Antiochus/Steven, as it goes against accepted wisdom. Could we have, for a starter, at least the most significant of those references-cites? I'd love to see and check them

Steven James
Reply
#52
Quote:Much of the material centres on Roman religion, orientation and politics. As to the conquest of Italy, I was discussing this with a professor about how the increase in tribes seems to show when they reach a certain population figure, those who they are at war, or have been selected for a war, will be annihilated. It’s almost like the Romans have calculated their territory, its holding capacity, then when their population has increased in size, a war begins. A lot of this goes to explain why the tribes increased in increments of two. There is one period with an increase of four, but this is still two increments of two. All this shows an ongoing strategy of expansion followed by generation after generation of senators. They also create colonies in strategic positions to hem in their enemies, knowing the enemy will before long, attack the colony, thereby giving Rome its pretext for war. In Tolkien terms, the Romans are Morder, and the Roman senate, Seranin (spelling). They are an evil people.
Wouldn't the tribes increase in increments of two to prevent tied votes? IIRC votes of the tribes were resolved by simple majority, and every tribe always cast a single vote.

Comparative historians have noted that societies tend to be most warlike when young unmarried men make up a large proportion of the population. Think Kipling's "The bachelor, he fights for one ..." So warmaking is common after a period of population growth in societies with low life expectancy like ancient Rome. You do have to be careful studying early Rome though, since the surviving historians had almost nothing but oral tradition to work with.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#53
Sean Manning wrote: Wouldn't the tribes increase in increments of two to prevent tied votes? IIRC votes of the tribes were resolved by simple majority, and every tribe always cast a single vote.


Steven James
Reply
#54
Hi, Steven !
That was a most interesting post that you quoted to support the idea of "the State" providing arms to the soldiers, but in fact those quotes seem to show something subtly different, possibly the opposite in fact !! :?
It would seem in each case that rather than "the State" ( presumably in the form of the Senate) providing arms etc, the senate directs an individual, usually one or both consuls, to equip and arm the army he is raising. This implies that the individual may be the one paying for the arming. That the arming is a 'public' one is likely, because a young man, until enlisted , did not know which 'branch' of the service he would enter e.g. he might be enrolled as a velite or hastati and could hardly be expected to have two 'panoplies', as need arose.That it is the Individual who is doing the paying may be inferred from the fact that it was not until around 269 B.C. ,as stated by both Livy and Pliny and confirmed by actual examples, that Rome minted its first coinage,( earlier currency consisted of crude bronze bars,( Aes rude lit: rough bronze ),hence "the State's" finances were rudimentary to say the least.
If this idea is correct, it might explain why Roman commanders were seen in the ancient sources as "greedier" than others - they had a huge financial stake to recoup!! Confusedhock:
It would be most interesting to see if there were differences after the 'watershed' date of 269 B.C. Smile

p.s. That "the Sate" did not hold stocks of arms is shown by the fact that after Cannae (217 B.C.), as an emergency measure, Rome raised 4,000 'volones' from slaves etc and these had to be armed with Gallic arms and armour taken down from the temples where they hung as trphies from recent Roman victories.........
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#55
Or could it be argued that the usual stocks had been depleted by the extraordinary effort of putting 80,000 men in the field for Cannae? :wink:

Phil
Reply
#56
...And Cannae was 216 BC, surely?

Phil
Reply
#57
Quote:Or could it be argued that the usual stocks had been depleted by the extraordinary effort of putting 80,000 men in the field for Cannae?

That would be doubtful - Rome had exactly enough panoplies to fit thearmies raised that year, but no more ? :? Unlikely !
But not long afterward, Rome raised two fresh legions, and by the end of the year had maybe four more - these were apparently equipped and armed in the usual way.

Consider Carthage in 149 B.C. surrendered 200,000 panoplies, and that city didn't even have citizen troops to speak of. Clearly those states who had arsenals seem to have had generous stocks !! Smile )

Quote:...And Cannae was 216 BC, surely?

Quite right ! August 2nd, 216 B.C. to be exact - simple typing error I'm afraid ! :oops: :oops:
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#58
antiochus\\n[quote]Sean Manning wrote: Wouldn't the tribes increase in increments of two to prevent tied votes? IIRC votes of the tribes were resolved by simple majority, and every tribe always cast a single vote.

Lily Ross Taylor (The Voting Districts of Rome) proposed the tribes were maintained at odd numbers so as to prevent a tied vote. But the organisation structure of the tribe clearly shows one tribe can have a tied vote as 50% of the tribe can vote “yesâ€
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#59
Paul McDonnell-Staff wrote: It would seem in each case that rather than "the State" (presumably in the form of the Senate) providing arms etc, the senate directs an individual, usually one or both consuls, to equip and arm the army he is raising. This implies that the individual may be the one paying for the arming.

No Paul, it does not imply this. It merely shows the responsibilities of a consul---he oversaw the arming of his troops. Dionysius X 24 “Quintius, when he learned that he had been appointed dictator, far from being pleased at receiving so great an honour, was actually vexed, and said: "This year's crop too will be ruined, then, because of my official duties, we shall all go dreadfully hungry." X 25. And when the senate wanted him (Quintius) to accept as much of the conquered land as he wished, together with slaves and money out of the spoils, and to relieve his poverty with deserved riches which he had acquired most honourably from the enemy by his own toils, he refused to do so. Also when his friends and relations offered him magnificent gifts and placed their greatest happiness in assisting such a man, he thanked them for their zeal, but would accept none of their presents. Instead, he retired again to that small farm of his and resumed his life of a farmer working his own land in preference to the life of a king, glorying more in his poverty than others in their riches.â€
Reply
#60
Hi Steven !
Quote:Quintius, according to Livy and Dionysius is dirt poor to start with so how could he pay the tax on the arming of an army? And if he was required to do so, then why did he refuse to recoup his money? Sorry Paul, your theory does not hold up.
.....as you yourself point out later in your post, a single selective example is not good practise !! I would be wary of early alleged anecdotes ( as Sean has pointed out)- there is a grave danger that these are mere legends, to prove a point. Most of the examples you originally quoted were from Rome's pre-history, as it were. This one , about 'Saint' Quintius is suspiciously virtuous ! And there are many other similar stories of 'noble behaviour' by allegedly 'poor' Roman senators (who can't be 'poor' by definition !!

Quote:Sorry Paul, your theory does not hold up.
......not necessarily ! ( see above)....there is no conclusive evidence ( as yet, and you may indeed have some you have so far not quoted ) as to who actually paid - indeed one of your original quotes implied it was each individual.

[quote]With all due respect Paul, this response follows traditional academic practice by taking one imprecise piece of information to dispute numerous citations that dispute it. Your example does not “show the state did not hold stock of arms.â€
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman troops in Thuringia ? Simplex 17 6,327 09-17-2021, 01:33 PM
Last Post: Simplex
  Roman militia and garrison troops Legate 0 509 02-16-2019, 07:28 PM
Last Post: Legate
  Training Foreign Troops-Roman Evidence? Titus Labienus 8 2,306 09-19-2014, 10:26 AM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs

Forum Jump: