EUREKA - Roman army troops

[Tarbicus]

Is it possible that the reason for the 'banding'/'means testing' of individual legionaries into velites, hastati, etc, by wealth was to ensure that they could actually pay for the arms they were issued with? There's no point in making a poor dirt farmer a princeps when he couldn't reimburse the state or individual for the gear. Both theories of who supplied the army may be correct and don't necessarily exclude each other, perhaps?

His refusal to take reimbursement for the expense may have had more to do with not having to be beholden to the state, so he could maintain as much autonomy as possible? However, if the legionaries over time reimbursed him for the arms they now had, he could eventually repay his debts and/or refill his coffers. But that year's crop would have gone untended by him which is why he says "This year's crop will be ruined..." which would be unrecoverable, and therefore cause a fiscal loss no matter what given his refusal of reimbursement through spoils.

The question would be whether the legionaries sold the equipment to the state afterwards or, like Quintius' obligations, were obliged to donate them through civic duty after gaining spoils and wealth through victory? Or, did they retain them, being expected to maintain and use them for future conflicts? Quintius's financial outlay may have been to only equip the new members of the legion (possibly recoverable from the men themselves), and maintain their supplies for the duration (recoverable through spoils).

[Paullus Scipio]

Is it possible that the reason for the 'banding'/'means testing' of individual legionaries into velites, hastati, etc, by wealth was to ensure that they could actually pay for the arms they were issued with? There's no point in making a poor dirt farmer a princeps when he couldn't reimburse the state or individual for the gear.

Excellent point, Jim! Otherwise, if the State handed out equipment, and expected it to be returned, it wouldn't matter who got what equipment - grading on financial/age grounds only makes sense that way.
...But "the gear" had to be paid for 'up-front' by somebody, and the question remains, was it the "state" (and did it have the means? what evidence is there of taxes at this time?) or the Consuls/commanders personally,or both, as you suggest - maybe the 'rich' i.e. senators/consuls had the ready cash, expected to be re-imbursed from the state, who in turn expected to recover from spoils.... ( I have a vague feeling I read something to this effect, in one of the sources.....)

Or, did they retain them, being expected to maintain and use them for future conflicts?

...as I mentioned, there is certainly evidence for this from the second punic war ( see Nero's march to the Metaurus and the veterans joining him - as related in 'legionary feats' thread and above. Some supplies were also 'requesitioned' from Allies and others, including arms IIRC - Scipio after he captured New Carthage promised freedom to the armourer-slaves in return for service. There are other instances of veterans being 'recalled' in circumstances where they would not have an opportunity to be 're-issued', IIRC.

[Paullus Scipio]

I've pinched this post by Sardaukar/Mika from another thread as it provides some valuable information on the subject of "who pays?" that we discussed here.......
Sardaukar said:

There were interpretations of Gallic War that not all Caesar's legionaries wore lorica hamata. While I think they did, it raises the question, could he afford it in monetary sense ? He commanded often 10-11 legions...and that's lot of chainmail.

There was this saying of Crassus that man should not deem himself rich if he could not raise and equip a legion.

Operating a single 4,500-man legion for a year ran to some 4 million sestertii.
(Cicero, in Pis., 86; Plutarch, Cae., 28 & Pomp., 55. Supporting this is Cicero's comment that the two under strength legions he controlled in Cilicia in 51 B.C. each cost about 3 million sestertii in pay and maintenance a year (Cicero, ad Fam., V , 20, 9, & ad Att., V, 11, 5), which was about 60% of the annual revenues of the province (Cf., Frank, pp. 136ff)).

[antiochus]

Paul wrote......as you yourself point out later in your post, a single selective example is not good practise!!

Agreed, but I did not want to write a thesis on the matter. D ) I do not have the interest in examining the possibility as I am confident pursuing such a theory will prove fruitless.

Paul wrote...... 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.

How can anyone prove they are legends? Sure Achilles mother being seduced by some God can be alleged to be a legend. I’m staying with my policy of trusting the primary sources until they prove me wrong. And when they are proven to be wrong, I have found them to be honest mistakes.

Paul wrote......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)!!

Now Paul this is not directly aimed at you and my comments has no malice towards you. I supplied the reference to poor Quintius to show an example of a man who could not financially afford to pay for the equipping of the army. I have used the Quintius reference (with others) in the book to show the financial loss suffered by those who served before the issuing of pay, which was accomplished by the introduction of a tax on the people. But your response the story being “suspiciously virtuousâ€

[Tarbicus]

With the Servian system, each soldier paid a war tax according to his wealth as told by Dionysius. Therefore those who could afford the war tax on the equipment of a class I soldier wore the better armour. In Plutarch (Pompey 45) the treasury income of 340 million is mentioned. There are records of what taxes were paid by a Roman citizen found throughout the primary sources.

So, in a nutshell and practice, the individual paid for the equipment which the state then procured for them. Begs the question, why not just let the men get their own? The reasons I can think of were to guarantee that the individuals would actually be equipped when they went to war, and not spend the money on something else, and perhaps to guarantee the quality of the equipment?

[antiochus]

So, in a nutshell and practice, the individual paid for the equipment which the state then procured for them. Begs the question, why not just let the men get their own?

It was done to maintain a standard of equipment and maintain the integrity of the legion's functions. That way the Romans knew exactly how many light armed they would have. This would not work if those designated as light armed turned up on the day with equipment not suitable for the job.

I've found some references to the Roman treasurey becoming exhausted because of continious campaigns and the people not being able to support the war tax. Nothing in them to suggest consuls paid for the equipment.

Steven James

[Paullus Scipio]

I've found some references to the Roman treasurey becoming exhausted because of continious campaigns and the people not being able to support the war tax. Nothing in them to suggest consuls paid for the equipment.

...fair enough Steven, but what about the late republic practice referred to above ? It would seem that the Consuls/Warlords paid up front at that time (per Crassus' remark ), even if the state re-imbursed them later...and that must have occurred when warlords raised 'illegal' legions ( as happened in the civil wars period )....what do you think Steven? :? ?

(see sardaukar quote in my post above)

[Matthew]

Well, it should be interesting to see how this all pans out. I'm not sure I agree with everything that has been said so far, but it's fun to play with numbers. For my part, I see Polybius' Legion breaking down as:

4,200 Man Standard Legion (sans Cavalry)

10 Maniples of 60 Triarii and 40 Velites (50 Men per Century)
10 Maniples of 120 Principes and 40 Velites (80 Men per Century)
10 Maniples of 120 Hastati and 40 Velites (80 Men per Century)

5,000 Man Reinforced Legion (sans Cavalry)

10 Maniples of 60 Triarii and 40 Velites (50 Men per Century)
10 Maniples of 160 Principes and 40 Velites (100 Men per Century)
10 Maniples of 160 Hastati and 40 Velites (100 Men per Century)

At some point the numbers of Triarii must have been increased. Possibly to 120, but just as possibly to 160. In the former case, the post Marian 480 Man Cohort would be nominally comprised of three Maniples of 120 Triarii, 120 Principes, 120 Hastati, with 120 Velites divided into each Century of 60 Men. In the latter case, the Cohort would be nominally comprised of three Maniples of 160 Triarii, 160 Principes and 160 Hastati, with 120 Velites 'floating around' as a concept that could increase the Cohort to 600 Men or be completely ignored.

I would love to see evidence that could lend such suppositions credence or prove them completely wrong, so I look forward to any comprehensive book on the subject.

Matthew James Stanham

[antiochus]

Paul McDonnell-Staff...fair enough Steven, but what about the late republic practice referred to above? It would seem that the Consuls/Warlords paid up front at that time (per Crassus' remark), even if the state re-imbursed them later...and that must have occurred when warlords raised 'illegal' legions (as happened in the civil wars period)....what do you think Steven?

I don’t rule out some buying and equipping a legion. Practices that are not the norm do get a mention in the primary sources, but I cannot buy into the view the consuls did the buying all the time. If it was common practice it gets little attention. This topic eventuated when I was asked to supply reference for the arming of the troops by the state for the centuriate army. Because some references mention consuls were given the authority to arm the troops this has now been interpreted as they also paid for the war tax. I find this approach ‘reading between the linesâ€

[antiochus]

Mathew wrote: I would love to see evidence that could lend such suppositions credence or prove them completely wrong, so I look forward to any comprehensive book on the subject.

I will confess, the triarii did increase in size. As for the book, it will clear up a lot of misconceptions. A big claim to make but one I am 100 percent confident in. Early next year I will be in England to present the book to some military academics for further scrutiny. Hopefully one will be Professor Wheeler as he is hard task master and will happily tear it apart if wrong. But that I know will not happen.

Cheers

Steven

[Mithras]

Well done Steve, I know that moment!

Cool.

[antiochus]

Well done Steve, I know that moment!

Cool.
_________________
~ Paul Elliott

You wouldn't know what happened to the "sex suffragia" would you? The missing 600 cavalry, leaving 1200 equites. They are listed in the Servian reform but I cannot find evidence of their existence during the beginning of the Republic. Not one battle account would suggest 1800 cavalry were present. Some scholars believe they still voted in the centuriate assembly but for how long?

I asked some professors today about the disappearance of the sex suffragia but they replied it was too difficult. They could be right. But disappear they did. I have references to six glans disappearing during the throw of the monarchy but this number does not reconcile with the tribes and the levy arrangement, of which the sex suffragia are apart. At one point I thought they could have become cavalry officers for the equites but the numbers do not match. The only conclusion is because once they were the king's bodyguard, they were disbanded with the overthrow of the monarchy.

Has anyone been down this road before?

[Paullus Scipio]

Steven said:-

The only conclusion is because once they were the king's bodyguard, they were disbanded with the overthrow of the monarchy.

If it is not specifically there in the sources, a clue may be found in Livy I.XLIX.3 where Superbus "...assumed a bodyguard." Like most such bodyguards they will have been aristocrats/nobles/equites, quite likely Etruscans themselves, and probably cavalry. 600 might be a typical number for such a guard ( often also 300, in Greece - the fact that 600 is a multiple may be significant)...so I would agree with your conclusion that they were most likely expelled/disbanded/went into exile with Tarquinius Superbus in 509 B.C....

[antiochus]

[quote]so I would agree with your conclusion that they were most likely expelled/disbanded/went into exile with Tarquinius Superbus in 509 B.C....

This is the only conclusion I can came to. The sex suffragia has held up my progress for too long now so I will go with the abolishment at the beginning of the republic. I wouldn't be surprised if they are the Roman exiles Dionysius and Livy speak of. The exiles were at three battles with the Tarquins and at the battle of Regillus they are both infantry and cavalry, and most importantly, kept in reserve and sent in the line when the Latin centre was wavering. In one campaign around 502 BC, they keep a Roman army in the field near Rome watching out for "Tarquin exiles" from attacking the city while the other Roman army is fighting the Sabines

[antiochus]

Returning to the discussion of the theory surrounding the consul paid for the war tax on equipment, one read of Henry C. Bowen’s paper “Studies Relating to the Stipendium Militumâ€