EUREKA - Roman army troops

[Tarbicus]

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.

Didn't Roman cavalry in those times usually fight on foot, dismounting after riding into the fray?

[philsidnell]

[Didn't Roman cavalry in those times usually fight on foot, dismounting after riding into the fray?

Actually, when I was researching the relevant part of my book using using Livy as the basis for these early battles (as one must) I found that 'usually' means just six occasions in the first 250 years of the Republic, as against dozens of mounted actions described. And in several of those occasions it was as a last resort and to steady the failing morale of the plebian infantry in battles where mounted charges were also mounted.

Phil Sidnell

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Phil. Glad to see that cleared up.

[Sardaukar]

Obviously, consular legions were paid by state...or at least state and Senate would pay later.

There is ample evidence though, that many late Republican commanders did raise troops over the limit they were allowed (for example Marius according to Jugurthan War).

Or that were not in position to raise any troops legally (Pompeius when he raised *2* legions (If I recall correctly) to support Sulla when with no authority to do so)).

Caesar was also accused to raise troops "illegally", that is without senate consent. That implies he also paid them from his own purse like other previous "late republic warlords".

Before "capite censi", the poor of Rome were able to enlist, Senate most likely reimbursed commander. After that, it might have been more interesting situation. Especially considering the amount of money involved.

One should always remember not to think Roman nobility in terms on modern terms, tho. They were *expected* to use their money to enhance their"dignitas" (word english word "dignity" is derived from). Thus, many built magnificent buildings to enhance their dignitas etc.

One of the best explanation about "dignitas" (in my "humble" opinion) was that it was a measure of man's deeds, his share of glory, his entitlement in history books and what his word was for. It was something Roman (especially noble born) would be very particular.

And to enhance dignitas, you did perform feats..and spend money

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

Sounds very nice, I can't wait to check it out...but I'll have to wait

[antiochus]

Phil Sidnell wrote: Actually, when I was researching the relevant part of my book using Livy as the basis for these early battles (as one must) I found that 'usually' means just six occasions in the first 250 years of the Republic, as against dozens of mounted actions described. And in several of those occasions it was as a last resort and to steady the failing morale of the plebian infantry in battles where mounted charges were also mounted.

Phil is your book forthcoming or published? If published could I please have the details?

[antiochus]

Lothia wrote: I am in the process of final editing for a historical fiction set in AD 335. I am bound and determined to make it as historically accurate as I possibly can.

Alas those words “final editâ€

[antiochus]

When comparing the two systems (centuriate and maniple), it becomes understandable why there was little written about the change over. The military changes were small or insignificant, whereas the political and social changes were major reforms, and it is the political and social reforms that get most of the ink.

[Matthew]

When you say the 10 maniples of 120 Men are also 12 Centuries of 100 Men, how are you relating it to the 20 Centurions and Optio that existed for those groupings? Dividing them into 12 Centuries seems like a bit of a task to me. How exactly do you conceive of Maniples being sub units of Maniples?

Matthew James Stanham

[antiochus]

Matthew James Stanham wrote:
“When you say the 10 maniples of 120 Men are also 12 Centuries of 100 men, how are you relating it to the 20 Centurions and Optio that existed for those groupings? Dividing them into 12 Centuries seems like a bit of a task to me.

[Matthew]

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Steven.

So, are you thinking that each Maniple of 120 Men consists of 12 files of 10 Men? So, for instance:

12 Voting Centuries, each of 100 Men each contributes 10 Men to a Maniple, resulting in a Maniple consisting of 12 files of 10 men drawn from 12 Voting Centuries, or some other form of organisation? It would certainly make sense for those instances where Maniples are uniformly increased in size, as these would simply be adding extra Voting Centuries to the first two lines.

How are you conceiving of the organisation of the Velites who are distributed equally amongst the Maniples? How does this equate with Polybius' description of the recruiting process where men are judged on suitability at the muster?

[antiochus]

Matthew James Stanham wrote:
So, are you thinking that each Maniple of 120 Men consists of 12 files of 10 Men? So, for instance: 12 Voting Centuries, each of 100 Men each contributes 10 Men to a Maniple.

[Paullus Scipio]

I don't think one should attempt to be too rigid in defining 'maniple' as so may files of so many men, and I readily accept that maniple could refer to a unit or sub-unit.
Consider the likely origin of the word, from 'manus'= hand, hence originally 'maniple' is lit: handful, which might be as few as 10 men, or as many as 120 ( say). It would thus be a generic word (rather than a particular size); as say, we use the word 'unit' which might be small or large depending on context, or task.(e.g."... a unit of ten men...." or "... a task-force sized composite unit was sent...." Later, as the structure became more fomalised 'maniple' would come to mean a particular size of unit.
Secondly, consider contemporary greek usage, where lochos could mean 'a file' ( which in turn would vary, depending on the situation militarily, and how many 'age-classes' had been called out, so that the file might be 8,10, 12 or even 16 men) or 'lochos' could mean a 'company' up to 500 or more strong.

The analogy cannot be taken too far, because there was a fundamental difference between Greek and Roman military organisation.

Greek formations, drill, and tactics were all based on the file
Roman formations, drill and tactics were all based on ranks

( I hasten to add this is an off-the-top-of-the-head comment, hence the lack of sources ,which I usually take care to quote)

[antiochus]

which might be as few as 10 men, or as many as 120 ( say). It would thus be a generic word (rather than a particular size); as say, we use the word 'unit' which might be small or large depending on context, or task.(e.g."... a unit of ten men...." or "... a task-force sized composite unit was sent...." Later, as the structure became more fomalised 'maniple' would come to mean a particular size of unit.

I quite agree, but, (there is always a but), even when the word maniple represented a unit of a particular size, is still means a unit formed by groupings of maniples of a fixed numerical value. This little piece of knowledge has had the greatest impact on my research.

[antiochus]

Another research gem centres on Bingham’s book on Aelian’s Military Tactics written in 1616. Bingham extensively draws on Sudius for information on Macedonian drill and the Roman army. Sudius remark about the Roman ranks confirms the Roman army was based on rank system and not file. The fact Sudius mentions it from “the left hand to the rightâ€