All Things Cannae

[antiochus]

Paul wrote:

In the light of Steven/Antiochus' last post, bearing in mind he has a thesis/book on this very subject, I'd be most interested to see his comments. He seems to be categorical that velites/light infantry only became part of the legions in 211 BC....

You can cut one of my hands off if I am wrong. Permission granted. Draw up a legal document giving you permission and I’ll sign it.

Paul wrote

...and as to them always being part of the legions, I strongly doubt that, for the reasons set out above regarding "army" rather than "legion," Livy's unambiguous statement [(and) it was made the practice to have light-armed/velites in the legions], Polybius' change of nomenclature corresponding to Livy's, and Steven/Antiochus' certainty about the matter!!

I would love to blab my mouth off. Put it all out there but my major concern is someone using my research as their own and not citing me, which is a real possibility if the information is posted on an internet discussion group. There are a lot of people who want to make a name for themselves and don’t have any scruples about claiming another’s research as there own, so I am a little cautious about what I say, which puts me in a dilemma as I feel it is unfair to this forum.

Putting my fears aside, I will state my research shows the velites came into being in 211 BC, being drawn from the 5th and 6th class (proletarii). The special legionaries Livy is refereeing to who are selected to train with the cavalry are the leves, also drawn from the 5th class. Oh yes they still existed in 211 BC, and carried spears and javelins, had no shield, but are rearmed and reorganised with the 6th class as velites. Livy’s reference the velites were included with the heavy legionaries means the Roman light infantry were now organised into maniples like the heavy infantry. Before this the light infantry were not organised into maniples. When all is said and done, it really is an anti-climax.

Now if someone uses this material as there own, all I can say is without having the levy system (and other material) they cannot give a full account, and the levy system will show how, and in what numbers the velites were drawn from the tribes. Plus it has to be taken into consideration a real possibility exists I have no idea what I am talking about, or I am, as one member believes, a psychopathic liar using the RAT discussion group to perpetrate a hoax.

[Praefectusclassis]

I have clipped the to-and-fro abusive comments from this thread, hoping this will continue as a debate of the issues in this thread. Everyone taking part in this thread should now consider themselves formally warned.
If you have a personal issue with a member, do not take it out in public. If you feel a moderator should step in, send one or more a PM.
For the record, members are fully within their rights to call each other out on their sources and theories as in any academic debate.

[Paullus Scipio]

Antiochus/Steven wrote:-

Livy’s reference the velites were included with the heavy legionaries means the Roman light infantry were now organised into maniples like the heavy infantry.

I don't think this is quite correct. Livy tells us only that they became part of the legions (see above) without specifying how they were organised.
However, Polybius in his famous description of the Roman Army tells us about the velites lack of formal organisation.(VI.22) He says they were attached to all the companies/maniples, as supernumeraries ( c.f. latin 'velati', lit: supernumeraries who fill up the ranks)
He says "they divide each class into ten companies/maniples except the velites...(who) are divided equally among all the companies/maniples" (VI.24.8 ).
He also tells us that they don't have their own centurions, and the fact that velites operate some way from their officers is implicit in his statement that some wear wolfskins etc as "a mark by which their officers can recognise them and judge if they fight bravely or not" (VI.22.3)
Duncan wrote:-

The Rawson theory, as I recall it, is that hasta velitaris orginally meant something like "flying spear", and denoted the pilum, or at least the "thin" socketed type of pilum.

I think that this theory is misconceived or flawed in argument....the translation/interpretation of 'Hasta Velitaris' being a case in point. It is clear, even to a non-Latin specialist such as me, that it does not mean 'flying spear' in the sense of 'flying through the air' i.e. 'thrown spear'. Given that she is translating 'velitaris' as derived from 'velox', it means 'swift, rapid, speedy, fleet or quick' ( according to all dictionaries/lexicons I have consulted) hence 'flying' only in the sense of 'swift/speedy' as in "flying column". It appears she has started by confusing an english word which has a dual meaning (flight= to run away quickly and flight = through the air) with its latin equivalent, which does not.
As Antiochus/Steven remarked, if you start with a false premise you can only end with a false conclusion....

[antiochus]

Sorry about the lateness of my reply, had a hand injury that made typing difficult, and again sorry, it is long winded. Also Paul I would like to add that while I have replied to your questions, my replies cover topics you did not raise. So please understand it is a rant of sorts.

Paul wrote

I don't think this is quite correct. Livy tells us only that they became part of the legions (see above) without specifying how they were organised. However, Polybius in his famous description of the Roman Army tells us about the velites lack of formal organisation. (VI. 22) He says they were attached to all the companies/maniples, as supernumeraries.

Ok, I need to be more specific. My research shows the Roman light infantry before 211 BC were organised into centuries, and after 211 BC were organised into their own maniples when on the battlefield, that is when fighting. Now to prove this with a reference from a primary source is impossible as neither Livy nor anyone else left a twelve step program with detailed instructions. My strength is I can prove it with 700 years of Roman military history by using the primary sources that all show a consistency in the Roman organisation regardless of the changing size of the legion. The empirical data after 211 BC supports the introduction of the velites, but the empirical data pre 211 BC, cannot and does not support the velites were part of the legion. A legion may give the appearance of being formed on a ad hoc basis, but it is rigidly formalised. What I maintain in my book is the light infantry before 211 BC, when on the battlefield, are organised in centuries, not maniples.

Paul wrote:

I too suspect that Steven's work may not be as 'ground-breaking' as a young enthusiast may believe - after all, there is little or no new material, merely 'new' ways of interpreting it, but that does not mean he should be discouraged.

Respectfully, in regard to your statement Paul “there is little or no new materialâ€

[Vincula]

the maniple was a subunit of the century.

I thought it was bigger???

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

the maniple was a subunit of the century.

I thought it was bigger???

I was under that impression too...2 centuries to a maniple was it not? :?

[Tarbicus]

the maniple was a subunit of the century.

I thought it was bigger???

I think that's Steven's point - we all go "Huh?"

But he states quite clearly that his opinions are based on primary sources without bias from secondary sources.

When the book comes out I'll personally be better able to make my own mind up. The Devil's in the detail, at the end of the day, which means I'll probably form an opinion in twenty years.

[Paullus Scipio]

Steven/Antiochus wrote:-
[quote]Respectfully, in regard to your statement Paul “there is little or no new materialâ€

[Muzzaguchi]

Hi All,

Isn't Cincius' De Re Militari usually dated to the reign of Augustus? Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 16.4) only refers to him as Cincius. A Hannibalic date for such a treatise is highly unlikely since Cato the Elder's de disciplina militari is regarded as the first work in Latin on the Roman 'art of war' and, as with the Origines, he was the first to write such works in Latin. Previously they (technical and scientific subjects including History, Geography etc) were written in Greek, just as Fabius Pictor had done? Cato probably wrote his work after 191 BC. Cincius probably used Cato, however, but he shouldn't be used to definitively date the make up of a maniple.

Just my two cents.

Cheers

Murray

[Paullus Scipio]

Muzzaguchi/Murray wrote:-

Isn't Cincius' De Re Militari usually dated to the reign of Augustus? Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 16.4) only refers to him as Cincius. A Hannibalic date for such a treatise is highly unlikely since Cato the Elder's de disciplina militari is regarded as the first work in Latin on the Roman 'art of war' and, as with the Origines, he was the first to write such works in Latin. Previously they (technical and scientific subjects including History, Geography etc) were written in Greek, just as Fabius Pictor had done? Cato probably wrote his work after 191 BC. Cincius probably used Cato, however, but he shouldn't be used to definitively date the make up of a maniple.

Fair point, Murray and quite possibly correct, though arguments are made for both. But even if that view is right/preferred; as you pointed out, in that case, that"Cincius" most probably drew on Cato. So whether L.Cincius Alimentus,(after 210 BC?) or a later "Cincius" drawing on Cato (after 191 BC?), doesn't it mean the description of the army is that at the end of the Hannibalic War, roughly, in any event ?

[antiochus]

Paul wrote

We are not in disagreement here, since it depends on the definition of "new"......your "new" is my 'existing'.

If no one is aware of something, then no one knows it exist. When it becomes know then it is new. There is an abundance of subject matter in the primary sources that people do not know exists. It’s like the Tibetan Book of the Dead which states “if you tell the secret of life at the market place and no one listens, then it remains a secret. If no one is recognising the relationships between the empirical data in the primary sources then those relationships do not exist. Oh dear God, someone shoot me, I'm starting to sound like Buddha.

Paul wrote

I suspect that Steven/Antiochus means that the century as unit came before the maniple, which came later...... rather than that so many maniples made up a century.

No the latter is correct, maniples form a century. But I am referring to the early republic here. Probably did not make that clear.

Paul wrote

The origins of centuriae must be regarded as going back to the origins of Rome itself. Plutarch, as noticed above, speaks of the force led by Romulus against Amulius as formed of centuries; and from the reference to the centuries of Servius Tullius, and the organization of the military force, the term was used to describe sub-divisions of the phalanx….Doubtless Steven will elaborate if I'm mistaken as to his meaning here - in the light of the above, which I have gone to some trouble to set out, it would be 'revolutionary' indeed to claim that the maniple was literally a "sub-unit" of the century in the sense that one or more maniples made up a century...

Well first thank you for having gone to “some trouble.â€

[Paullus Scipio]

Having digressed at length on the subject of Roman Light Infantry, and had a number of views expressed all with some validity, I guess members will be thoroughly convinced that when it comes to the Roman Army at any time, much is uncertain and our sources can be interpreted in more than one way.... (
When it comes to Cannae, despite having two excellent sources in Polybius and Livy, and minor sources such as Appian, who preserves a confused and extremely pro-Aemilii version, controversy has raged over virtually every aspect of the battle - ranging from which side of the river the battle was fought on ( in truth the river has changed it's course across the flood-plain several times), where it was fought, to numbers present in the Roman Army, how they were deployed, the numbers and deployment of Hannibal's army, their armament, the respective plans of the commanders, who commanded the Romans on the day, and almost every other detail.

Doubtless all can be explored here in this thread in turn !! hock: hock:

Antiochus/Steven has already briefly referred to one of the controversies above, namely the deployment of the Romans.The normal deployment of a 'Consular Army' was to have the two Legions side-by-side in the centre and then the cohorts of 'socii'=allies as ' Alae'= wings on either side, with the flanks usually held by cavalry. And indeed at Cannae this is just what Appian, relying on some source sympathetic/close to the Aemilii says: "The Romans were drawn up in three lines with a small interval between them, each part having infantry in the center, with Auxiliaries and cavalry on the wings. Aemilius commanded the center, Servilius the left wing, and Varro the right."
( notice that Aemilius is placed in the centre...where he certainly seems to have ended up fighting on foot, and Varro placed in the commander's place of honour on the right ! :? )
The problem with this is that, if taken literally, with two Consular armies present, the 'usual array' is upset, with Allies and Cavalry in the all-important centre (Roman Cavalry: Allies-Legion-Legion-Allies: Allied Cavalry ;Roman Cavalry:Allies-Legion-Legion- Allies: Allied Cavalry)...even amending this slightly to Roman Cavalry:Allies-Legion-Legion-Allies ; Allies-Legion-Legion-Allies:Allied Cavalry is unsatisfactory, leaving Allies in the middle....

Livy (XXII.45.7) has the Legions on the right and the Allies on the left, thus; Roman Cavalry: Legion-Legion-Legion-Legion; Allies-Allies-Allies-Allies:Allied Cavalry but this seems hardly much better than Appian....given what happened i.e. the Roman centre pushing forward, we might expect a third alternative; Roman Cavalry: Allies-Allies-Legion-Legion ; Legion-Legion-Allies-Allies:Allied Cavalry BUT none of our sources gives this, since Polybius is silent regarding deployment ! :?

More controversy....so what do members think was likely, preferably with reasons?

[SigniferOne]

As an interesting aside,

Isn't Cincius' De Re Militari usually dated to the reign of Augustus? Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 16.4) only refers to him as Cincius.

Do we know of any Cincius during the Augustan period? I can't recall any off the top of my head. Plus it'd have to be someone major, as Gellius refers to him just as Cincius without feeling it necessary to clarify whom he meant.

Cato probably wrote his work after 191 BC.

If indeed it was the Alimentus Cincius, why couldn't it have done thereabouts as well, after settling down and retirement, post 2nd Punic War?

Cato was not the first to write prose in Latin, as we know of a speech by Appius Claudius Caecus, against Pyrrhus, surviving into Cicero's and Quintillian period.

[Paullus Scipio]

Antiochus/Steven wrote:-

No the latter is correct, maniples form a century. But I am referring to the early republic here. Probably did not make that clear.

Hey ! No fair ! wink: :wink:

[quote]You yourself Paul, the last time I mentioned the maniple being a subunit of a century comment that “maniple’ eventually became a generic word for a small or large unit, and as the structure became more formalised, a maniple came to identify a particular size of unit.â€

[antiochus]

More controversy....so what do members think was likely, preferably with reasons?

I can’t see any reason to reject Livy’s version. The point is every ancient historian wants to be original and will therefore try and cover aspects not covered by another ancient historian. As Polybius has mentioned the attempt to capture Hannibal’s camp, there was no need for Livy to do the same unless he has something more to elaborate. I think Livy focussed on the Roman deployment because at the time of his writing, Polybius gave it scant treatment. My curiosity is drawn to Livy’s statement the Romans maintained a close formation “on a broad front,â€