09-03-2008, 12:38 AM
David,
As you have probably gathered, there are no absolute answers to many of these questions, only informed opinions, and many of us will probably disagree as to how informed the opinions of some of the others are. :lol:
That having ben said, this is my understanding of the issues you raise.
1. Maniples (and Cohorts)
I'm going to assume that what you are actually asking is whether or not the hastati etc. were combined into cohorts by this time. They were in maniples well before this period, but the ten maniples each of hastati, principes, and triarii were the largest internal sub-divisions of the legion. Then at some point around this time (say within twenty or thirty years of your start date) the Roman maniples began being combined into cohorts, ten cohorts per legion each consisting of one maniple each of hastati, principes, and triarii.
When did this take place? Good question. My opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that the Romans did not adopt the cohort until the very end of the 2nd Punic War, and perhaps even later than that. The deployment of the hastati, principes, and triarii in separate clumps as late as Zama suggests to me that the cohort system was not really in use, at least not as a habitual, formalized thing.
Livy mentions cohorts a lot, but I am fairly certain that most of the cohorts he mentions are not Roman but rather allied units of the allied wings, and that at lest early in the war the maniple is the Roman (i.e. citizen) unit and the cohort the allied unit.
I believe this because (among other things) there is a passage in Livy which talks about a detached force made up of so many maniples and so many cohorts and commanded by a tribune and a prefect of allies. To me this is pretty clearly a mixed force of citizens (maniples) and allies (cohorts) with a tribune commanding the citizens and a prefect of allies commanding the allies.
2. Three Lines
As to using the three lines, yes, and probably continued to do so even after the adoption of the cohort system, at least for a while. The thing to remember, however, is that the three lines were used when expedient, not as a rigid tactial prcatice. There are several battles during the 2nd Punic War where a Roman army forms only two lines, with the first line one legion and one allied wing and the second line another legion and another allied wing. That suggests (to me) that the three types of troops were pretty thoroughly mixed in the two lines.
3. Equipment
As to equipment, what you suggest sounds reasonable to me. I suspect that right at 217 BC there was a great deal of variation in personal equipment and probably a fair amount of armor. As the war went on, I suspect that the amount of body armor decreased (lots of it lost early on and an enormous number of new units raised) but at the same time things like helmets became more standardized, due to the need to mass produce them. I bet the montefortino helmet really exploded into widespread use right about this time as an easily cranked out cheap helmet.
I will also say that I think the differences in armor between the troop types is greatly over-stated in most secondary sources. Officially there was no difference in the armor at all. Whether or not a soldier had a simple pectorale or a more elaborate corselet was purely matter of his wealth, not the hastati/principes/triarii differentiation. It's been argued that older men would tend to be more wealthy. To some extent that's probably so, but I haven't seen any actual numbers from tax and census roles to indicate how pronounced that was. Of course, just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe there has been some good research done on that and someone on the forum will pipe up with it.
4. Cavalry Swords
Can't help with the cavalry sword question, I'm afraid.
Frank Chadwick
As you have probably gathered, there are no absolute answers to many of these questions, only informed opinions, and many of us will probably disagree as to how informed the opinions of some of the others are. :lol:
That having ben said, this is my understanding of the issues you raise.
1. Maniples (and Cohorts)
I'm going to assume that what you are actually asking is whether or not the hastati etc. were combined into cohorts by this time. They were in maniples well before this period, but the ten maniples each of hastati, principes, and triarii were the largest internal sub-divisions of the legion. Then at some point around this time (say within twenty or thirty years of your start date) the Roman maniples began being combined into cohorts, ten cohorts per legion each consisting of one maniple each of hastati, principes, and triarii.
When did this take place? Good question. My opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that the Romans did not adopt the cohort until the very end of the 2nd Punic War, and perhaps even later than that. The deployment of the hastati, principes, and triarii in separate clumps as late as Zama suggests to me that the cohort system was not really in use, at least not as a habitual, formalized thing.
Livy mentions cohorts a lot, but I am fairly certain that most of the cohorts he mentions are not Roman but rather allied units of the allied wings, and that at lest early in the war the maniple is the Roman (i.e. citizen) unit and the cohort the allied unit.
I believe this because (among other things) there is a passage in Livy which talks about a detached force made up of so many maniples and so many cohorts and commanded by a tribune and a prefect of allies. To me this is pretty clearly a mixed force of citizens (maniples) and allies (cohorts) with a tribune commanding the citizens and a prefect of allies commanding the allies.
2. Three Lines
As to using the three lines, yes, and probably continued to do so even after the adoption of the cohort system, at least for a while. The thing to remember, however, is that the three lines were used when expedient, not as a rigid tactial prcatice. There are several battles during the 2nd Punic War where a Roman army forms only two lines, with the first line one legion and one allied wing and the second line another legion and another allied wing. That suggests (to me) that the three types of troops were pretty thoroughly mixed in the two lines.
3. Equipment
As to equipment, what you suggest sounds reasonable to me. I suspect that right at 217 BC there was a great deal of variation in personal equipment and probably a fair amount of armor. As the war went on, I suspect that the amount of body armor decreased (lots of it lost early on and an enormous number of new units raised) but at the same time things like helmets became more standardized, due to the need to mass produce them. I bet the montefortino helmet really exploded into widespread use right about this time as an easily cranked out cheap helmet.
I will also say that I think the differences in armor between the troop types is greatly over-stated in most secondary sources. Officially there was no difference in the armor at all. Whether or not a soldier had a simple pectorale or a more elaborate corselet was purely matter of his wealth, not the hastati/principes/triarii differentiation. It's been argued that older men would tend to be more wealthy. To some extent that's probably so, but I haven't seen any actual numbers from tax and census roles to indicate how pronounced that was. Of course, just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe there has been some good research done on that and someone on the forum will pipe up with it.
4. Cavalry Swords
Can't help with the cavalry sword question, I'm afraid.
Frank Chadwick
Frank Chadwick
Res ipso loquitor
Res ipso loquitor
