Rorarii and Accensi

[Watcher]

I feel they are as relevant as your own observations, and perhaps much, much more relevant.

The two instances in Livy are separate combats, not one. The same battle yes, but one describes action on the left, which Decius commanded, and one on the right, which Manlius commanded.

They moved forward to battle in the formation I have already described, Manlius in command of the right division, Decius of the left.

The distance between the echelons in the Roman army is also an issue but I don't feel we have any concrete data to say exactly how far the pricipes were behind the hastatii, and the triarii behind the princepes. What we can be pretty sure about though is that if the first and second echelons were formed up mutually supporting, as in a checkerboard formation, there simply is no way that the Latins could see the third line from ground level.

In order for it to have been determined that the ascensi who were coming forward (being mistaken for triarii), such identification would have had to have been from a height advantage or position elsewhere than in front, and then identification distances become quite important.

With regard to battle accounts of this period, I tend to have the same view as Delbruck and his comments on the 4th century, "All of the battle of the fourth century are accounts of pure fantasy, without any validity in their details". They must all be taken with a good shot of one's favorite libation, and a heavy dose of good old common sense.

If you wish to feel that the acensci were equipped exactly like the triarii, go right ahead. You cannot prove that they were, and quite frankly, no one can say with certainty that they were not.

But again, to dismiss sighting as irrelevant to the discussion would be to ignore the very foundation of what you are taking as fact.

My opinion - they were light infantry.

[SigniferOne]

With regard to battle accounts of this period, I tend to have the same view as Delbruck and his comments on the 4th century, "All of the battle of the fourth century are accounts of pure fantasy, without any validity in their details". They must all be taken with a good shot of one's favorite libation, and a heavy dose of good old common sense.

If you wish to feel that the acensci were equipped exactly like the triarii, go right ahead. You cannot prove that they were, and quite frankly, no one can say with certainty that they were not.

But again, to dismiss sighting as irrelevant to the discussion would be to ignore the very foundation of what you are taking as fact.

My opinion - they were light infantry.

If you take Delbruck's approach then there ceases to be any common ground between historians, and any person's excogitation becomes as good as any other's. That's the real stuff fantasy is made of. Even if Livy isn't going by some Roman 4th century BC history, there is always still a germ of truth in his account (the account which is completely supported by all latest archeological evidence).

So, given that Livy must always be given the benefit of the doubt (something Niebuhr et al. failed to do), how can the account be reconciled with common sense? What sense would there be in having a heavily armed 4th and 5th line? What sense would there be even in distinguishing the rorarii from the accensi in the first place?

The crucial thing is that Livy never says rorarii and accensi were heavy infantry; in fact by stating that the accensi only "looked" like the triarii he implies that they weren't. Given that, I think it's very reasonable to suppose that the last two lines were some form of skirmishing infantry. All skirmishers aren't created equal, and it would be a mistake to equate every skirmishing line to the lightly-clad Polybian velites, especially when we have the alternative example of Greek peltasts, heavily armed and designed to be a 'medium' (rather than light) infantry in support of their heavy hoplites. Since we know that accensi were well-equipped they're brought closer to the function of the peltasts. Rorarii, with no requirement for armament, would then fulfill the last remaining function: the function of the velites.

Thus one could posit two different skirmisher types, deposited in the back of the army once the initial skirmishing stage was over. From the back they could fill gaps in the front ranks, or stand behind throwing javelins at the hapless enemy. In this way they'd never have to be in the thickest melee of the fight (which the Romans would never trust poor people with, hence my initial consternation); but, without having to be subjected to stresses of melee fighting, they would still be of use in a different way.

====


(PS. The logical progression out of this would be that the the poorest of the poor eventually got expelled from the army completely, and the remaining proletarians were thrust in the front of the main army instead (where they'd be watched). The element of class warfare (minimization of the ultra rich and the ultra poor on the battlefield) looks to have been an important component of the Roman (as well as archaic Greek) military thinking.)

[Watcher]

Even if Livy isn't going by some Roman 4th century BC history, there is always still a germ of truth in his account (the account which is completely supported by all latest archeological evidence).

What in which of Livy's stories are you specifically in reference to as it relates to what archeological evidence?

[SigniferOne]

What in which of Livy's stories are you specifically in reference to as it relates to what archeological evidence?

In particular I was referring to references to Roman equipment as can be gleaned from Livy's work: he records the Roman transition from the hoplite phalanx to the maniple which closely matches the archeological record; doesn't speak of armies largely equipped with chainmail prior to the 4th c. BC (as far as I know); etc. He was was indifferent to Greek antiquarian matters , but seems to have been extremely learned on Etruscan and Roman manners (having tutored Claudius' Etruscan History).

[Watcher]

I repeat my question.

What in which of Livy's stories are you specifically in reference to as it relates to what archeological evidence?

[SigniferOne]

I thought I already clarified it in my previous statement. There cease to be references to a "Roman phalanx" when fighting off the Samnites or the Gauls. There is repeated evidence for a new and different way of fighting which is also more individualistic, such as T. Manlius' defeat of a Gallic champion which could have scarcely been accomplished by a Hoplite. Likewise Italic battles and equipment, insofar as Livy implies them, reference a particularly Italic context and never a Greek, a Thracian, a Persian, or a Gallic armament.

Reference is frequently made to a heavy use of javelins by the main-line infantry (attested in vast volumes by archeology and largely absent as a mainstay weapon outside of Italy); glittering Samnite armor is referenced without any claim that it had articulated musculature, corresponding to absence of any such armor by the Oscans; etc.

You don't have a detailed item-by-item archeological detail of 4th century Italy, and that isn't my claim; what you do see is a highly accurate general knowledge of old (and non-Roman) Italic military approaches. This is perplexing and he shouldn't have known this, not having had access to archeology. For all that he knew Samnites were equipped like Thracians, and Etruscans could've used un-pointed long swords and bare-chested Gallic soldiers. Yet all major nations of Italy are in general aspects sketched with close correlation to reality.

There isn't passage where he goes through all details of the Etruscan panoply, but his description of Etruscan society and Etruscan battles precludes any intimation of a Gallic military philosophy. Frequent descriptions of Samnites and their battles preclude any armament other than a Hellenic or a Latin equivalent: they 'glitter', they stand toe-to-toe with the heaviest Roman soldiers and sometimes even turn them back; etc. One doesn't need Livy to have a specific description of a people for one to to get a general impression of their panoply and approaches to fighting.

[Watcher]

James,

What I see is you giving your opinion, just like anyone else.

You refer to archeological evidence, yet you do not cite one instance or find to support your opinion.

What in which of Livy's stories are you specifically in reference to as it relates to what archeological evidence

As I see it, my question remains unanswered.

Most of us I believe are well aware of the evolution of the Roman army from phalanx to the manipular phalanx. I agree with you on the "class" statement you made as I previously said so, and this is as good an explanation as any why the two were named differently. Did they have separate armor and duties on the battlefield? Perhaps, and perhaps not.

I don't see that anyone has produced anything that can positively prove the two, meaning the rorarri and the acensi, were different with regard to combat duty other than in name. Perhaps one dug the latrines while the other was on sentry duty. Who knows? Perhaps the acensi were with the primary forces and the rorarri with the secondary forces. Who knows?

As for the mistaken identity in the previously mentioned engagement, I have already stated my position on that.

All I am asking is that if you are going to make a broad statement that the archeological evidence supports something, please share it, or admit the statement is your opinion and not fact.

Regards,

[SigniferOne]

All I am asking is that if you are going to make a broad statement that the archeological evidence supports something, please share it, or admit the statement is your opinion and not fact.

I thought I clarified earlier that my statement was not meant to say that Livy wrote an archeological manual, or that we have archeological corroboration for him on every little detail. All I said was that archeology confirmed his history in overall broad strokes, resulting in the conclusion that there is no basis to dismiss him out of hand.

[Watcher]

I'll take that to mean that you have absolutely no archeological evidence to support your previous claim.

[SigniferOne]

Ok, at the risk of continuing this further, what previous claim do you take me to have failed to support?

[Watcher]

Even if Livy isn't going by some Roman 4th century BC history, there is always still a germ of truth in his account (the account which is completely supported by all latest archeological evidence).

Perhaps we can start with this?

[SigniferOne]

Perhaps we can start with this?

Er. I'm not sure how this discussion got derailed; or who derailed it (I won't point fingers). All I've said is that there is a germ of truth in Livy's early history, corroborated by archeology insofar as that's possible. I've pointed out the obvious fact that there isn't a Roman historical book from the 4th century BC; the Romans could've been armed like hoplites and Etruscans could've looked like Gauls as far as Livy was concerned! Yet the descriptions he provides consistently make references that indicate a shift in the Roman army from phalanx to the maniple -- without a single Roman historical book to corroborate his hypothesis. Not once are Samnites are described as bare-chested and equipped with long unpointed swords; there isn't a single reference to Etruscan single combat. Livy consistently records Etruscan, Gallic, Samnite actions which don't encounter any contradiction from what the archeological evidence says of those people.

How he knew these things, I don't know; but that the germ of truth is there is definitely undeniable. That's all I'm going to say about that.

PS. His means of knowing extend far beyond a written Latin historical work, and include the fasti, pontifical calendar, greek/etruscan histories, and first-hand survivals and monuments from that period. Roman recorded history begins with Naevius, but what a historian had at his fingertips extends far earlier than that. Perplexing as it may be, archeologists have found both the primordial palace on the Palatine and the Lupercal -- that's Romulus' time. How he knew that I really have no idea. There was no reason he should have singled out the Palatine as Romulus' residence in preference to the Aventine, the Capitoline, or the Quirinal hills. Yet he chose the Palatine, and it was exactly on the Palatine that the 8th century palace was found. How he knew things things I have no idea. I think that we've barely even scratched the surface of the transmission of knowledge in Italy at that time.

[Mitra]

The comment of Connolly of livy's samnites army description:

"This description bears no relation to the artistic or archaeological evidence and has to be rejected entirely if one is to get any sort of picture of the samnite soldier"

Livy take the description from samnite gladiatiors.

It's true that Livy report some germs of true historical tradition, but complex techincal descriptions like that of manipular legions so far in the past, are always suspected and not to be taken as good.

[Watcher]

Thanks James, and in the two paragraphs you wrote, perhaps the more concise way to have said it was contained in your last two sentences:

How he knew things things I have no idea. I think that we've barely even scratched the surface of the transmission of knowledge in Italy at that time.

[SigniferOne]

The comment of Connolly of livy's samnites army description:

"This description bears no relation to the artistic or archaeological evidence and has to be rejected entirely if one is to get any sort of picture of the samnite soldier"

Could you give a reference for this?

Thanks James, and in the two paragraphs you wrote, perhaps the more concise way to have said it was contained in your last two sentences:

How he knew things things I have no idea. I think that we've barely even scratched the surface of the transmission of knowledge in Italy at that time.

But the how doesn't disqualify the what. I was only pointing to the reality of Livy's overall correspondence to the archeological evidence, without endeavoring to explain how that happened and how he happened to know it.