Rome versus Pyrrhus

[Matthew Amt]

To add a bit to what Matt Amt said, at this time soldiers were all property-owning citizens, who purchased their own equipment.

But this is contrary to the primary sources which clearly indicate the State supplied the equipment. The following references by Dionysius confirm the soldier’s armament was State issued:

Zoiks! Mr. James, THANK YOU! Fascinating stuff, and a clear demonstration of the perils of relying on secondary sources! One might haggle a little on whether this all refers to state funding, or private funding by wealthier individuals (perhaps even at state request), but clearly it ain't "every man for himself" across the board. Gotta read more...

Therefore, one's wealth and one's taste affected one's armor and weapons.

So therefore you propose the legion did not have a homogeneous array of weapons, but everyone turned up with what he liked? How would this impact on tactics and training?

The assumption has been that each man equipped himself, but according to some set of guidelines. So shields would all be the same general style, etc., and a hastatus would know to have pila rather than the lighter javelins used by velites, for instance. No, can't quote a source on those guidelines! No idea if they were law, regulation, or simply tradition...

So, now we have to throw out all kinds of assumptions! I love research. IS there firm evidence that each man was equipping himself according to wealth at some point? Or when that practice started?

Valete,

Matthew