Rome versus Pyrrhus

[antiochus]

Mathew wrote: 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?

Yes there is, read the following.

Paullus wrote: There is the well-known description in Polybius III.6.23 "...Besides these arms the common soldiers place upon their breasts a breastplate of brass a span square, which they place over the heart and call the 'heart-protector'(pectorale]); but those who are rated above 10,000 drachmae wear instead of this a coat of mail ( called lorica). Clearly each man's personal wealth/worth affected his equipment. How to reconcile this?

Quite easily. When describing the Servian reform, Dionysius (IV 19) states:

“As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating.”

This means those who could afford better armament, such as worn by Class I paid a higher war tax for the better equipment. According to Dionysius, in 507 BC, when the Romans found themselves under siege from the Etruscan king, Lars Porsenna, to deter the poor from betraying the city, Dionysius (V 22) states the senate:

“had a vote passed that they (the poor) should be exempt from all the public taxes which they had paid while the city was under the kings, and also from all contributions for military purposes and wars, looking upon it as a great advantage to the state merely to make use of their persons in defending the country.” On the same episode, Livy (II 9) comments:

“The plebs were exempted from the payment of harbour-dues and the war-tax, so that they might fall on the rich, who could bear the burden; the poor were held to pay sufficient to the State if they brought up their children.”

Later as a measure to reimburse those who paid the war tax, for the campaign of 503 BC, Dionysius (V 47) states: “This booty (taken from the Sabines) having been sold at public auction, all the citizens received back the amount of the contributions, which they had severally paid for the equipment of the expedition.”

In 406 BC, with the introduction of pay for military service Livy (V 10) states “And now, to crown all, they even had to pay a war-tax, so that when they returned, worn out by toil and wounds, and last of all by age, and found all their land untilled through want of the owner's care, they had to meet this demand out of their wasted property and return to the State their pay as soldiers many times over, as though they had borrowed it on usury.”

What the tribune is saying is that although the men are being paid while on campaign, because of the duration of the campaign, the soldier’s pay will not be enough to pay for the war tax on the equipment, which in the end will leave the soldier in debt like previous past campaigns.

So with the hastati, they paid a lower war tax on their equipment in accordance with their class and the type of armament issued, as did the principes and triarii.

Paullus wrote: ....obviously, each man could replace his 'State Issue' gear with better equipment purchased privately, and evidently men above the level referred to often (had to?) did so.

Where is the proof?

Paullus wrote: This suggests to me that in fact, as in later times, the soldier paid for his equipment by compulsory deductions from his pay.

Yes the war tax.

Paullus wrote: Consider also that in 207 BC, when Claudius Nero embarked on his epic march to the Metaurus to confront Hasdrubal, he was joined on the march by many retired veterans - where did their arms come from?

Armament distribution points within municipalities. Not every soldier went to Rome to be enlisted. Consuls enlisted armies in provinces.

Paullus wrote: The answer seems to be that having purchased their arms - state issued or private - they retained them in retirement. In fact it was Hasdrubal's observation of "old shields" in the Roman ranks (and the double trumpet call of two Consuls present) that gave the game away....

Sorry Paul, but the statement about the old shields is so ambiguous it cannot be even remotely considered evidence. What does old mean? Worn out? If used then they could indicate troops with combat experience. Does old mean the colour of shields was standardised as red at the beginning of the Second Punic war then by Senate decree changed to blue after Cannae? Therefore, Hasdrubal, seeing old red shields, with blue shields now confirms new troops had arrived. We could debate this with no conclusion to the end of time.

Add to the other references on arming troops we have Livy II 27 495 BC Every man must be given liberty again before arms were put into his hands. Livy (XXIX 1) “arrived in Sicily (205 BC), Scipio organised his volunteers into their ranks and centuries. He picked from them 300 men, all young and of exceptional physical strength and vigour, and kept them with him unarmed and ignorant of the reason why they were neither posted to centuries nor furnished with equipment.”

Polybius (VI 21) also states “The tribunes in Rome, after administering the oath, fix for each legion a day and place at which the men are to present themselves without arms and then dismiss them.” The next step is the men are sorted out into velites, hastati, principes and triarii. Then in VI 26, Polybius adds “The tribunes having thus organized the troops and ordered them to arm themselves in this manner, dismiss them to their homes. When the day comes on which they have all sworn to attend at the place appointed by the consuls —each consul as a rule appointing a separate rendezvous for his own troops, since each has received his share of the allies and two Roman legions.”

What is being said is the men are divided into their troop type governed by class, then sent to the armoury and issued with the necessary equipment. Then they return home with the equipment and assemble at a place ordered by the consul. The war tax was abolished in 168 BC.