06-28-2009, 05:29 AM
Jesper, quoting Cornell (The Beginnings of Rome) wrote:
Cornell is wrong.
References as supplied by me, show state issued armaments long before 406 BC. Much of Cornell’s interpretation of the Servian constitution is flawed. :oops: :oops: :oops: Unfortunately, for him, he relies on Fraccaros (spelling) theory for the military aspect of the Servian constitution, that the three classes amounts to 60 centuries (40 + 10 + 10), and this represents a legion. There is one aspect of the Servian constitution that is not discussed by academics and concerns the references by Dionysius and Livy the voting favoured the rich with 98 votes versus 95. Strangely this matter is not raised during the Struggle of the Orders. Everything else from land reform to entering the consul is fought over but nothing on the inequality of the voting system. Now Dionysius does state the century assembly became more democratic over time, so if it was not an issue during the Struggle of the Orders, then it must have become very democratic at a much earlier date. To become democratic, the organisation must have changed, which means the mathematics have changed. And this is what happened. Dionysius and Livy have used sources detailing two different century assembly organisations. Livy’s comment the number of iuniores and seniores had doubled by his day is correct, but he has taken this from a later reform of the Servian organisation which equates to that given by Cicero of 70 centuries of Class I and not 80 centuries as listed in 530 BC. If the number of centuries in the Servian organisation of 530 BC is doubled, for its military aspect, you end up with an exact Polybian legion. So in a nutshell, the organisation as given in the 530 BC Servian organisation is corrupt.
Oh yes the old chestnut of the maniple being introduced after the Romans encountered the Samnites, :roll: :roll: :roll: those hills people whose military science had all of Italy in awe. Seem to remember once reading were Einstein stated he got the basis of the theory of relativity from the Samnites. :twisted: :twisted: And those hapless Romans trapped at the Claudine Forks in 321 BC, and the disgraceful surrender that followed, all due to them not having the little maniple organisation. :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh if they had, they would have won the day. Now those great academic minds that propose the Romans copied the maniple from the Samnites forget one important fact. Livy (VIII eight) describes the Roman legion in 340 BC as already consisting of maniples (some 19 years before Claudine). So how do they explain this? Easy! Livy has corrupted the sources by introducing his maniple legion at too an early date. Great analysis.
Now about that the belief the maniple was introduced to better operate in the hilly terrain of Italy, in the first Samnite war a consular army did operate against the Samnites in hilly terrain without any problems. In fact they used their light armed to slip between the Samnite outposts. Next is the ridiculous myth perpetrated by modern historians that the Samnites did not fight conventional battles and instead used tactics of ambush and evasion. Really!!! Any historian worth his salt only has to read Livy’s Books VIII to IX to notice there are 15 regular battles between the Romans and the Samnites, with the Samnites forming up in a single acies. The Caudine Forks ambush was not a typical Samnite tactic, and according to Livy (IX. 31), in the final desperate years of the Third Samnite war, and as a result of a loss of confidence from many defeats, the Samnites adopt a policy of avoiding open battle unless they had the advantage.
One must realise soldiers are not stuck to bases like wargame armies. And there is references to maniples in the Roman army long before the Claudine Forks. Plutarch writes the maniple was archaic and of Latin origin. No one confessing to studying the Roman army can ignore these references.
I’ve compiled all the battle accounts of the Servian army from any source I can get, and on first appearance the text is contradictory and confusing. However, all we are getting is different little aspects of a battle, described in varying ways. But it does makes sense and has many parallels with the maniple legion. This explains why it was a simple process to change the Servian army into a maniple legion.
As stated, the differences between the Servian army and the maniple legion are minor. Both fought in multiple lines and both conducted line relief. The Servian army did not fight in the same manner as the Greeks. In fact the Italiote peoples display a superiority in fighting than the Greeks, which are in comparison, unsophisticated and unimaginative.
The reason why the state supplied the horses is because all equipment for war was provided by the state, so no need to for anyone to buy their own equipment or parts of it. Now if the men had to provide their own equipment, I would imagine it would have been very difficult to levy artillerymen. Plus who brings the tent? My viewpoint will not change
– “the state issued the equipment, which includes all the equipment necessary for the army.”
Quote:If this practice was already established in the 390s, as seems likely, it would be reasonable to connect it with the reforms of 406 BC. This conclusion is consistent with the hypothesis that from that time service in the legions was no longer the preserve of a wealthy group who could afford their own armour and weapons, but had been extended to all citizens who could meet a relatively modest property qualification.
Cornell is wrong.
References as supplied by me, show state issued armaments long before 406 BC. Much of Cornell’s interpretation of the Servian constitution is flawed. :oops: :oops: :oops: Unfortunately, for him, he relies on Fraccaros (spelling) theory for the military aspect of the Servian constitution, that the three classes amounts to 60 centuries (40 + 10 + 10), and this represents a legion. There is one aspect of the Servian constitution that is not discussed by academics and concerns the references by Dionysius and Livy the voting favoured the rich with 98 votes versus 95. Strangely this matter is not raised during the Struggle of the Orders. Everything else from land reform to entering the consul is fought over but nothing on the inequality of the voting system. Now Dionysius does state the century assembly became more democratic over time, so if it was not an issue during the Struggle of the Orders, then it must have become very democratic at a much earlier date. To become democratic, the organisation must have changed, which means the mathematics have changed. And this is what happened. Dionysius and Livy have used sources detailing two different century assembly organisations. Livy’s comment the number of iuniores and seniores had doubled by his day is correct, but he has taken this from a later reform of the Servian organisation which equates to that given by Cicero of 70 centuries of Class I and not 80 centuries as listed in 530 BC. If the number of centuries in the Servian organisation of 530 BC is doubled, for its military aspect, you end up with an exact Polybian legion. So in a nutshell, the organisation as given in the 530 BC Servian organisation is corrupt.Quote:As I understand it the romans did away with the phalanx in the late 4th century to be replaced by the more flexible maniple system suitable to the hilly terrain of Italy.
Oh yes the old chestnut of the maniple being introduced after the Romans encountered the Samnites, :roll: :roll: :roll: those hills people whose military science had all of Italy in awe. Seem to remember once reading were Einstein stated he got the basis of the theory of relativity from the Samnites. :twisted: :twisted: And those hapless Romans trapped at the Claudine Forks in 321 BC, and the disgraceful surrender that followed, all due to them not having the little maniple organisation. :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh if they had, they would have won the day. Now those great academic minds that propose the Romans copied the maniple from the Samnites forget one important fact. Livy (VIII eight) describes the Roman legion in 340 BC as already consisting of maniples (some 19 years before Claudine). So how do they explain this? Easy! Livy has corrupted the sources by introducing his maniple legion at too an early date. Great analysis.
Now about that the belief the maniple was introduced to better operate in the hilly terrain of Italy, in the first Samnite war a consular army did operate against the Samnites in hilly terrain without any problems. In fact they used their light armed to slip between the Samnite outposts. Next is the ridiculous myth perpetrated by modern historians that the Samnites did not fight conventional battles and instead used tactics of ambush and evasion. Really!!! Any historian worth his salt only has to read Livy’s Books VIII to IX to notice there are 15 regular battles between the Romans and the Samnites, with the Samnites forming up in a single acies. The Caudine Forks ambush was not a typical Samnite tactic, and according to Livy (IX. 31), in the final desperate years of the Third Samnite war, and as a result of a loss of confidence from many defeats, the Samnites adopt a policy of avoiding open battle unless they had the advantage.
One must realise soldiers are not stuck to bases like wargame armies. And there is references to maniples in the Roman army long before the Claudine Forks. Plutarch writes the maniple was archaic and of Latin origin. No one confessing to studying the Roman army can ignore these references.
Quote:However the early maniple system consisted of one line of skirmishers/swordsmen(hastati) and two of spearmen(principes, triarii) not to mention the specialized skirmishers(velites) attached to each line. The principes is believed to have changed from spears (hasta) to pila and gladii around the middle of the third century thus becoming the classical principes.
I’ve compiled all the battle accounts of the Servian army from any source I can get, and on first appearance the text is contradictory and confusing. However, all we are getting is different little aspects of a battle, described in varying ways. But it does makes sense and has many parallels with the maniple legion. This explains why it was a simple process to change the Servian army into a maniple legion.
Quote:During the conflict with Pyrrhus I suppose the Spearmen outnumbered the skirmisher/swordsmen and thus the equipment would not have differed much from that of spearmen in a phalanx formation while the style of fighting and tactics with the maniples would have been significally different.
As stated, the differences between the Servian army and the maniple legion are minor. Both fought in multiple lines and both conducted line relief. The Servian army did not fight in the same manner as the Greeks. In fact the Italiote peoples display a superiority in fighting than the Greeks, which are in comparison, unsophisticated and unimaginative.
Quote:My two cents would be on that state issued equipment met a minimum standard quite early thus supplying perhaps pectorales to the hastati, while the higher census classes probably would prefer or was made to buy their own better gear. It is quite ironic that the state provided the richest of the rich with a free horse... Equites Equo Publico... Tradition I suppose.
The reason why the state supplied the horses is because all equipment for war was provided by the state, so no need to for anyone to buy their own equipment or parts of it. Now if the men had to provide their own equipment, I would imagine it would have been very difficult to levy artillerymen. Plus who brings the tent? My viewpoint will not change
– “the state issued the equipment, which includes all the equipment necessary for the army.”
