06-28-2009, 01:54 PM
Hey 
You have quoted a massive amount of, at least, second hand information there. Livius, born ~59 BC; Dionysius, born ~60 BC; Plutarchos, born ~46 AD…
Polybius, born ~203BC, is the only first hand witness of the republican roman army whose works have been preserved, I think…. But then again we dont have much else do we?
Actually I did not go by Cornell, but I think the authors I have read went by Cornell…ironic… One would think trusted authors would have read the ancient texts that I have been too lazy to read. Especially considering this is their profession(slightly annoyed at this…).
Anyway, REALLY good post above! Finally some firm support for the pro-State issued equipment team! ?
Btw your first quote is not mine, it’s Cornell quoted by Epictetus…
So I’m not quite sure what to say about the first part? I have always thought the weapons and arms were state provided at a very early time mainly due to logic - a heterogenous military unit is not an efficient unit(in general)…
The second quote is very interesting to me, I have seen this(phalanx to maniples in late 4th cent.) so many times so that I have started using it myself… :oops: I never saw an explanation to the phalanx occurring in Italy, so I presumed the greek colonies had enough military influence to switch the Italic peoples from barbarian horde to phalanx at a very early stage. A phalanx is not a flexible unit(flank it!) and not very well suited to movement due to the clumsiness of the tightly packed structure – exquisite for frontal assaults on a greek plain though. Italy is very hilly, especially central italy! So I have never understood why the Italic people would take on the phalanx. Again I have presumed that they simply had no organisation when the greek military influence was enforced upon them. I have never seen any references to the ancient texts on italic people forming up in a phalanx, then again I have not read much…
If the maniple system was there all along that would make much more sense to me.
But is there any proof for that? Plutarchos you say? And what is his source for that? After all he lived almost half a millennia after anything that would be seen as archaic latin..
What battle accounts are those? Which historians?
Ever heard of “Equites” Equo Privato? Private warhorses owned by rich ppl to be able to do battle from horseback. Theses people belonged to Census class I but were not rich or noble enough to qualify for the Equites class and thus get an Equo Publico. Most likely they did this with political aspirations in mind as well as personal security. As I understand it a horse was very expensive to support unless you had estates, this might have been one of the original reasons why only the richest got a free horse, they had the means to provide for it all year round(I am trying not to be cynical here)… In early Rome cavalry seems to have been valued higher than infantry… Again, slightly askew considering the terrain, perhaps explained not by military virtue but rather because the nobles were riding them(and the expense of a horse)?
So you think that the “war tax” would have covered mail shirts for example(extremely expensive…)… Communal equipment generally are not of the best quality, I think we can safely say that this is due to human nature
I personally question whether the fanciest stuff was communal during the early times.
It would be incredibly expensive to provide mail shirts for all principes or triarii for example. Question is whether some principes/triarii using cheaper armour would influence the function of their unit a lot. Cost efficiency vs functionalty.
You have quoted a massive amount of, at least, second hand information there. Livius, born ~59 BC; Dionysius, born ~60 BC; Plutarchos, born ~46 AD…
Polybius, born ~203BC, is the only first hand witness of the republican roman army whose works have been preserved, I think…. But then again we dont have much else do we?
Actually I did not go by Cornell, but I think the authors I have read went by Cornell…ironic… One would think trusted authors would have read the ancient texts that I have been too lazy to read. Especially considering this is their profession(slightly annoyed at this…).
Anyway, REALLY good post above! Finally some firm support for the pro-State issued equipment team! ?
Btw your first quote is not mine, it’s Cornell quoted by Epictetus…
So I’m not quite sure what to say about the first part? I have always thought the weapons and arms were state provided at a very early time mainly due to logic - a heterogenous military unit is not an efficient unit(in general)…
The second quote is very interesting to me, I have seen this(phalanx to maniples in late 4th cent.) so many times so that I have started using it myself… :oops: I never saw an explanation to the phalanx occurring in Italy, so I presumed the greek colonies had enough military influence to switch the Italic peoples from barbarian horde to phalanx at a very early stage. A phalanx is not a flexible unit(flank it!) and not very well suited to movement due to the clumsiness of the tightly packed structure – exquisite for frontal assaults on a greek plain though. Italy is very hilly, especially central italy! So I have never understood why the Italic people would take on the phalanx. Again I have presumed that they simply had no organisation when the greek military influence was enforced upon them. I have never seen any references to the ancient texts on italic people forming up in a phalanx, then again I have not read much…
If the maniple system was there all along that would make much more sense to me.
But is there any proof for that? Plutarchos you say? And what is his source for that? After all he lived almost half a millennia after anything that would be seen as archaic latin..
Quote:I’ve compiled all the battle accounts of the Servian army from any source I can get
What battle accounts are those? Which historians?
Quote: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
Ever heard of “Equites” Equo Privato? Private warhorses owned by rich ppl to be able to do battle from horseback. Theses people belonged to Census class I but were not rich or noble enough to qualify for the Equites class and thus get an Equo Publico. Most likely they did this with political aspirations in mind as well as personal security. As I understand it a horse was very expensive to support unless you had estates, this might have been one of the original reasons why only the richest got a free horse, they had the means to provide for it all year round(I am trying not to be cynical here)… In early Rome cavalry seems to have been valued higher than infantry… Again, slightly askew considering the terrain, perhaps explained not by military virtue but rather because the nobles were riding them(and the expense of a horse)?
So you think that the “war tax” would have covered mail shirts for example(extremely expensive…)… Communal equipment generally are not of the best quality, I think we can safely say that this is due to human nature
I personally question whether the fanciest stuff was communal during the early times.It would be incredibly expensive to provide mail shirts for all principes or triarii for example. Question is whether some principes/triarii using cheaper armour would influence the function of their unit a lot. Cost efficiency vs functionalty.
Cheers,
Jesper
Jesper
