Rome versus Pyrrhus

[antiochus]

Valerius wrote:
Although as a historian I'm always suspicious when anyone says that 'the source is corrupt'.

But unfortunately it has become a common catch-cry among historians. Blame the primary sources.

Valerius wrote:
but I guess there is no proof available about what the state actually provided at this point isn time, is there?

There are references to the equipment and the horses supplied by the state. I thought the numerous references are...overwhelming!

Valerius wrote:
As to the horses for the cavalry, just for the sake of clarity, are you saying that the state always provided the horses? If so, how do we get the connection of the rich folks (equites) with the cavalry, if this connection never existed?

Did the state supply the horses...yes. During the early republic, the cavalry were mainly drawn from the rich. However, Dionysius (VI 44) does state 400 plebeian were knights. In the Roman system, a plebeian can be rich or poor, and a patrician, also can be rich or poor.

Valerius wrote:
If not, and the cavalry was indeed reserved for the wealthier classes because they could afford and ride) horses, when is this situation likely to have ended?

Because of losses during the civil war, Sulla (Appian BC I 100) appointed three hundred of the most distinguished of the equestrian order as senators. There are other references to the equestrian order for different periods.

Jesper wrote:
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…).

I had this discussion with some retired academics at Melbourne University yesterday. They are of the conclusion many academics are just “cut and paste merchants.” The consensus was there was a lack of original research. What gets me hot under the collar is when academics bend the information in the primary sources to support their theory. There is nothing wrong with having a theory, but test it against the information or empirical data in the primary sources. The primary sources contain many revealing patterns. When you put them together, they are very informative. In the early republic, there are three distinct patterns for the distribution of the army. Of the three patterns, two are for consuls and the third for dictators. The Romans adhere to these patterns. However, with the introduction of the maniple legion, the distribution pattern of the army changes.

Jesper wrote:
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.

I guess Plutarch trusts his sources. Jesus Christ lived over 2000 years ago but this hasn’t stopped people believing in him. But returning to the maniple legion, I do my research through the empirical data in the primary sources. When the maniple legion is introduced can be proven by the upheaval in the military and political mathematics, plus some textual evidence. I have 700 years of military organisations that show everything interlocks and is built on the Servian constitution. Now the primary sources do not give a 12-step program when the maniple legion was introduced, but things like the cavalry organisation and the voting system just go completely haywire. Moreover, the command structure with the ratio of officers to units ends in fractions. That is a definite sign of change. What is surprising is the maniple legion is a manifest of a plan formulated by the Roman senate some 70 years before its introduction. This information is contained within the primary sources. To access it, you need to ask the right questions. This was taught to me by the Napoleonic historian Howie Muir. His theory was asking the right question will get the right answer, something he believes I have done.

Jesper wrote:
What battle accounts are those? Which historians?

Dionysius and Livy are the main historians. Then for snippets throw in Lydus, Appian, Plutarch, Ovid, Servius and others.

Jesper wrote:
Ever heard of “Equites” Equo Privato? Private warhorses owned by rich ppl to be able to do battle from horseback. These 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.

Without knowing who the Equites Privato is this is conjecture. Some academics believe it represents a reform of the cavalry and the equestrian order, and therefore try to include it in the Augustine period. But what was it really? Well it was a one off event when the army suffered a defeat at Veii in 403 BC. I have them listed at 500 men, and they belong to the equestrian order, but after this incident, they disappear. If in doubt, count the number of references to the equo privato in the primary sources.

What I have found exciting about the cavalry centres on the year 423 BC, when Livy (IV 37) records the troopers in every squadron dismounted, then when dismounted they are from then referred to as a cohort. Now Livy’s terminology here is accurate as a number of squadrons make a cavalry cohort. Roman cavalry is mentioned being organised into decurions, centuries and cohorts, and I have found this to be accurate. You must have all organisations in a squadron. Get this right and you have the frontage and depth of the squadron as there is only one mathematical possibility.

Jesper wrote:
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)…

Livy (I 44) claims each century of cavalry received a grant from the treasury of ten thousand asses for the purchase of the horses, with a further grant, levied on rich widows, of 2000 asses a year for their feeding and maintenance. Notice how he mentions “centuries” for the cavalry. So in this reference there is no mention of the rich paying for or providing their own horses, nor are they required to pay for their upkeep. This leaves the question, if I am a rich plebeian, and remember Dionysius (VI 44) does state 400 plebeian were knights, and my income is derived from owing all the brothels in Rome. Now because of this I have no country estate, where do I put my stupid horse, in anticipation of being mobilised as a cavalrymen when war breaks out. Be folly to put it at the back of one of my brothels as Jupiter only know what could happen to it.

Jesper wrote:
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.

“Although we know of the use of chainmail in the republic, but the question is the extent of its use is uncertain” (Roman chain mail: Experiments to Reproduce the Methods of Manufacturer, David Sim, Britannia Volume 28 1997pp 359-371. The references to Roman armies stripping the dead on order to get their hands on better chainmail could be a possibility. The Germans in the Second World War used slaves to make weapons. The standards were poor but that didn’t stopped the Germans from using slave labour. It was a case of necessity. I remember reading of one account during the defence of Silesia in 1945 one German soldier fired five panzerfaust at passing Russian tanks and all failed to fire. His comment was sabotage and the German soldiers expected a high rate of equipment failure because of the employment of slave labour.