Rome versus Pyrrhus

[Epictetus]

Wow. This is a good thread.

Much of Cornell’s interpretation of the Servian constitution is flawed. 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.

Sorry for coming back to this Steven, but I confess I’m not entirely sure what you are saying. I understand that you are challenging Cornell’s notion of state-provided equipment, but are you also challenging Fraccaro’s theory that the centuriate organisation corresponds to the structure of the legion?