Rome versus Pyrrhus

[Sean Manning]

Taking an example from a previous post of mine on this lists, if I make the statement in my book the hastati are aged from 18 to 27, the principes from 28 to 36, and the triarii from 37 to 45 years of age, then I better be able to prove it. To prove my case I introduce ALL those authors in the primary sources who give the ages of the iuniores and seniores, then I show how I have come to my conclusion. I point out that the ages from 18 to 45, when subtracted equates to 27 years (45 minus 18 = 27). Then when 27 is divided by the three age divisions the answer is 9 (27 divided by 3 = 9). Therefore the age divisions are in increments of 9 years, so 18 years old for the hastati plus 9 =27. The hastati are aged from 18 to 27 years of age. Then I would introduce Livy’s comment during the Second Punic war the age was lowered to 17 years old, which gives the age of the hastati from 17 to 27 years old. I have provided evidence to support my claim, and most importantly I only employ information found in the primary sources. I have no need to discredit any ancient author’s empirical data in order to comply with my analyst.

Hi Antiochus,

Have you read Nathan Rosenstein's “Rome at War”? He makes a strong argument that the vast majority of Republican soldiers were in their teens and early twenties (whereas in your system equal numbers would be aged 18-27 and 28-36 because there were equal numbers of hastati and principes). I also can't see any practical benefit of assigning men to different units based on their exact age. Many Romans didn't know their exact age, and there is no garuntee that the number of men in a particular age range would match the number of men needed to fill a particular unit. And as others have said, military units rarely match their standard strength anyways. So it would be unnatural if all figures for unit strengths followed the same system ...

Sean