Roman Citizens in the Cavalry

[Bryan]

I have read in numerous sources that at the time of the late Republican period the cavalry of a Roman army were made up of auxiliary drafts from nations allied to Rome, that the cavalry described by the likes of Polybius were no longer used. (I am referring to the period 107 BC to the the founding of Principate)
Did the Romans still field citizen cavalry at this time?

If so, what are the sources that describe them?
Or archaeological sources?

The requirement for service was still around then, if they didn't serve like I read where did the members of the equestrian class serve?
As infantrymen? Centurions?
Or did they just not have to serve any longer.

I look forward to the debate,

Bryan

[Vindex]

The opening chapter of McCall's book is an interesting read on this subject although I admit I haven't really followed up his historical references (yet) which are mainly Plutarch's Lives and Livy.

He quotes and refers to from secondary sources very heavily.

THE CAVALRY OF THE ROMAN R E P U B L I C
Cavalry combat and elite reputations in the middle and late Republic
Jeremiah B. McCall

(PS if you don't have this book may I suggest you look on SCRIBD first before you buy it from Amazon or some similar site.)

[Bryan]

Can you give a gist of what he wrote?

[antiochus]

Bryan,

If you contact me at [email protected] I can help you.

[Vindex]

Can you give a gist of what he wrote?

Basically he disagrees with the trend which says the Roman citizen cavalry disappeared because they weren't any good.

[Nathan Ross]

The requirement for service was still around then, if they didn't serve like I read where did the members of the equestrian class serve?
As infantrymen? Centurions?
Or did they just not have to serve any longer.

By the later republic, the equestrian order had evolved from the traditional cavalry class into the political and social lower aristocracy, involved in trade, law and local administration. Just as the Roman army itself evolved from a citizen militia raised in times of emergency to a (more or less) standing army with an auxiliary cavalry force, so the military obligation of the equestrians shifted to voluntary command roles.

Equestrians in the later republic supplied the tribunes for the legions and the prefects commanding the cavalry. These positions were often filled on an ad hoc basis, I think, until the development of the tres militiae (equestrian military officer career structure) under the principiate. I don't think there's any evidence for equestrians being directly commissioned as centurions under the republic, as they were in later times (ex ordo eques), although I could be wrong about that!...

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

The commanders of the auxilia, at least in Vindolanda (that is beyond any doubt) were of Equestrian status.

M.VIB.M.

[popularis]

Equestrians in the later republic supplied the tribunes for the legions and the prefects commanding the cavalry. These positions were often filled on an ad hoc basis, I think, until the development of the tres militiae (equestrian military officer career structure) under the principiate.

Ob. pedant: barring the election of 24 military tribunes a year in the late Republic It's also worth noting that any military force would have included quite a few equestrians (or sons of those with equestrian rank) with no fixed position, perhaps 50 or more. Such men travelled out with the army for experience, to gain connections, or hoping for a job, military or civil- bear in mind that a military commander was also the governor of a province. Most of the less important infantry and cavalry prefectures would have been created 'on the spot' for a specific purpose, sometimes only for a few days, so it helped to have a pool of available manpower.

I don't think there's any evidence for equestrians being directly commissioned as centurions under the republic, as they were in later times (ex ordo eques), although I could be wrong about that!...

Absolutely none that I found (and boy did I look!). The equestrian/centurion divide breaks down a bit in the Civil War/Triumviral period, but it's former centurions being promoted to equestrian-ranked positions, not equestrians serving as centurions. It's always possible that it happened, but I'm not aware of any evidence.

Returning to the topic: citizen cavalry was (probably) still around in the late Republic, but in a different format. Caesar's Gallic Wars (1.39) mention cavalry decurions, which makes no sense at all in a normal late Republican auxiliary cavalry formation (which did not have Roman officers), but which DOES make sense if we assume that Caesar raised some of his cavalry from Roman citizens in Gaul itself (Gallia Transalpina, presumably).

Given that there were many Spanish and Gallic peoples who traditionally supplied cavalry forces to Rome, and that by the late Republic, many may have had some Roman citizenship, it's likely that a small proportion of Caesar's cavalry in Gaul were citizen cavalry. This is perhaps true elsewhere: Pompeius' cavalry in Spain, for example. If I was asked to guess, however, I'd say that these were organised as a separate ala along similar lines to the auxiliary cavalry, rather than the old citizen cavalry of the mid Republic.

[agrimensor]

didn't every legion have 120 men as cavalery? As lifeguard for the legate and as outriders and all of other tasks?

[Lyceum]

Also random fact which may be relevant but which I've yet to manage to share in context: Many men moved back and forth between equestrian/senatorial status over generations due to limitations in income, as evidenced by prosopographies etc, we miss this because our literature focuses on, and is written by, the equivalent of multi-millionaires.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I've seen this before Jass, it is mentioned in several books I've read. (don't ask me for names and edition numbers....sorry. But yes, very true!

I had heard of individuals being commissioned as centurions, but I think it was directly from the Praetorians.

[popularis]

Also random fact which may be relevant but which I've yet to manage to share in context: Many men moved back and forth between equestrian/senatorial status over generations due to limitations in income, as evidenced by prosopographies etc, we miss this because our literature focuses on, and is written by, the equivalent of multi-millionaires.

The multi-millionaires part is very true! However equestrian and senatorial rank aren't really the same thing in the late Republic / early Principate.

To have equestrian rank, you just had to be a citizen worth a certain amount of money (possibly it counted if you were due to inherit it) and be officially recognised as an equestrian somehow (there were lots of ways this could happen). Basically, equestrian status is something you could inherit.

To be of senatorial rank, however, you had to be a senator - this meant that you'd been at least elected as a quaestor (normally). You couldn't inherit senatorial rank.

The son of a consul, therefore, was of equestrian rank unless (and until) he became a senator in his own right. He would come from a consular family, he would have senatorial ancestry to boast of, etc., but he couldn't be a senatorial legate. The politically ambitious son of an equestrian (e.g. Cicero) would have had the same potential career path as the son of a consul - albeit that the latter would have had a much greater chance of success.

In addition, there were plenty of men with a great deal more wealth than the average senator (Cicero's friend Atticus, for example), who never sought senatorial office.

Outside of high politics and the upper realms of military command (which were one and the same thing!), the distinction between senatorial status and equestrian status wasn't that important by the late Republic. It tends to be endlessly debated in prosopographical discussions, but that's another story...[1]

blue skies

[1] The idea of a 'senatorial family' is often a bit of a modern construct - one framed to enable certain kinds of analysis - rather than anything truly reflective of Roman politics. If your great-grandfather was a queastor, but no other members of your family had held senatorial office, were you from a senatorial family? How about if he was a consul? Romans certainly had the idea of 'new men', and a prominent lineage was a boon in politics, but it's the sort of thing modern historians attach (or used to attach, it's out of fashion at the moment) more importance to than they should because we're trying to eke out a tiny pool of evidence, and it's the sort of thing that we might just be able to measure.

[Mark Hygate]

didn't every legion have 120 men as cavalery? As lifeguard for the legate and as outriders and all of other tasks?

Yes, that number is given by Josephus, but is normally assumed to be in the post-Augustan period when, as noted above, the Tres Militae (formal Equestrian Military Career) had started.

But I have assumed that the OP is thinking of the post-Marian period of the Late Republic, in between the Polybian structure and the set up of the, original, 28 legions, supported by the Auxiliary Ala & Cohors.

My own opinion on the 120 was that they were organised as the other regular cavalry were (Turma of 30, each commanded by a senior Decurion), except formed of citizens, were at a similar status as the Ala Milliariae, and were probably brigaded with the equites from attached Ala on operations just as equites from Cohors Equitatae seem to have been; as well as acting as 'bodyguards'.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that some of those Decurions would have been young Equestrians - riding a horse has always been preferred to marching!

[Bryan]

Popularis wrote:

Absolutely none that I found (and boy did I look!).

I have a copy of Raffale D'Amato's Roman Centurions 753-31 BC (Osprey Men-at-Arms Series). He writes of numerous equestrians who were centurions from families that had been in the equestrian order already. He specifically mentions one centurion named Fufidius who served in Sulla's army during the civil wars, he is mentioned as a primipilus by Orosius. I haven't dug any deeper then that though on the subject. Besides, weren't many men directly chosen as centurions even during their first enlistment? I could have sworn I read about 18 year old centurions somewhere?

Popularis wrote:

The son of a consul, therefore, was of equestrian rank unless (and until) he became a senator in his own right. He would come from a consular family, he would have senatorial ancestry to boast of, etc., but he couldn't be a senatorial legate. The politically ambitious son of an equestrian (e.g. Cicero) would have had the same potential career path as the son of a consul - albeit that the latter would have had a much greater chance of success.

I like this idea! Figured that was the case, but so many secondary sources claim that there was a "Senatorial Order", like it was another of the Servian classes. Confused me in the past but your view seems valid.

Mark Hygate wrote:
But I have assumed that the OP is thinking of the post-Marian period of the Late Republic, in between the Polybian structure and the set up of the, original, 28 legions, supported by the Auxiliary Ala & Cohors.

Ultimately, my goal is to try to figure out more about the so-called Marian Reforms. It seems to me that most of those that were accredited to Marius don't actually seem to be from him or even from that time period.

Another issue I am having trying to understand the "Romans Citizens in the Cavalry" question is that if they no longer provided that force, what about their military service? I was led to understand during my studies that all Romans had to serve, at least if they were physically and economically capable of it. In a time when warfare was endemic to pretty much everyone, a completely normal and customary part of society and culture, why would they just stop serving and give up the glory of victory and conquest? Why would the state discount a major portion of the population that was capable of serving even if they didn't have to? I don't know the exact percentages of the top of my head, but lets say they represented 5% of 500,000 eligible citizens to serve. That is still 25,000 men.

Damn, I really want a time machine, trying to figure this stuff out is starting to give me a headache. But then again, maybe that's the lure of it.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

To be honest, the Marian reforms were not a reform of the Roman army as such, but a clever and very succesful attempt by Marius himself to create a force loyal only to him, because of the salary paid.

M.VIB.M.