Roman Citizens in the Cavalry

[Vindex]

Popularis wrote:



Popularis wrote:

The son of a consul, therefore, was of equestrian rank unless (and until) he became a senator in his own right...

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.

I think you should treat this with caution and not underestimate the very complicated system of client and patronage which spilled from the Republic into the early principate.

[Mark Hygate]

.........

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.

Don't we all!

Whilst the Reforms are commonly attributed to Marius, I think it is perhaps better viewed also as 'expected evolution' - and this is also, perhaps, the reason for the changes you are puzzling over.

One of the basic ideas behind the Early Republican structure, as you note, was the idea of service; which is simply an outgrowth of the original Greek style of 'City State' armies - where the populace served. Fundamental to the idea was that the citizens were only called up for the campaign season (Summer (sic)); having sown their summer crops; and were then released to harvest those crops and perhaps sow the Winter ones - war was very civilised and structured. :wink:

By the time of Marius the Roman Republic was taking on more of the attributes of an 'empire' - particularly with regards to the need to maintain standing garrisons/armies to an ever greater extent (this had been done in smaller numbers before and special arrangements including pay and recompense for lost harvests had to be made). It was therefore natural that the citizen farmers, let alone their officers and generals (Equestrians and Patricians who were always only really serving (particularly the latter) to support their political career - which was what really mattered to them); would be happy to serve for longer periods less and less; let alone the total numbers needed.

The result - the rise of a (indeed effectively the first) professional paid army - more loyal to its pay, loot & booty, and its commanders. It's actually more the professional army and the 'effectively' need to use it that drove further expansion, as well as any other 'foreign policy' decision.

To return to the core of your topic - I am sure that, whilst we know that Plebeians (and now particularly the lowest classes who didn't have 'farms' and who happily enlisted) formed the main body of the legions; and that Patricians still lead them; it is more than likely that Equestrians still served - and most probably in roles similar to those that existed before and after - we can only hope to 'join the dots'.

Thus, serving as Tribunes, some perhaps in the Centurionate, and also Decurions/Prefects (officers, at the very least liaison ones), would still need to lead/be attached to the various 'allied' cohorts and particularly cavalry units that were used.

[popularis]

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?

I didn't have access to D'Amato (it's a newish book), so I'll take a look. He seems to have some interesting arguments about military families in the early first century. I'm not sure, however, that this specific example holds up. I know Fufidius went from primipilus to the senate, but I wasn't aware that he was an equestrian before enlistment (is there direct evidence for this?).

Bear in mind that I'm not arguing that he didn't have any equestrian relatives (which may well be D'Amato's point). Families were not in the equestrian order, individuals were. A man might have equestrian rank - and (possibly) his sons could acquire it in his lifetime by virtue of their probable inheritance - but that doesn't mean that his brother or his nephew were equestrians, or could become equestrians by virtue of his status (unless they were his direct heirs). It also doesn't guarantee that his grandsons would be equestrians - not if there wasn't enough money for them to inherit.

Men could be chosen as centurions on their first enlistment, and there were young centurions - often young men from 'military families' with plenty of connections (cf. Mark Kleijwegt's excellent Ancient Youth (1991)). But that's a different point

[Bryan]

Professionalism means getting paid. But Romans soldiers started receiving pay back in 405 BC according to Livy.

You could argue that when Marius legislated land for his Numidian Army in 103 BC and the Cimbric Army in 100 BC he was giving payment to his men in the form of land. (I believe it was a hundred iugerum each) But it was nothing compared to the massive bonuses given to the men later on during the late consular period by men like Caesar.

We should start another thread about the Marian Reforms so we don't hijack this one. All in all, I think the citizen cavalry thread has run its course.

[Quintius Clavus]

I wish I had access right now to the book I have on the Roman Republican Cavalry (It might be McCall's - It is at home). The author's argument in it is that in the later Republic equestrians were less willing to serve as "common cavalry troopers" and could make real money in other business endeavors. The conquest of the East in particular opened up all sorts of business opportunities for them that did not involve anyone sticking a spear in their faces. Equestrians could make money through tax-farming, merchant endeavors, etc. They were not bound by the senatorial landed wealth restrictions. Thus as time went on, getting them to volunteer got tougher and their standard of training may have fallen off sharply, too. It doesn't mean that they did not serve as officers, a position with prestige attached to it and commensurate with their wealth.
The cavalry hired by the Romans in the later Republic was still pulled from the wealthier, horse owning classes of allied peoples or states (kingdoms or city states in the East).