Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms

[JaM]

"Armor is always a luxury, most warriors in the ancient period wore none, most warriors in the history of warfare in general wore none."

Care to back such claim with some details? i can give you multiple mentions from Greek historians about men being punished for wanting to fight naked.. and for others, there are other forms of armor that  even poor could use.. multiple layers of cloth sawn together would be enough to prevent being wounded from occasional hits..  fighting naked was not because of lack of armors in Celtic society either.. it was a form of intimidation to enemy...

for example Plutarch in his work Ages,p34 mentions story of Isidas of Sparta during the second invasion of Sparta by Thebes in 362BC specifically because he went into battle naked and was later fined for being so foolhardy as to go into combat without wearing any armour.  really doubt it would be something worth even mentioning if everybody fought naked..

"Polybius mentions the pectorales, so I don't know how you'd discount him while at the same time using him as a source for the triari being well armored."

- nope - i never made such claim, i made exactly the opposite claim - Triarii were as armored as others, they were nothing special, as they were selected from the same class citizens as Hastati and Principes..  Selection was made on age, and not on wealth.

Polybius actually wrote:

"Beside these arms, the soldiers in general place also upon their breasts a square plate of brass, of the measure of a span on either side, which is called the guard of the heart. But all those who are rated at more than ten thousand drachmae cover their breasts with a coat of mail."

you see - ALL THOSE WHO ARE RATED at more than ten thousand drachmae... no mention of hastati, principes or triarii... only mention is for weapons used:

"The principes and the triarii are armed in the same manner likewise as the hastati; except only that the triarii carry pikes instead of javelins."

so again - IN THE SAME MANNER... no difference in equipment between these men, except for a spear used by Triarii.. Its beyond me why everybody automatically expects Hastati to be equipped worse than Principes and Triarii, while there is no such mention anywhere, and only source everybody is using to back this claim actually doesnt say such thing at all... Yet, if there was some clear distinction between Hastati and Triarii in terms of armor, its quite safe to assume Polybius would mentioned it, same way as he did mention they differ by the spear that Triarii use..

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Polyb1.html

and about pectorales - again, there are no Latin ones found, only ornamented ones in Samnite tombs.. If those things would be so commonly used, there would be hundreds of them in all places where Legions of Caesar fought.. yet, no such things were ever found outside of Italy,  (except some pieces in Tunis, yet those were ornamented, which suggest they were most likely battle trophy)

And for cloth armor you never heard of/no proof of exists, i remember reading a passage from Pliny who was mentioning combination of "felt and vinegar being good for making armors":

"Moreover, wool of it selfe driven togither into a felt without spinning or weaving, serveth to make garments with: and if vinegre be used in the working therof, such felts are of good proofe to bere off the edge and point of the sword; yea and more than that, they will checke the force of the fire."
chapter. XLVIII.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny8.html

its perfectly possible for Romans to actually use such felt vest as an armor, while felt/vinegar were both materials commonly available to average citizen eligible for service, as those were typically farmers..

[Steven James]

Jaroslav wrote:
Triarii were as armored as others, they were nothing special, as they were selected from the same class citizens as Hastati and Principes. Selection was made on age, and not on wealth.
 
Both Livy and Polybius describe the legion based on age, with those wearing the better armour being older. So how can you be so sure that selection was solely based on age and not both age and wealth? The military age for the Romans is from 18 years to 45 years. This gives a span of 27 years, and when divided by the three battle lines of hastati, principes and triarii, each battle line could have a span of nine years. So the hastati could be from 18 to 27 years, the principes from 27 years to 36 years of age, and the triarii from 36 to 45 years of age. For the Servian constitution of five property classes, and Polybius statement the legion (hastati, principes and triarii) consisted of four property classes, this leaves open the possibility the triarii could be Class I, the principes Class II and III, and the hastati Class IV, leaving the possibility of the velites being Class V.
 
Jaroslav wrote:
you see - ALL THOSE WHO ARE RATED at more than ten thousand drachmae... no mention of hastati, principes or triarii... only mention is for weapons used.
 
But what do those troops below 10,000 drachmae wear? Could they not be the hastati?
 
Jaroslav wrote:
Its beyond me why everybody automatically expects Hastati to be equipped worse than Principes and Triarii, while there is no such mention anywhere, and only source everybody is using to back this claim actually doesnt say such thing at all.
 
Oh dear, I can hear the army of the conformist gathering their forces to smite all those who question and do not conform to the latest academic theories. Well good luck, to you.

[JaM]

Steven James: please quote the exact sentences where they said that...  i did just that, and there is no such thing being said...

But what do those troops below 10,000 drachmae wear? Could they not be the hastati?

you see - Polybius didnt specify which ones were those below the 10000 drachmae... Im saying, that men under 10.000 could be from Hastati, Principes and Triarii alike.. If those were only Hastati, he would have mentioned just that, when he was describing Hastati... but he didn't...  he left that part at the end, with no specific mention to either Hastati, Principes or Triarii.. he actually said that they used same, and only difference was the SPEAR that Triarii used.....  its actually beyond me why everybody automatically expect every single man that is over 36 (triarii) to be automatically better suited than younger man could be... Age doesnt automatically grant wealth.. yes, you get older and manage to make more money than younger version of yourself, BUT, there are more wealthier families around, that have more money than you would ever have, and those would not send their sons to war under-equipped, just because they are not 36 years old...  everybody was responsible for own equipment, so everybody would try to get the best protection their resources allowed. Mind you, Plebeians were not Proletarii, upper limit was 400.000 drachmae (Patricians were said to be richer than 400.000 drachmae)

Another important point is how others describe these three classes during Punic wars.. Triarii were often even excluded from combat -  at Cannae they were left guarding the camps.. if they were best equipped troops, why would they left them guarding the camp, when actual Roman strategy at Cannae was to smash Carthaginians with "BEST they have"??
 

For the Servian constitution of five property classes, and Polybius statement the legion (hastati, principes and triarii) consisted of four property classes, this leaves open the possibility the triarii could be Class I, the principes Class II and III, and the hastati Class IV, leaving the possibility of the velites being Class V.

Servian and Polybian consititution describe quite different things... there are hundreds of years between those two..  Servian constitution is much closer to the Greek way of deploying troops into phalanx - with the best equipped in the front rank than Manipular formation. in such case (Hoplite Phalanx), it makes sense to differentiate men based on wealth, as you want to have best equipped men in front rank, as they are the one that will defeat the enemy - In Greek Hoplite Warfare, front rank was place of honor, usually king and his nobles were in it.. yet, with Manipular tactics, it was a battle of attrition,fatigue played a huge role in it.. therefore differentiating men by age made more sense, as younger men had better stamina than old ones.. Hastati and Veles were to tire enemy down, so Principes could decide the battle.. if any group could represent the elite force of Roman Legion, it would be the Principes, not the Triarii, who usually didnt even fought - they were kept behind as a reserve and only used in emergency - they just lacked the stamina to be useable in the heat of battle for long. If anything, Triarii were more like reservist force..

---

oh, and regarding armor, it is worth mentioning that for example Ahenobarbus monument made in 122BC shows Legionaries all wearing what looks like Lorica Hamata.. no Pectorales there at all.. but of course, as all monuments, it might show the best case scenario, and not the average one.

[Bryan]

"Armor is always a luxury, most warriors in the ancient period wore none, most warriors in the history of warfare in general wore none."

Care to back such claim with some details? i can give you multiple mentions from Greek historians about men being punished for wanting to fight naked.. and for others, there are other forms of armor that  even poor could use.. multiple layers of cloth sawn together would be enough to prevent being wounded from occasional hits..  fighting naked was not because of lack of armors in Celtic society either.. it was a form of intimidation to enemy...




for example Plutarch in his work Ages,p34 mentions story of Isidas of Sparta during the second invasion of Sparta by Thebes in 362BC specifically because he went into battle naked and was later fined for being so foolhardy as to go into combat without wearing any armour.  really doubt it would be something worth even mentioning if everybody fought naked..

"Polybius mentions the pectorales, so I don't know how you'd discount him while at the same time using him as a source for the triari being well armored."

- nope - i never made such claim, i made exactly the opposite claim - Triarii were as armored as others, they were nothing special, as they were selected from the same class citizens as Hastati and Principes..  Selection was made on age, and not on wealth.

Polybius actually wrote:

"Beside these arms, the soldiers in general place also upon their breasts a square plate of brass, of the measure of a span on either side, which is called the guard of the heart. But all those who are rated at more than ten thousand drachmae cover their breasts with a coat of mail."

you see - ALL THOSE WHO ARE RATED at more than ten thousand drachmae... no mention of hastati, principes or triarii... only mention is for weapons used:

"The principes and the triarii are armed in the same manner likewise as the hastati; except only that the triarii carry pikes instead of javelins."

so again - IN THE SAME MANNER... no difference in equipment between these men, except for a spear used by Triarii.. Its beyond me why everybody automatically expects Hastati to be equipped worse than Principes and Triarii, while there is no such mention anywhere, and only source everybody is using to back this claim actually doesnt say such thing at all... Yet, if there was some clear distinction between Hastati and Triarii in terms of armor, its quite safe to assume Polybius would mentioned it, same way as he did mention they differ by the spear that Triarii use..

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Polyb1.html

and about pectorales - again, there are no Latin ones found, only ornamented ones in Samnite tombs.. If those things would be so commonly used, there would be hundreds of them in all places where Legions of Caesar fought.. yet, no such things were ever found outside of Italy,  (except some pieces in Tunis, yet those were ornamented, which suggest they were most likely battle trophy)

And for cloth armor you never heard of/no proof of exists, i remember reading a passage from Pliny who was mentioning combination of "felt and vinegar being good for making armors":

"Moreover, wool of it selfe driven togither into a felt without spinning or weaving, serveth to make garments with: and if vinegre be used in the working therof, such felts are of good proofe to bere off the edge and point of the sword; yea and more than that, they will checke the force of the fire."
chapter. XLVIII.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny8.html

its perfectly possible for Romans to actually use such felt vest as an armor, while felt/vinegar were both materials commonly available to average citizen eligible for service, as those were typically farmers..

I provided mentions of Gauls (many of whom fought naked), Germans (few of which fought in armor), Dacians (few of which fought in armor), Greeks of the Peloponnesian War (few of which fought in armor). You're a relative new comer to this forum, I recommend you spend the time and search previous posts. This subject has been explored in great length by some of the most knowledgeable individuals living on the subject, who are those writing most of the available material on the subject. 

What is the source which you possess that proves Romans used cloth equipment. Pliny describes its construction, show me what source describes its use. When, by whom?

[JaM]

I've been around on this forum for years, and i'm long term member also at MyArmoury.com. yes, i don't post often here, but that has no impact on amount of knowledge person could have. And yes, I read through this forum a lot, i know who is who, i have bought and read several books on this topic, be it from Chris Mathew, Dan Howard, John Travis,Jeff Champion or even controversial work of Raffaelle D'Amatto or Peter Connoly, but also multiple unknown thesis on this topic, like for example from Fernando Quesada Sanz about warfare in Spain, and plethora of others i got from academia.edu

When i posted here, i expected intelligent discussion where both sides provide information that is backed by sources, or at least logically backed by own explanations. Definitely didn't expect somebody to dismiss another by the time he spent on this forum..

So, please, back your claims, post the quotes behind your claims. You didnt provided any so far, only your statements. (besides, comparing Roman society to Germanic or Dacian one, is a bit strange, as i mentioned before, for them going into battle naked was supposed to intimidate enemy, which kinda worked, if you read depictions of several Roman historians about battle of Telamon and fight against Gaesatae)

edit: just checked, and you joined july 2011, while i have registered here september 2012...

[Bryan]

I've been around on this forum for years, and i'm long term member also at MyArmoury.com. yes, i don't post often here, but that has no impact on amount of knowledge person could have. And yes, I read through this forum a lot, i know who is who, i have bought and read several books on this topic, be it from Chris Mathew, Dan Howard, John Travis,Jeff Champion or even controversial work of Raffaelle D'Amatto or Peter Connoly, but also multiple unknown thesis on this topic, like for example from  Fernando Quesada Sanz about warfare in Spain, and plethora of others i got from academia.edu

When i posted here, i expected intelligent discussion where both sides  provide information that is backed by sources, or at least logically backed by own explanations. Definitely didn't expect somebody to dismiss another by the time he spent on this forum..

So, please, back your claims, post the quotes behind your claims. You didnt provided any so far, only your statements. (besides, comparing Roman society to Germanic or Dacian one, is a bit strange, as i mentioned before, for them going into battle naked was supposed to intimidate enemy, which kinda worked, if you read depictions of several Roman historians about battle of Telamon and fight against Gaesatae)

edit: just checked, and you joined july 2011, while i have registered here september 2012...

If you've spent time reading the board you don't need me to provide sources for the lack of armor, because those debates were done to death numerous times. Go read them again, because I'll just be regurgitating what others have already written about. Join date doesn't matter, post count doesn't matter. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm simply telling you straight out that the answers to your questions and the argument against much of what you have written has already been done by others, numerous times, many years ago. 

Here are some links to previous discussions which included hoplites fighting without armor, for further reading I recommend reading what PMBardunius has to say about the necessity of armor in hoplite warfare:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/archive...-7831.html
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/archive...944-1.html

Others, such as Dan Howard, have stated repeatedly that body armor was a rarity in the ancient period, when taking in all of the nations, not just the Greeks and Romans. And the modern consensus among many is that the Romans themselves differed greatly in what type of armor soldiers wore, and if some didn't have any (such as Caesar's antesignani, or the hastily raised legions through the Late Republic/ Civil War era).

[JaM]

Actually, we have very little information to say exactly what or if any armor was used by other cultures, as most of our knowledge is based on findings in tombs from those periods, but usually, only influential men would be buried with their armors, while others would most likely just pass on to their relatives. I live in area where Celtic culture was dominant, yet nobody can tall these people were less wealthy than Romans were.. just recently in Bratislava there was an archeological discovery of stone architecture, with Roman style architecture and multiple mosaics from around 200BC, which kinda suggest Celtic tribe that lived here was wealthy enough to be able to have Roman architects come and build these buildings for them at that time..





anyway, that's not the point of this discussion.. if you read my posts again, it was all about the fact that there was no wealth difference between Hastati, Principes or Triarii during Republican period, or at least at the time they were using Maniple tactics.  Middle Class citizens were selected to these groups based on Age, not wealth, and there is not a single mention stating otherwise. On contrary,  even later, you can find in Roman sources like for example Caesars Bello Gallico him using word Hastatus to describe fresh recruits, or Triarius as veteran soldiers of the cohort, which clearly suggest this differentiation lived further into Caesar's time. ( for example in Bello Civili he specifically mentions to take all Triarii from his legions to form separate cohorts and putting them into reserve at Pharsalus)

Regarding armor and fighting naked, i could just quote Chris Matthew who dedicated entire chapter  to the notion of Naked Hoplite, and ended up stating that artistic representation is far from actual use, while quoting multiple ancient sources, starting with  (already mentioned) Plutarchos, or Xenophon (who specifically mention armor to be used) or even Homer. But of course, he also mentions examples where Hoplites fought without armor, but those are mentioned as an exceptions, like for example battle at Chaeronea 338BC, when Athenians needed to deploy large force so only shields, helmets and spears were provided.. (but again, it was mentioned as an exceptional thing, not as something that was very common, yet, those men didnt fought naked!)


Another thing is, that even idea that for example Pectorales were worn just over tunic feels a bit strange, considering how completely discomforting would be having these strapped to the chest and having just a simple tunic under it.. not something you want to have when you need to move around quickly.. it would have to be padded with something, which alone would provide some protection on its own. Similarly, even with mail you need undergarment, otherwise it would not protect you at all.. So, yes, i challenge the claim that they fought naked, without any armor,because armor doesnt have to be always metalic.


btw, about that felt armor, look at these pictures, that breastplate soldier wears (first one,not the second one), definitely doesn't look like its made of metal:


im guessing they are talking about this relief:

[JaM]

and regarding never ending discussion about armor, There is never a time where everything was already said and there is nothing to be add.. every time you think you already seen everything, heard everything, comes situation like this for example:

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestu...d-in-omsk/

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Jaroslav thanks for the last link
can a mod please add an ranking to thi9s (you know we can only give neutral)

coming back to your discussion the point was about Marius's reform and not necessary about armor I would suggest to keep that topic

on Armor it might be a luxury but I would like to have one in a fight if I can buy /steal / cheat/ bribe one. I think the situation is much more complex I also think that probably even before Marius through Augustus the army suffered a lot of modification and unitization of equipment but even in Augustus times a bunch of soldiers would have pretty different equipment between them being shields, helmets swords or armor .

[Steven James]

Jaroslav wrote:
Steven James: please quote the exact sentences where they said that... i did just that, and there is no such thing being said...
 
I have no idea what you are referring to.
 
Jaroslav wrote:
Age doesnt automatically grant wealth..
 
But what if the Romans allocated an age division for the levy to each property class, with Class I recruiting the oldest men, and Class V the youngest? In this manner, Class V, being the youngest and more fleet of foot but the poorest would be recruited to serve as velites in the army.
 
Jaroslav wrote:
Triarii were often even excluded from combat -  at Cannae they were left guarding the camps..
 
Conjecture not fact. Plutarch mentions those in battle array numbered 88,000 men, so to reach this number, the triarii had to be in battle array (on the field of battle).
 

[Dan Howard]

The military age for the Romans is from 18 years to 45 years. This gives a span of 27 years,

The above gives a span of 28 years because it is inclusive of both 18 and 45. However, I was under the impression that troops came from property-owning citizens known as  iuniores, which were aged between 16 and 46, giving a span of 31 years. We also have evidence of soldiers that enlisted even earlier. There are a few who enlisted at 14 or 15 and one who may have enlisted as young as 11: Antonius Hermos was a legionary of the I Italica (Pannonia, 3rd C AD), whose tombstone claims that he died at the age of 30, and had served 19 years. Any numbers that look neat on paper do not translate to reality.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

If you Speak about this one is hardly true:
http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh...t/HD046333

D(is) M(anibus) / Antonio H/ermo mil(iti) / leg(ionis) I Ital(icae) sti(pendiorum) / XIX vix(it) an(n)is / XXXX Iul(ius) Ru/fus mil(es) leg(ionis) / I Ital(icae) et Nome[nt]/an(us) b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuerunt)

I found this to be most unfortunate mistake not sure about the source, can you please give me the source that states 30 years Dan?

[JaM]

"But what if the Romans allocated an age division for the levy to each property class, with Class I recruiting the oldest men, and Class V the youngest? In this manner, Class V, being the youngest and more fleet of foot but the poorest would be recruited to serve as velites in the army."

Thing is, that is not what Polybius described..  besides, what with young boys from higher middle class families? where would you put them? There were families that had wealth not as big as Patrician families (census states over 400.000 denarii), yet would have more than 5000 or what was required for admission to legion... 200 or 300 denarii for a breastplate would be not a big deal for them.. especially, when we take into account that not all members of the family enlisted at the same time for the same campaign.. even if family had just single piece of armor, why would they not give that armor to the member that enlisted that season? These were farmer families with possible several sons, really doubt entire male part of the single family would leave family farm be, and would go campaigning..

Anyway, back to Polybius. my entire point was in the fact, that those few sentences that describe differences between Hastati, Principes or Triarii have not a single word about difference in armor/equipment, with exception of specifically mentioned spear being used by Triarii. If there was some clear wealth difference between Hastati, Principes and Triarii, i would assume Polybius would mentioned it, yet he only said that they were equipped the same way...

Conjecture not fact. Plutarch mentions those in battle array numbered 88,000 men, so to reach this number, the triarii had to be in battle array (on the field of battle).

If Triarii were in the main infantry block, how is possible that Hastrubal's cavalry charged the rear of Roman formation without any problems? Polybius sais (3.116.8) that he delivered multiple charges with devastating effect... yet, in the very similar situation, at Trebia, Roman Triarii were told to turn back and fight off  the charging cavalry, allowing the bulk of Roman infantry to fight through Carthaginian formation... 

(besides, i specifically remember i read in some book that almost 10.000 Triarii were left guarding the camp, once i find exactly which book it was, i will post it here)

[Steven James]

Dan wrote:
The above gives a span of 28 years because it is inclusive of both 18 and 45. However, I was under the impression that troops came from property-owning citizens known as iuniores, which were aged between 16 and 46, giving a span of 31 years. We also have evidence of soldiers that enlisted even earlier. There are a few who enlisted at 14 or 15 and one who may have enlisted as young as 11: Antonius Hermos was a legionary of the I Italica (Pannonia, 3rd C AD), whose tombstone claims that he died at the age of 30, and had served 19 years. Any numbers that look neat on paper do not translate to reality.
 
Meant 45 years as per Dionysius as I wanted to keep clear of introducing the Pythagorean ratio used by the Romans for time. Also Dan I am well aware of the realities of age and the length of service as found in CIL records etc. does not formally match the age brackets as given by Censorinus (citing Varro), Aulus Gellius, Dionysius, and Livy. Some of those authors have the age of the iuniores ending at 45, some ending at 46 years, and some starting at 18 years of age. I was adhering to those age brackets and I was simply presenting to Jaroslav an exercise of using the data in the primary sources in a different manner. Your unrelenting eagerness to show me the continuous errors of my ways is highly praiseworthy.

[Bryan]

Plutarch, Life of Gaius Gracchus, 5.1. writes about one of the tribune's laws acting as a military reform was to prevent anyone under the age of 17 from being enlisted (as had been common evidently in the chaos of the 2nd Cent. BC). So that would put the lower age bracket at 17, not 18.