Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms

[JaM]

which means it was of concern to that Military Tribune, therefore it had to be commonly infringed, otherwise he would not bother setting such law..

Also, technically speaking, Velites/Leves were not supposed to fight in battle, their role was to skirmish before the engagement started. Some historians mention that sometimes men trying to prove themselves challenged enemy champions into duels in front of both armies, while those that distinguished themselves in such occasion, wore a wolven skin over the helmet. (correct me if im wrong)

[Dan Howard]

Steven James

Your unrelenting eagerness to show me the continuous errors of my ways is highly praiseworthy.

It seems as if I don't need to. You are doing a good job of that by yourself.

[Bryan]

Gaius Gracchus wasn't a military tribune when he passed the Lex Graccha laws, he was a Tribune of Plebeians.

Also, you are using Patrician incorrectly. It was not an economic class, like Class I or the Equestrian Order. During the Republic period (it changed later during the Principate and Empire), Patricians were citizens who could trace their direct male ancestry back to the Senate during the Kings, when the Senate were still advisers. By the time of the Late Republic and this discussion, a Patrician could be poor, as were both Sulla and Caesar supposedly growing up. A Patrician could be dirt poor. Or they could be from a consular family and be filthy rich. But their monetary worth was not tied in at all with being Patrician, it was a hereditary title that simply gave the title holder a higher public standing because of his family's contributions to Rome, the families were institutions. Likewise, Plebeian doesn't mean poor. Crassus and Pompeius and most of the great plutocratic businessmen that were Equestrians, they were all Plebeians.

Lastly, you're still using Middle Class incorrectly. Rome didn't have a Middle Class, not the way you're trying to use it.

Senators
Equestrians
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IIII
Class V
Proletariat (which included freemen without property and any other poor who had the citizenship)

Now compare that to the time period when the term Middle Class was termed in 1745:

Nobility/Clergy
Merchants
Peasants

See?

---

Steven James

Your unrelenting eagerness to show me the continuous errors of my ways is highly praiseworthy.

It seems as if I don't need to. You are doing a good job of that by yourself.

[JaM]

Brian, it doesnt matter how you call it.. there is no mention of let say Class I only forming Triarii, or Class V only forming Hastati... Hastati, Principes and Triarii were composed of all eligible citizens. Thats what im trying to say from the beginning.. if i used middle class term, it was just to point out these were not proletearii or patricians/equestrians. they were in the middle of these two groups, which btw neither were actually serving as infantry anyway.

[Bryan]

Brian, it doesnt matter how you call it.. there is no mention of let say Class I only forming Triarii, or Class V only forming Hastati... Hastati, Principes and Triarii were composed of all eligible citizens. Thats what im trying to say from the beginning.. if i used middle class term, it was just to point out these were not proletearii or patricians/equestrians. they were in the middle of these two groups, which btw neither were actually serving as infantry anyway.

You're still using Patrician wrong. Once again Patrician does not mean rich, it does not mean powerful, it does not mean Senator or Equestrian. If a citizen could trace their direct male line ancestry to the Fathers of the Republic, the original Senate, then they were Patrician. If they couldn't, they were Plebeian.  Please read this.

Hastati, Principes, and Triari/Pilani were not composed of all eligible citizens. Because you're not including the other military roles that citizens played in the Roman army, namely cavalry and skirmishers, which according to both Polybius and Livy were manned by specific social economic classes. 

The Lex Claudia of 218 BC prevented Senators from conducting commerce, making the Equestrian Order richer, but the Senators' sons were still Equestrians until Augustus separated the two orders. Equestrians were still members of Class I, they were the top 18 centuries of it. 

Senators didn't serve in the Hastati, Principes, or Triari/Pilani, they served as Consuls, Praetors, Quaestors, and Legates. Equestrians did not serve in the Hastati, Principes, or Triari (other than to be centurions), they served as cavalrymen, cavalry officers, centurions, tribunes, and prefects. 

So Senators ruled, Class I included the richest men in Rome, and the Capite Censi didn't even have their property counted since it wasn't worth it, which of Class I-Proletariat were the Middle Class? Class III? They're in the middle but they hardly have any social distinction separating them from Class II or Class IIII besides a slight difference in net worth.

[JaM]

Hastati, Principes, and Triari/Pilani were not composed of all eligible citizens. Because you're not including the other military roles that citizens played in the Roman army, namely cavalry and skirmishers, which according to both Polybius and Livy were manned by specific social economic classes.

i was talking specifically about INFANTRY... excluding cavalry... so where exactly made i mistake? i dont think i did - Hastati, Principes and Triarii were all selected from citizens ELIGIBLE FOR INFANTRY SERVICE..  not Cavalry, not officers... INFANTRY.. Pedites/Milites, whatever you want to call them. And there is no historical mention that Class 1 were only Triarii, or Class V were Velites or Hastati or whatever. Only mention we have is about the AGE those men..   I really dont care if Class I-V were called Middle class or not, its not the main thing i wanted to point out. again, my whole point was towards no equipment difference between HASTATI, PRINCIPES and TRIARII besides the use of Hasta by the Triarii.  I made that comment, because it is very common for people to quote Polybius and say things he never wrote, like for example that Hastati used only Pectorales, or Triarii had Bronze Breastplates same as officers.. yet no such thing was ever mentioned by Polybius.

Brian, it doesnt matter how you call it.. there is no mention of let say Class I only forming Triarii, or Class V only forming Hastati... Hastati, Principes and Triarii were composed of all eligible citizens. Thats what im trying to say from the beginning.. if i used middle class term, it was just to point out these were not proletearii or patricians/equestrians. they were in the middle of these two groups, which btw neither were actually serving as infantry anyway.

Of course that later, when Census requirements were reduced, or completely removed, Proletarii were recruited who had no chance to get any kind of armor. They had to rely what Republic provided. Even when Rome "drafted" slaves or anybody willing after Cannae, these men were told to be equipped with equipment taken from temples.. yet again, it was not the norm, even later on, otherwise Caesar would not mentioned Expediti/Antesignani to put down their heavy armor so they would be not encumbered and could effectively fight off faster gauls..

and on another topic, yes i believe that Triarii were not actually something special, they were reservist force composed of oldest eligible men but no longer seen as reliable for front rank combat. if anybody was seen as "elite" it was Principes - "the first men", who were supposed to decide the battle.

Also, i believe Servilan army was describing the Hoplitic formation Romans used, and as such it was oriented more towards wealth, same as with Greeks. But, once Romans adopted more open Manipular tactics, they also adopted new distribution of men based on actual combat stamina (based on age), as their whole new combat tactics evolved around notion to tire enemy down through battle of fatigue attrition. This tactics called for most fittest to fight it, therefore oldest were kept in reserve so they could preserve their strength to the point they were really needed.

[Bryan]

The problem with discussing who had what armor is that the sources are contradictory, archaeology provides more contradictory info, and iconography simply destroys theories.

Polybius says miles gregarius wore pectorales, but those with over 10,000 Drachmae wore mail. Where does that cost fit in the property class of the Romans? Who had more than that?

Its hard to even to figure out the worth of a Drachma in relation to a Denarii. Were they equal? Some say. What about the Attic Drachma? The property requirements changed often over time during the Republic but the figures for all the classes was never written out completely, just small figures here and there.

You mentioned early in this thread about the cost of mail. You've still not produced a source. Was 10,000 Drachmae the cost? If so, that equates to about 10,000 days worth of labor for a skilled worker, to put that in perspective. That seems a bit steep for a piece of armor. So instead, was it just that they expected someone whose net worth of 10,000 Drachmae to be able to afford said armor? More likely. How did Polybius come to that number? He probably got it from the census class requirement, though he doesn't mention it. So according to Polybius, everyone under a certain property class were required to at least possess pectorales, over a certain class they were expected to have mail. But then again this is Polybius, who wrote Book 6 in with a very black and white description of Roman organization and equipment, with no grey area, which was more the case of reality. Understandable since he was simply trying to illustrate to his fellow Greeks how and why the Romans had beaten the Greeks.

[JaM]

no, i read about mail cost being 200-300 denarii, almost same as cost of Musculata. I'm looking exactly where i read that, it was almost a year ago, when i was researching this thoroughly, bought like 20 books on that topic to be able to gain good perspective, but then i have moved to different topic altogether (17.century naval combat).. (such is a life of a game designer..)

[Bryan]

Hey Dan, you want to weigh in on this, since you're the armor guru? Do we know how much mail cost during the Republic?

[JaM]

btw, i think we are quite underestimating how much money Roman Republic actually had.. for example, i read that Athens payed over 12 talents just as a pay for the 200 men crew, while construction cost of the ship was another 10 talents.. and Athens had over 200 Triremes active, and another 100 in reserve.

At the other side, Rome during first Punic war build up in just 3 months over 100 Quinqueremes, with over 300 men each and another 20 Triremes. Construction cost of Quinquereme would be higher than cost of Trireme ( i assume at least 14-15 talents) while cost of crew would be just marginally larger, as main advantage of Quinquereme was that it required same number of trained rowers per row as Trireme,  remaining could be supplemented by two rookies. So, if one Quinquereme cost them about 30 talents, one fleet would cost 3000 talents.. which is like 18 million drachmae if i remember correctly... If they were able to afford such huge price in such a short time, is it really so far-stretched assuming they were also able to procure armors? (now referring to Marian times, with Rome Republic richer, controlling Greece, Carthage, Spain etc...)


How much did Crassus pay for his four "private" legions he used against Spartacus? or another four he wasted at Carrhae?

--------------------------

btw, book Roman Conquest - Italy, written by Ross Cowan, states that after Asculum, "Romans quickly armed additional men using the arms and armors taken from Samnites at Sentinum, Aquilonia and Cominium, same way, as did they later armed "Volones" after Cannae, with the arms and armor taken from Celts after battle of Telamon. " So technically, Roman Republic must have enough of additional "spoils of war" equipment stored somewhere, so it could be used if necessary. author also states that Proletarii were not allowed into legions, but they suplemented the defense of city of Rome.

[Timus]

At the other side, Rome during first Punic war build up in just 3 months over 100 Quinqueremes, with over 300 men each and another 20 Triremes. Construction cost of Quinquereme would be higher than cost of Trireme ( i assume at least 14-15 talents) while cost of crew would be just marginally larger, as main advantage of Quinquereme was that it required same number of trained rowers per row as Trireme,  remaining could be supplemented by two rookies. So, if one Quinquereme cost them about 30 talents, one fleet would cost 3000 talents.. which is like 18 million drachmae if i remember correctly... If they were able to afford such huge price in such a short time, is it really so far-stretched assuming they were also able to procure armors? (now referring to Marian times, with Rome Republic richer, controlling Greece, Carthage, Spain etc...)

Just a quick side-note, but there are some archaeological clues that Polybius may have been exaggerating a bit when talking about all those quinqueremes:
https://www.academia.edu/9532428/_Bronze...2014_33-59
check p3, including the notes at the bottom.  I'm pretty sure I read a paper that dealt more specifically with that discrepancy but I can't seem to find it again : (

[JaM]

it actually doesnt matter that much.. building 100 Quinqueremes or even Triremes in 3 months is quite a feat. Of course price difference matters, if its 2200 or 3000 talents, yet, if we compare it with theoretical price for 3000 pieces of armor (Hastati+Principes+Triarii) for a single Legion, it would be something around 600.000 drachmae with 200d per piece, or aprox 100 talents. So actually, for a price of a 100 Triremes fitted for service, you could have 20 legions fitter with armor. (but of course this is pure theory, of course manufacturing such huge amount of armors would be very problematic)

[Bryan]

I think the cost of lorica hamata was 900,000 denarii. I don't have a source to provide either though to support it. But judging by that price its hardly affortable.

Besides that, why are you confusing state purchases of ships with state purchasing of arms? For most of the Republic arms were not provided by the state. So a citizen with 900,000 denarii in his pocket could buy a lorica hamata.

[Dan Howard]

Hey Dan, you want to weigh in on this, since you're the armor guru? Do we know how much mail cost during the Republic?

10,000 Drachmae was the wealth requirement for enrolment, not the cost of the armour. We don't know how much mail cost, we don't know how much of the army wore armour, and we don't know how much of each kind of armour was worn. All we can really say is that more of the Roman army wore armour than most of their opponents.

[JaM]

Bryan: starting to think i'll just ignore you..

for rest - at the time of Aristophanes (446 - 386 BC), he specifically mentioned high quality bronze muscled breastplate cost to be 1000 drachmae, and cost of a helmet 100 drachmae.  (Peace,1221-1222,1249-1250)

Mr W. Kendrick Pritchett, published information about costs of these items:
Bow:7 dr
Bow and quiver: 15 dr
Spearhead: 3.5 ob
Spear pole: 2 dr
Shield: 20 dr
(type of drachma not specified)

Price of good cavalry horse went from 200 to 1200 drachmae, with average "warhorse" being sold for around 500

Simpson (1961) 47; Wagoner, Chalkey, and Cook (1978) 109–13.
Richter (1968) 73.
Kroll (1977) 83–140; Braun (1972) 129–269.
Kroll (1977) 86.
Ibid., 88."

Compare these numbers to costs of items in early medieval times, and you might get approximate idea how costly Mail could be...

(i'm still looking for similar info about mail, i have it somewhere, just need to find it)

---

A companion to a Roman Army has his info about census:

Outline of the later centuriate organization:
Class Qualification Centuries
Knights  - 100,000–> 12
First class -  100,000–> 80
Sex suffragia - 100,000–> 6
Engineers - 100,000–> 2
Second class - 75,000–100,000 20
Third class - 50,000–75,000 20
Fourth class - 25,000–50,000 20
Fifth class - 12,500–25,000 30
Horn blowers - 12,500–25,000 2
Proletarii <–12,500 1

Qualification is in asses, sources: Livy 1.43, Dionysius 4.16–18,
Polybius 6.22–23, and Cicero, Rep. 2.39–40.

interesting is amount of centuries for the first class... almost as much as remaining classes combined (80 vs 90).. If that would be the case, then practically almost half could have the Hamata...