Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms

[Bryan]

There were more centuries for the elite because it was designed to give them an electoral edge. Same with Rural Tribes, few members compared to the more densely packed Urban Tribes, giving the elite more power even though they had fewer numbers. It was one of the reasons there was so much senatorial and equestrian dissention turning Italians into Romans following the Social War was because the original idea was to have those many millions equally distributed across all the tribes, instead of just a few urban tribes, where they ended up, which largely negated their voting power.

BTW, there were 18 centuries of Equestrian, not 12.

[Steven James]

Jaroslav wrote:
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...
 
I’m not in disagreement with you about Polybius’ description. However, I will point out that having a different view to the conventional view means you will be shouted down. No one will come along and say “hey let’s explore that idea and see where it takes us.”
 
Jaroslav wrote:
 (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).
 
Save yourself the trouble Jaroslav as it is a modern theory. No primary source states that the triarii guarded the camps, let alone 10,000 of them. I think Connelly was the first to do so but could be wrong. I still don’t know how some modern historians arrived at the figure of 10,000 triarii as 16 legions multiplied by 600 triarii per legion amounts to 9600 men. Maybe they are following the ancient practice of rounding the numbers.
 
Bryan wrote:
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.
 
Yes I am aware of all the different references to ages below 18 or after 17 years of age, 16 years and 14 years covering a vast period of time. But I am also aware of the Romans have a neat paper system that brackets the troops into age divisions, just like their imaginary Roma Quadrata, which Solinus defines the Roma Quadrata as a name for Rome in one of the stages of its growth, which is interesting as during the reign of the emperor Domitian, Lydus cites the Roman Empire was divided into twelve regions, so this indicates a growth of 4+4+4 = 12. In the beginning it was an imaginary distribution system of the 20 tribes with five tribes allocated to each square.
 
The fact is the Roman legion and the three battle lines of hastati, principes and triarii were divided into age brackets, of which I posted a possible example of how it might work using 18 to 45 years. I should know by now not to do this on this forum...but I am slowly learning.
 
For the year 217 BC, in order to meet a threat from a Carthaginian fleet that had attacked some Roman supply ships near the port of Cosa, the consul was ordered to take the vessels laying off Rome or Ostia and pursue the Carthaginian fleet. (Livy (22 11) The levy was raised in Rome, and out of the city troops (two legions), those troops under the age of thirty five years were placed on board the Roman fleet, while the rest remained to garrison the city.
 
This example shows the Romans must have age brackets for the various troop types, otherwise why call men in their prime of life, youth, the flower of the army etc. Can anyone prove who those men under 35 years are?
 
Dan wrote:
It seems as if I don't need to. You are doing a good job of that by yourself.
 
Well that isn’t hard Dan, cause everything I do with you is wrong. My posting to Jaroslav about using the 18 to 45 years (Dionysius 45 years), was as I said, an exercise in exploring data differently. In one incidence I write “what if the Romans.” But thanks again for reminding that RAT is not an opened minded forum.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Jaroslav you are citing Greek numbers and argue for Roman costs. I don't think that this can be true. There are essential differences between the both worlds both in economy as well as army. I will not enter into details but speaking about the navy in Athens and Rome there are fundamental differences in the way the financing was carried out. Rome construction was centralized the rowers were non paid citizens while Athens the construction was private sponsorship mixed with paid citizens as rowers.

The value of gold and silver was not the same for Romans and for Greeks.

I think that parallels can be drawn but you can't simply take the cost from a Greek author and apply it to a Roman item.

As Dan states we have no idea whatsoever about the costs of the armor about how it was issued whom paid for it how many and which types were present.

[JaM]

why would be roman rowers not payed? what would be their motivation then? roman rowers were not slaves.. naval service was not a walk in the park... if your ship is captured, you end up being slave, and that is actually better fate than drown somewhere as happened quite often with entire fleets... nobody would enlist as rower if not compensated appropriately.

and of course you cannot draw direct line, but you can compare prices. multiple items are mentioned by Roman and Greek historians, and those can be compared. Similarly, we have sources that state the cost of armor during early Medieval period (cost of suit of mail to be similar as cost of milking cow - Smith, K.P., Ore, Fire, Hammer, Sickle: Iron Production in Viking Age and Early Medieval Iceland Skre, D. (Chapter 3) Silver Economies, Monetisation and Society in Scandinavia, AD 800-1000)

Amount of work was the same, so was amount of material. If medieval armorers asked for certain sum, its not that far fetched assuming, ancient armorers would ask at least for similar amount.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

In the republic the soldiers had no pay (or close to none in the period you mention about 100 quinqueremes) the rowers were soldiers not slaves. Later after Augustus the situation changed but still they were pay like the rest of the army.

[JaM]

Not entirely true. Senate had to compensate legionaries stationed in Sardinia and Corsica, as well as any others who had to serve longer than agreed term. If I recall right, first time they payed citizens was during siege of Veii.. Rowers were drafted from proletarii.. they were not soldiers in that term, as they were not seen fit for legions. Yet, while inexperienced rower could be cheap in pay, he would need to eat.. quite a lot.. as rowing is not entirely a walk in the park.

And lets not forget that Greek city states also used citizens to serve in navy, yet, they compensated them. notion that Romans didnt is a bit strange to me, due to simple danger of such service.

[JaM]

one technical question to early republican legion composition. If i take numbers given by Livy and Varo during times when tribes were expanded (232BC), it seems that Class I was about 36% of all men eligible for Legions (excluding those for naval service, and equestrians). these 36% of men would be wealthy enough to have ability to buy good quality armor (definitely over 10.000 drachmae Polybius mentioned), while those in Class II and III would still be most likely able to procure armor of lesser quality.

Anyway, if 36% is well armored, and we exclude Velites who have no armor, who represent 28% of all infantry in the legion, it leaves us with about 1500 men out of remaining 3000, were from Class I. but of course, this is only valid for Telamon campaign and beginning of Second Punic war.. not with the losses at Trebia, Trassimene and Cannae.

(let me know if i made any logical mistakes with my calculations)

[Bryan]

one technical question to early republican legion composition. If i take numbers given by Livy and Varo during  times when tribes were expanded (232BC), it seems that Class I was about 36% of all men eligible for Legions (excluding those for naval service, and equestrians).  these 36% of men would be wealthy enough to have ability to buy good quality armor (definitely over 10.000 drachmae Polybius mentioned), while those in Class II and III would still be most likely able to procure armor of lesser quality.

Anyway, if 36% is well armored, and we exclude Velites who have no armor, who represent 28% of all infantry in the legion, it leaves us with about 1500 men out of remaining 3000, were from Class I.    but of course, this is only valid for Telamon campaign and beginning of Second Punic war.. not with the losses at Trebia, Trassimene and Cannae.

(let me know if i made any logical mistakes with my calculations)

The size of the centuries of the Centuriate Assembly were not equal. Seniores centuries of each class had less citizens than iuniore, just as many centuries (which meant few citizens had more voting power, which was the point behind it). Equestrians had 18 centuries, a whole lot less citizens than any other class, thus lots more voting power. Proletariat made up a decent sized chunk of all Roman citizens, and yet they had one voting century. 

So that doesn't translate to actual numbers for legions and soldiers and armor.

[JaM]

no, i only used numbers of Iuniores, excluded Seniores completely. i got those numbers off one work about Telamon campaign, where they are used for explanation how Polybius made a mistake and counted Roman and Socii legions twice.

[Bryan]

Where are you getting that Class I made up 36% of any force? You didn't mention any numbers, you mentioned percentages, no ancient historical account wrote percentages.

Let's start from scratch. State where whatever source says a specific class made up a specific percentage. If you're using another secondary source, list it. If you got enough info out of it to provide percentages, share the source's author and title to us so we can check your math.

Also, century and tribes are two completely separate things. Comitia Tributa didn't have seniore and iuniore, those were within the Comitia Centuriata.

[JaM]

its from a work i got from academia.edu called 225BC: Polybius Account of the Telamon campaign by Steven James.

http://www.academia.edu/15833849/225_BC_...n_Campaign

In 241 BC, the Romans created the Quirina and Velina tribes, bringing the total number of tribes to thirty five.1 As the thirty five tribes were created from the Pythagorean 6:8:9:12 tetrachord, the Romans cannot increase the number of tribes beyond thirty five tribes. However, once established the Pythagorean system was designed to permit the Romans to increase the size of the tribes, which did occur for the first time in 228 BC. How this was accomplished is explained by Varro when he wrote that a century was originally one hundred men but “when it doubled, it kept is name, just as the tribes…still keep the same name though their number has been multiplied.”2 After the tribal expansion, the thirty five tribes numbered 252,000 men broken into the following: 35 Tribes Class

Iuniores Seniores Total
Class I 63000 12600 75600
Class II 21000 4200 25200
Class III 21000 4200 25200
Class IV 21000 4200 25200
Class V 46200 9240 55440
Class VI 25200 5040 30240
Cavalry 12600 2520 15120
Total 210000 42000 252000

Preparations for the increase of the thirty five tribes could have begun in 232 BC. In that year the Romans made extensive land settlements of territory taken from the Celts. 3 In 225 BC, in response to Rome’s occupation of their territory, the Celtic peoples, the Insurbes, Boii and Gaesatae made war on Rome.4 In order to meet this crisis, the Romans conducted a levy and found those Romans and allies able to bear arms numbered more than 700,000 infantry and 70,000 cavalry.5 Polybius reports that the Romans and Campanians numbered 250,000 infantry and 23,000 cavalry for a total of 273,000 men.6 By subtracting the 210,000 iuniores in the thirty five tribes from the 250,000 Romans and Campanians, this leaves a total of 40,000 Campanian infantry

sources are mentioned in that paper and its available free..

[Steven James]

Bryan wrote:
Also, century and tribes are two completely separate things.
 
How about instead of telling us, you educate us by showing us?
 

---

Jaroslav wrote:
its from a work i got from academia.edu called 225BC: Polybius Account of the Telamon campaign by Steven James.
 
Yes I’ve read this paper. What Steven didn’t tell us is how to calculate the size of a legion from the tribal system. He definitely deserves a good flogging. But he has his reasons and that is by doing so, he will have another battle on his hands from his dedicated critics, so I will do it for him.
 
Following Polybius that a legion consisted of four classes, by adding up Classes I to IV in the 35 tribes, the result is 126,000 men. Now if anyone knows something about the Pythagorean cosmos, a tone equals 126,000 stadia. By dividing the 126,000 men of Classes I to IV by 35 tribes, the result is 3,600 men per tribe. This is the core size of the legion. If I want an emergency legion, then I have 46,200 iuniores of Class V (proletarii) to call up, which when divided by the 35 tribes gives the Romans an additional reserve of 1,320 men to add to the legion. However, if I only call up 1,200 men, then the legion increases to 4,800 men.
 
Steven’s paper on Pharsalus shows that by using a legion of 3,600 men, the army numbers given by Caesar, Appian, Plutarch, Orosius and Eutropius make sense.

[JaM]

so you are saying that Proletarii were allowed to serve in legion? thats new... care to post some sources on this?

and just to be clear.. i'm not talking about Legions after Marius, but Legions in the bring of Second Punic War, or legions before Cynoscephalae or Pydna...  Steven's numbers are specific for 232BC, so lets not mix them up with Caesarian census..


Besides, my point still stands.. Class I from those numbers was the biggest one, i counted 36% of all.

[Steven James]

Jaroslav wrote:
so you are saying that Proletarii were allowed to serve in legion? thats new... care to post some sources on this?
 
Aulus Gellius (16 10 9-12) sent me a text message saying that in times of emergency the state would levy the proletarii for military service and their arms were furbished by the state. Aulus Gellius further added that the proletarii were given a more auspicious name deprived from their duty and function. I guess this could mean that the proletarii could be called velites or maybe even rorarii. I think Valerius Maximus (2 3) says the same thing as does St. Augustine (The City of God 3 17) St Augustine also claims that the arming of the proletarii occurred for the first time sometime before the war with Pyrrhus, but this does not necessarily mean this was the first time in Roman history but it could have been some time since they had done this. Anyway, what would a bible bashing religious nut job like St. Augustine know about anything other than thumping his drum about Jesus?
 
Polybius seems to think that when the state was threatened they increased the size of the legions, so who could they be?
 
Jaroslav wrote:
and just to be clear.. i'm not talking about Legions after Marius, but Legions in the bring of Second Punic War, or legions before Cynoscephalae or Pydna...  Steven's numbers are specific for 232BC, so lets not mix them up with Caesarian census..
 
I have no idea why you need to caution me about bringing Caesar into the legion, I haven’t done so. I spoke with Steven from Thailand and Steven said his numbers are specific for 228 BC and it was in 232 BC that the land was being acquired for the expansion due to the Agrarian Law of Flaminius. But Steven said that the 252,000 men in the 35 tribes was appropriate for Cannae to Pydna and beyond that.
 
Jaroslav wrote:
Besides, my point still stands.. Class I from those numbers was the biggest one, i counted 36% of all.
 
Well I do not doubt you and have not done so maybe you have got the wrong person. And Class I in the Servian constitution is also the largest class with 40 centuries so no argument from me. Guess that shows the Servian constitution did not change that much.
 
Bryan wrote:
BTW, there were 18 centuries of Equestrian, not 12.
 
Livy (43.16) “The tribune fixed a day for the discussion of this proposal in the Assembly...The case of Claudius was taken first. Eight out of the twelve centuries of equites and several other centuries of the first class sentenced him to a fine.”
 
Also for the battle of Veii in 480 BC, Dionysius mentions 1,200 cavalry for the Roman army.
 

[JaM]

"Well I do not doubt you and have not done so maybe you have got the wrong person. And Class I in the Servian constitution is also the largest class with 40 centuries so no argument from me. Guess that shows the Servian constitution did not change that much. "

yeah, you right, my mistake.I appologize.

I'm just trying to figure out how many of Legionarii could have high quality equipment, and members of Class I are those who would definitely be able to afford it, be it bronze cuirasses, or even mail. 

If Velites were formed from proletarii i guess they would only select the young ones, those who would be physically fit for such thing, because while skirmishing doesnt required best physical constitution, it would be definitely a problem for some old farmer who spent most of his life working on the field - throwing javelin effectively kinda requires healthy back, while farming is one area well known for chronic back issues..