08-10-2016, 02:40 AM
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.
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.
