Origin of triple battle line

[Jona Lendering]

No one knows when the Romans changed the change from the old phalanx to the triple battle line that is characteristic for a legion. Some scholars (e.g. Lawrence Keppie, Making of the Roman Army, quoting literature from the 1920's) think that it was in the age of Marcus Furius Camillus, the first quarter of the fourth century B.C. This is not implausible, because in those years the Romans for the first time encountered the Gauls, and the introduction of payment is dated to a year in which Camillus was in office.

Still, I have some doubts. In the first place, I fail to see why the Gallic tactics would force the Romans to change theirs. Why would it be necessary to change the phalanx structure to cope with the Gallic way of war?

I am inclined to date the introduction during the Samnite wars, when the Romans fought against people living in a mountainous area, where a phalanx would be useless. Besides, Livy 8.8 introduces a description of the Roman army in exactly this period, and says that the triple line was a recent development - which need not say much because his chronology of this age is notoriously clumsy. I think that, if we had to pick one man who was responsible (which is of course doubtful), Marcus Valerius Corvus is a better candidate.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

(This is one of my first postings; if I have not seen a thread on this subject, I apologize.)

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Jona,
Have you read the discussion in T.J.Cornell's The Beginnings of Rome? It's not specialized, but does get you up to speed with recent literature.
If not, I'll have a look and see what his conclusion is (it's been a while...).

[Jona Lendering]

I should have thought of it myself; after all, it's a book I really liked. Cornell agrees with a late date, i.e. during the Samnite Wars, which is quite reassuring.

[drsrob]

I've done some thinking on this and have come to the conclusion that the triple line was developed only gradually, the last step being made only in 211 BC.
Historians agree that the Centuriate system cannot have existed as it did from the beginning, but then assume that it was introduced in one sweep at a later date. It cannot have been. So too the Polybian system. His description of the legions date from about 160 BC. Things are bound to have been a little different 40 years before. Livius mentions the introduction of the velites in 211. His source for this is almost certainly Polybius. Before 211 there must have been light infantry or javelineers as well, but with a different armament. Most likely javelins only.

A medium-armed warrior-class was introduced in 406 for the siege of Veii.
A skirmishing class of javelineers perhaps as late as the Pyrrhic war at which time the medium armed line became the main one (principes)and the phalanx a reserve (triarii.
Only in 211, with the introduction of the velites did the hastati become identical to the principes

Only after 211 did the Romans start experimenting with the triple-line system. This is generally attributed to the genius of Scipio, but it seems strange that the Romans would have been developed a system and then wait for more than a century before starting to experiment with it.

It's basically only an idea at the moment. I have an extensive argument, but this is perhaps not the place to post it.

[Jona Lendering]

A medium-armed warrior-class was introduced in 406 for the siege of Veii.

As far as I know, there's only evidence for payment of soldiers, and the introduction of all-year service a bit later. That, at least, is what Livy says. But it is easy to overlook a source.

I am broadly sympathetic to your ideas, and I agree that it must be a long development, which came to an end in 211. But what worries me is that the two historical documents quoted by Livy do mention centuriae in the sixth and fourth century. Now it is certain that they have been changed and interpolated, but that does not mean that the Servian reform did not take place. The same argument for Livy 8.8: there's some editing, but the document itself is old.

Please not that centurio's are mentioned in our sources for the fifth century, which suggests that there must have been centuriae. This does not mean, of course, that there was a triple line.

Keppie believes that the Servian reform document refers to a situation at the time of the First Punic War (at least the amounts of money referred to fit); and the idea of a division into five categories is not uncommon in the sixth century (cf. Solon in Athens).

So I am tempted to think that the Servian reform meant something, even if we are not permitted to understand the details; and that Livy 8.8 describes a situation before 265. This does not exclude ongoing development down to 211.

[drsrob]

A medium-armed warrior-class was introduced in 406 for the siege of Veii.

As far as I know, there's only evidence for payment of soldiers, and the introduction of all-year service a bit later. That, at least, is what Livy says. But it is easy to overlook a source.

There is some suggestion that the scutum was adopted at the time that pay was introduced.
Also the juniors of class I formed 40 centuriae, those of class II and III combined formed 20. The difference of armament between II and III is militarily spoken insignificant. The tribune is often thought of as a commander of a thousand, or 10 centuriae. This might have applied to the tribuni militum consularis potestate Of these there were at first (444 BC) three, than between 3 and 4, but after 406 always six.

I am broadly sympathetic to your ideas, and I agree that it must be a long development, which came to an end in 211. But what worries me is that the two historical documents quoted by Livy do mention centuriae in the sixth and fourth century. Now it is certain that they have been changed and interpolated, but that does not mean that the Servian reform did not take place. The same argument for Livy 8.8: there's some editing, but the document itself is old.

The oldest description of the Roman army mentions 100 man supplied by each of the 30 curiae. These of course are centuriae too. The centuria might thus be the oldest unit of the Roman army.
Polybius however does not mention it. He knows of no subdivision of the maniple. I think that the original centuriae became purely voting units, while the centurions remained as officers of the maniple. Only when the legion became a semi-permanent body in the late republic was the maniple split up in two purely administrative sub-units, each under the command of one of the centurions and therefore named centuria again.

[Jona Lendering]

Sounds plausible. I'll think about it; thanks!

[Praefectusclassis]

For an in-depth analysis of the centuriate (voting) organisation and its link to the military function and how they came apart, see M.Stemmler, 'Die Römische Manipularordnung und der Funktionswandel der Centurien', Klio 82.1 (2000), 107-125.

[Jona Lendering]

THANKS!!!