Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Republican Army
#1
I realize that the Roman Army has changed various times in its extended history, but I'm really interested in knowing a few specific things concerning the Republican Army, specifically pre-Marian and post-Marian/pre-Augustan.

Now, if I understand correctly, before the Marian reforms, there were three major (but not only three total) types of soldiers:
-Hastati
-Principes
-Triarii

Following the Marian reforms, they did away with this class-like structure, but it wasn't as though they jumped from that structure to the lorica segmentata-wearing legionaries of the First Century CE. Could someone give me some sort of brief outline of the types of soldiers and changes that occured as the Mid-Late Republican Army evolved into the Imperial Army of the First Century CE? Also, perhaps some sources on where to read on these sort of matters since most of my studies have been in Roman culture rather than the Roman Army in specific.
[Image: RAT_signature2.png]
Reply
#2
Greetings, Saul
Unfortunately things aren't so clear as to be able to talk about the 'pre-Marian' and 'post-Marian' Roman army in terms of organization - it is unlikely that Marius undertook significant alterations to military organization, in particular we should be very cautious about attributing to Marius the introduction of the cohortal legion that is campaigning in Gaul with Caesar.
At some point between the date of Polybius' description (mid-ish 2nd century BC) and Caesar's campaigns in Gaul in the mid first century BC, the manipular legion of Polybius evolved into the cohortal legion and equipment became 'uniform' (by which I mean everyone had pilum, gladius and scutum, not that they all looked exactly the same). It's probably the result of a variety of things, including military and socio-economic pressures - as you indicate, the change from an army organized according to age / status / wealth to one that wasn't.
Unfortunately I can't really do the subject justice here, but I am trying to write something on it elsewhere!! What I would strongly recommend is getting hold of Lawrence Keppie's really excellent book The Making of the Roman Army which provides the best explanation of the way the Republican army evolved into the professional force of the principate.
Reply
#3
I agree with Ms./Mrs. Gilliver. The process is not that clear.

There are a few major points which can be used to kind of structure the whole thing a bit.

We have Polybios discription of the 2nd Punic war and the manipular legion and we have the description of the battles of Scipio.
Scipio's deployment and use of the different types of troops might be seen as a first important tactical development in the process of transforming the army from one system to another(Scipio might not have been the first one to do something like this but the first we know about who did this on purpose). What he did is use principes, hastati and triarii all in the same way at Zama when he expanded his line. This is a rather big change in tactics imho. If you decide to change the use of your troops like that, meaning being more flexible in their use it is the next step to have the majority of your troops equipped the same way so you can use any unit from the 3rd line for example anywhere on the battlefield or position your troops in duplex acies quickly if the situation requires without having the problem of considering that the troops are equipped differently.

This is a decision up to the commander of course and it doesn't mean because Scipio was successful with that at Zama that everyone followed his idea. So we can only guess but it seems that Roman commanders started to deploy their troops more freely during the next say 100 years.

then we have a change in the social structure of the time caused by wars, population movement and other factors.would take too long to go into detail here.

I don't believe Marius invented something completely new. He saw the changes in tactics and society and reformed the army.

The equipment and structure of the army during late republican times was pretty much up to the commander. Some of the finds of the Caesarian periode and some literary evidence show that the troops were equipped as the situation and finances allowed.Just take Caesar's troops recruited in Gaul for an example, or the types of helmets used from the "standard" montefortinos, the coolus to the very cheap Mannheim type which doesn't even have cheekpieces. The real big step and major reform took place under Augustus.

sidenote: there are quite some discussions about the "segmentata wearing" imperial legionaries here. maybe you are interested and might want to read some of the very interesting threads on the forum about that topic. My personal opinion is that the majority of the legionaries always used chainmail but that's just mine. just thought you might be interested in that as well.

oh and the names hastati, principes and triarii continued to be used in the imperial army even if there was no real difference in equipment anymore
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM

[Micha F.]
Reply
#4
An don't forget about the Velites, etc...

Try this link for some reasonably recent previous discussion of Polybius' Republican Army:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=10529


Matthew James Stanham
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one\'s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
Reply
#5
The basic differences between the Polybian and the Caesarian legions can be surmised as follows. (The list is not exhaustive, by the way)

Armament and equipment:
  • 1. the spear (hasta) of the triarii was abolished;
    2. the mail shirt was (probably) carried by all;
    3. the triple crest was replaced by a single drooping horsehair crest.
Organization:
  • 1. the manipuli were grouped into cohortes of 3 manipuli each. Of these the senior centurion had tactical control, as earlier in the manipuli;
    2. there was apparently no longer any difference between hastati, principes or triarii;
    3. the velites had disappeared, but there is mention of special infantrymen, called antesignani;
    4. The citizen cavalry had disappeared in all but name.
Service and pay:
  • 1. several provinces had what seams to be a more of less permanent garrison, though in times of war legions were still raised for the duration;
    2. since the Gracchi (late 2nd century BC) the soldiers were issued clothing for free, a benefit apparently withdrawn by Caesar in return for a raise in pay.
Lack of sources make it difficult to determine just when and in what order these changes came about. For instance the cohors was already mentioned by Polybius as an extraordinary unit. Perhaps it was originally a recruiting unit of the allies. Possibly they became permanent units during or as a result of the Jugurthan War, when the army was spread over a great numer of small fortlets. For a battle of 86 BC Frontinus speaks of 1st and 2nd battle lines without reference to hastati or principes, so the change had accured before said date.
In a cohors the manipuli would be posted side by side with the senior unit in the position of honour on the right. We can assume that the abolition of the spear (hasta) was a result of this tactical change, but we don't know this. The same goes for the disappearance of the age-difference between the various manipuli. That the triarii took up position on the right can be deduced from the fact that their very name was dropped and replaced by that of pilani.
The velites were last mentioned in the same battle of 86 BC. The antesignani were first mentioned by Caesar when describing the events of 49 BC. There are good clues suggesting that the latter were a continuation of the first.
  • a. Polybius (VI, 22) says that the velites wore no armour and a simple helmet covered with a wolfskin or something similar. Vegetius (ERM 2.16) says that the antesignani wore lighter armour and a bearskin over their helmets.
    b. Three quotes:
    • M. Terentii Varronis Saturae Menippeae 22. 552, 25 et 555, 8:
      quem secuntur cum rotundis velites leves parmis, antesignani quadratis multisignibus tecti
      ...because the light velites were cut to pieces(? while equipped) with round parmae, the antesignani (well) protected by multifigured square ones...
      Festus, 238:
      Parmulis pugnare milites soliti sunt. Quarum usum sustulit C. Marius, datis in vicem earum Bruttianis
      'Soldiers used to fight with small bucklers. The use of which C. Marius has abolished, with Bruttians given in their place'
      Festus, 26:
      Bruttianae parmae dicebantur scuta quibus Bruttiani sunt usi.
      'Bruttian bucklers were the shields called that the Bruttians used to use.'
Taken togeter these quotes show that Marius (and others?) gave the velites better protection and strongly suggest that they evolved into antesignani.
According to J.B. McCall the Citizen cavalry ceased to be called out from the Social War (90 BC) onwards. The only certainties are however, that it still existed in 102 BC and probably in the 90ies and that Caesar had none in 58.
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#6
Rob

Probably antesignani can be used also for light infantry, but in latin literature the term is like ordo: the context make the sense.

In Livius (with sources much anterior to Caesar) the term indicate the astati (the Varro phrase is a confirm, after the velites we have the hastati) . But we find it also like prima acies, vanguard, and crack soldier.

With prima acies sense it is also in Frontinus; in Caesar the 5 references have 3 different significations. We find also antesignanus with the sense of official, leader (also chief-bandit).

I have found only a parallel with greek text, for the sense of Josephus's guard Longophoroi.

ciao
"Each historical fact needs to be considered, insofar as possible, no with hindsight and following abstract universal principles, but in the context of own proper age and environment" Aldo A. Settia

a.k.a Davide Dall\'Angelo




SISMA- Società Italiana per gli Studi Militari Antichi
Reply
#7
Wow! Thanks for all the feedback! Big Grin

I had already read the Ploybius account of the Roman Army during the Second Punic War, I just wasn't sure if there was elsewhere. And I do also realize that the changes we today call the "Marian Reforms" were not necessarily started (or ended with) C. Marius, but rather are simply called that because he is best known among those that reformed the army.

You see, I'm writing an essay/paper for school concerning this topic, more or less. In it, I am attributing the CARS/Modular Brigade reforms of the U.S. Army to the Marian Reforms of the Roman Army. Let me explain. The U.S. Army through the CARS program transformed the Army from a regiment-based fighting force to a division-based fighting force. In the present, the Army is taking these reforms one step further in making the U.S. Army into a brigade-based fighting force (similar to the British Army) wherein brigades are modular, meaning they can be transferred from one divisional (or higher) command to another, or can operate independantly.

Now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the so-called "Marian" Reforms did the same thing in taking the Roman Army from an older, less effective fighting formation to a better-suited force. Just as how the cohort was an extraordinary unit, the brigade in the U.S. Army only as recently as World War II and the Korean War was also a rather temporary, unusual unit formed for a specific mission. So the Marian Reforms changed the Roman Army from manipuli-centered legions to cohort-centered legions in the same way the current reforms have taken the U.S. Army from regiment-centered divisions to brigade-centered divisions.

Do you believe this comparison is adequate?


Is there a name for the type of legionaries we have in the inter-reform period between the Polybian Roman Army and the Augustan Roman Army, specifically the Civil Wars, post-Marian era? This may be a short era, but wouldn't this be the era of change from the hastati/principes/triarii-styled forces to segementata-wearing forces. For instances, on pages 14 and 15 of Peterson's The Roman Legions Recreated in Colour Photographs, we see type of legionary described as being post-Marian, likely "[representing] a legionary of Marius, Caesar, or Augustus". He is clearly different from the hastati/principes/triarii of the Ploybian description, but do we have a name for this type of legionary? I mean, is there some form of even informal designation for the legionary of this period?

Lastly, what is the difference between "legionary" and "legionaire" (other than the obvious spelling differences)? When is one appropriate and the other?
[Image: RAT_signature2.png]
Reply
#8
Quote:Lastly, what is the difference between "legionary" and "legionaire" (other than the obvious spelling differences)? When is one appropriate and the other?
I don't think there is a difference; a Roman legionary is a member of a Roman legion, a French legionaire is a member of the French Foreign Legion, etc. They're both members of legions, just as a policeman is in the Police force, a fireman in the Fire Brigade, a rifleman in a Rifle Division, a British legionary in the British Legion.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#9
Quote:Rob

Probably antesignani can be used also for light infantry, but in latin literature the term is like ordo: the context make the sense.

In Livius (with sources much anterior to Caesar) the term indicate the astati (the Varro phrase is a confirm, after the velites we have the hastati) . But we find it also like prima acies, vanguard, and crack soldier.

With prima acies sense it is also in Frontinus; in Caesar the 5 references have 3 different significations. We find also antesignanus with the sense of official, leader (also chief-bandit).

I have found only a parallel with greek text, for the sense of Josephus's guard Longophoroi.

ciao
You are correct for the most part. However...
  • Quote:...Legio autem propriis cohortibus plena cum grauem armaturam, hoc est principes hastatos triarios antesignanos, item leuem armaturam, hoc est ferrentarios sagittarios funditores ballistarios,...
    Puts antesignani - somewhat anachronistically - on a par with hastati, principes and triarii.

    Quote:... Omnes antesignani uel signiferi, quamuis pedites, loricas minores accipiebant et galeas ad terrorem hostium ursinis pellibus tectas. Centuriones uero habebant catafractas et scuta et galeas ferreas, sed transuersis et argentatis cristis, ut celerius agnoscerentur a suis.
    Here antesignani are said to be similarly equipped as signiferi. The next sentence described the distinction of centurions.


    Quote:L(ucius) VALERIUS CO
    METIUS VETERA
    NUS LEG(ionis) VIII AUG(ustae)
    MILITAVIT ARMIS
    ANTESIGNANIS
    HER(edes) EX TEST(amento)
    'Lucius Valerius Cometius, veteran of the legio VIII Augusta has served with the arms of the antesignani. His heirs according to the will.'
The antesignani were equipped differently from normal legionaries. According to Vegetius this equipment was lighter than that of the rest. This would mean that they were light infantry or skirmishers, which was exactly how they operated in Caesar, BC, 1.43.
  • Quote:V. Legem etiam iudiciariam tulit homo castus atque integer iudiciorum et iuris auctor. In quo nos fefellit. Antesignanos et manipulares et Alaudas iudices se constituisse dicebat; at ille legit aleatores, legit exules, legit Graecos (o consessum iudicum praeclarum, o dignitatem consilii admirandam!)
    [...]" V. Moreover he [Antonius] passed a law to regulate judicial proceedings, this chaste and upright man, this upholder of the tribunals and the law. And in this he deceived us. He used to say that he appointed men from the antesignani, common soldiers, men of the Alaudae as judges but he has in reality selected gamesters, he has selected exiles, he has selected Greeks. Oh the fine bench of judges, Oh the admirable dignity of that council!"

    Quote:... Superius tamen institutum in equitibus, quod demonstravimus, servabat, ut, quoniam numero multis partibus esset inferior, adulescentes atque expeditos ex antesignanis electis ad pernicitatem armis inter equites proeliari iuberet, qui cotidiana consuetudine usum quoque eius generis proeliorum perciperent. ...
    "...However he adhered to his former purpose respecting his cavalry, for as he was by many degrees inferior in number, he selected the youngest and most active of the antesignani, their equipment selected for speed, and desired them to fight intermixed with the horse, and they by constant practice acquired experience in this kind of battle. ..."

    Quote:... Huic suos Caesar equites opposuit expeditosque antesignanos admiscuit CCCC; ...
    "... To oppose whom, Caesar sent his horse, and intermixed with them about four hundred lightly equipped antesignani, ..."
These additional quotes confirm that at that period the antesignani were a special corps.
The meaning of words changes continuously and there is no a priori reason why antesignani should be an exception.
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#10
Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion).

There is no real term to describe post Marian Legionary, as far as I am aware. Also, be aware that the frequency of Lorica Segmentata amongst the Legions in the Late Republican and Imperial periods is an ongoing debate... (much like everything else!)
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one\'s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
Reply
#11
Quote:Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion).

There is no real term to describe post Marian Legionary, as far as I am aware. Also, be aware that the frequency of Lorica Segmentata amongst the Legions in the Late Republican and Imperial periods is an ongoing debate... (much like everything else!)
I have heard this. Would this mean that it would be appropriate for a reenactor to wear hamata when reenacting as a late-1st Century BCE/early-1st Century CE legionary? What sort of helmet, then, would be appropriate for this situation? Peterson's book depicts the legionary wearing a Montefortino helm, but would certain versions of the Coolus be appropriate as well?

So would it be adequate to say that a legionaire is a soldier of the French Foreign Legion, while a legionary is a soldier of the Roman Army?
[Image: RAT_signature2.png]
Reply
#12
Quote:
Matthew:wtck4uxi Wrote:Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion).
[...]
[...]
So would it be adequate to say that a legionaire is a soldier of the French Foreign Legion, while a legionary is a soldier of the Roman Army?
No, legionaire is French for legionary; it's as simple as that.
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#13
Quote:signiferi. The next sentence described the distinction of centurions.

For Vegetius we must take in count the great variety of sources, where old republic and imperial sourcesis mixed. Can be a error think Vegetius have a real idea of antesignani. Probably he think to commander and officials legionary guards (not light infantry but with lighter armour), but it is a hypotesis.


Quote:L(ucius) VALERIUS CO
METIUS VETERA
NUS LEG(ionis) VIII AUG(ustae)
MILITAVIT ARMIS
ANTESIGNANIS
HER(edes) EX TEST(amento)

'Lucius Valerius Cometius, veteran of the legio VIII Augusta has served with the arms of the antesignani. His heirs according to the will.'[/list]

The text affirm "antesignan arms" an arm category not the arms of a corps, how Le Bohec have found in castrum III legion armouries

Quote:The antesignani were equipped differently from normal legionnaries. According to Vegetius this equipment was lighter than that of the rest. This would mean that they were light infantry or skirmishers, which was exactly how they operated in Caesar, BC, 1.43.

But Vegetius affirm they are grave armatura, only with lighter armour.

Quote:
  • M. TVLLI CICERONIS PHILIPPICAE 5.12:3hov4j5z Wrote:[color=red]V. Legem etiam iudiciariam tulit homo castus atque integer iudiciorum et iuris auctor. In quo nos fefellit. Antesignanos et manipulares et Alaudas he has selected Greeks. Oh the fine bench of judges, Oh the admirable dignity of that council!"
    The comparison is from "simple soldiers (gregarii) and antesignani of Alauda legion (the unit preferred by Antonius)" in this phrase probably the sense is of principalis. The same in Ceasar I.57 where the comparison is with the centurions.


    Quote:... Superius tamen institutum in equitibus, quod demonstravimus, servabat, ut, quoniam numero multis partibus esset inferior, adulescentes atque expeditos ex antesignanis electis ad pernicitatem armis inter equites proeliari iuberet,
    ..........
    The meaning of words changes continueously and ther is no a priori reason why antesignani should be an exception.

You translate expeditos like light armed, but the term indicate troops without impedimenta in primis (heavy or light). The procedure in march agmen is to leave heavy infantry units expedita in front or rear of army (view this in BJ, maniples expediti, cohortes expedite) like the extraordinarii in polybian army (and in effect two times in Livy text we can view probably the antesignani indicate the extraordinarii). THis is the much probable sense in of Caesar 3.75 where the fight is on the Ceasar rearguard, and is only for reference the 3.75 that in 3.84 Ceasar use again antesignani. The "ad pernecitatem armis" isn't especially typical to this troops in this Ceasar passage, can be only a temporary situation.
"Each historical fact needs to be considered, insofar as possible, no with hindsight and following abstract universal principles, but in the context of own proper age and environment" Aldo A. Settia

a.k.a Davide Dall\'Angelo




SISMA- Società Italiana per gli Studi Militari Antichi
Reply
#14
Quote:
Ter. Catalonius Luciano:3sg5tnal Wrote:
Matthew:3sg5tnal Wrote:Isn't 'Legionary' the Anglicisation? I thought Legionaire was appropriate if one was speaking French or of something French (i.e. the French Foreign Legion).
[...]
[...]
So would it be adequate to say that a legionaire is a soldier of the French Foreign Legion, while a legionary is a soldier of the Roman Army?
No, legionaire is French for legionary; it's as simple as that.
Oh, I see, now. Sorry, I initially misunderstood. Smile
[Image: RAT_signature2.png]
Reply
#15
Quote:
drsrob:3paedkct Wrote:signiferi. The next sentence described the distinction of centurions.

For Vegetius we must take in count the great variety of sources, where old republic and imperial sourcesis mixed. Can be a error think Vegetius have a real idea of antesignani. Probably he think to commander and officials legionary guards (not light infantry but with lighter armour), but it is a hypotesis.
Vegetius quotes from various sources, true. Somewhere he apparantly found a reference to antesignani having lighter armour than ordinary legionnaries. That much should be certain. I don't think the text permits replacing antesignani with another category
Quote:
Quote:L(ucius) VALERIUS CO
METIUS VETERA
NUS LEG(ionis) VIII AUG(ustae)
MILITAVIT ARMIS
ANTESIGNANIS
HER(edes) EX TEST(amento)

'Lucius Valerius Cometius, veteran of the legio VIII Augusta has served with the arms of the antesignani. His heirs according to the will.'[/list]

The text affirm "antesignan arms" an arm category not the arms of a corps, how Le Bohec have found in castrum III legion armouries
so there were special arms for antesignani!
Quote:
Quote:The antesignani were equipped differently from normal legionnaries. According to Vegetius this equipment was lighter than that of the rest. This would mean that they were light infantry or skirmishers, which was exactly how they operated in Caesar, BC, 1.43.

But Vegetius affirm they are grave armatura, only with lighter armour.
Only when he opposes them to largely unarmoured men
Quote:
Quote:
M. TVLLI CICERONIS PHILIPPICAE 5.12:3paedkct Wrote:V. Legem etiam iudiciariam tulit homo castus atque integer iudiciorum et iuris auctor. In quo nos fefellit. Antesignanos et manipulares et Alaudas [...] he has selected Greeks. Oh the fine bench of judges, Oh the admirable dignity of that council!"
The comparison is from "simple soldiers (gregarii) and antesignani of Alauda legion (the unit preferred by Antonius)" in this phrase probably the sense is of principalis. The same in Ceasar I.57 where the comparison is with the centurions.
Then why does he not say principales? The words are almost mutually exclusive. The most important principalis of the century was the optio, who certainly stood behind the ranks, rather than in front of them
Quote:
Quote:... Superius tamen institutum in equitibus, quod demonstravimus, servabat, ut, quoniam numero multis partibus esset inferior, adulescentes atque expeditos ex antesignanis electis ad pernicitatem armis inter equites proeliari iuberet,
..........
The meaning of words changes continueously and ther is no a priori reason why antesignani should be an exception.

You translate expeditos like light armed, but the term indicate troops without impedimenta in primis (heavy or light).
No, it's translated as "most active", but that part of the translation is not mine, and is it is not central to the argument either
Quote:The procedure in march agmen is to leave heavy infantry units expedita in front or rear of army (view this in BJ, maniples expediti, cohortes expedite) like the extraordinarii in polybian army (and in effect two times in Livy text we can view probably the antesignani indicate the extraordinarii). THis is the much probable sense in of Caesar 3.75 where the fight is on the Ceasar rearguard, and is only for reference the 3.75 that in 3.84 Ceasar use again antesignani. The "ad pernecitatem armis" isn't especially typical to this troops in this Ceasar passage, can be only a temporary situation.
The latter is correct. About the rest: I'm talking about the Caesarian period and as I already indicated, I think that antesignani meant something else before and during the later empire. Therefore the fact that Livy uses it differently is IMO beside the point.
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Republican Army Anonymous 1 2,151 04-05-2004, 08:08 PM
Last Post: drsrob
  The republican army of the Punic wars 13 5,294 06-21-2001, 06:51 PM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: