SoA Forums

After reading Rodger Willliams and Patrick Waterson's fascinating article on the Proto-Manipular Legion, issue 292, I referred back to Nick Secuna's Osprey's, Early Roman Armies, which argued for the hoplite army remaining well into the 4th century B.C.  Given Athens was a larger and wealthier city at this time and could, on occasion, usually field an army of 10,000 hoplites, I thought Rome's four legions, in 480 BC, totalling 20,000 heavy infantry a little OTT.  The article has certainly inspired me to do some further research - particular as I was interested in creating a 15mm Roman hoplite army circa 400 BC!
Robert Gargan

Here is a comparative map of Rome in 500BC and Athens. Given that Rome was more militarised and expanded rapidly after this date the figure of 20 000 men is credible.

We have to be careful with regard areas.

Currently the City of Carlisle has an area of 1,040 km² whilst little Birmingham has an area of 267.8 km²

But the Population of Carlisle is 100,739, that of Birmingham is 1.074 million

Athens was a great trading city, and certainly in 400BC was importing the majority of its food, whereas Rome was just another self supporting Polis on the banks of a modest river.

Jim

That said, the populations of both city-states were largely rural: see Thucydides II.16.

"The Athenians thus long lived scattered over Attica in independent townships. Even after the centralization of Theseus, old habit still prevailed; and from the early times down to the present war most Athenians still lived in the country with their families and households, and were consequently not at all inclined to move now, especially as they had only just restored their establishments after the Median invasion."

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 18, 2014, 11:03:19 AM
That said, the populations of both city-states were largely rural: see Thucydides II.16.

"The Athenians thus long lived scattered over Attica in independent townships. Even after the centralization of Theseus, old habit still prevailed; and from the early times down to the present war most Athenians still lived in the country with their families and households, and were consequently not at all inclined to move now, especially as they had only just restored their establishments after the Median invasion."

There are various suggestions as to population
For Athens http://archive.samj.org.za/1998%20VOL%2088%20Jan-Dec/1-4/Articles/01%20January/13%20HISTORY%20IN%20MEDICINE.THE%20EPIDEMIC%20OF%20ATHENS,%20430-426%20BC,%20Francois%20P%20Retief,%20Louise%20Cilliers.pdf

For Rome http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rsw/cornell.pdf

There the estimate is of between 60,000 and 190,000 in 300BC as opposed to Athens of 400,000

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 18, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
There the estimate is of between 60,000 and 190,000 in 300BC as opposed to Athens of 400,000

Jim

Take a middle figure of 120 000. That gives 60 000 males of which about a third are of military age and fit to fight. This excludes the rural population of a territory not much smaller in 500BC than the Athenian state.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 18, 2014, 12:10:37 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 18, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
There the estimate is of between 60,000 and 190,000 in 300BC as opposed to Athens of 400,000

Jim

Take a middle figure of 120 000. That gives 60 000 males of which about a third are of military age and fit to fight. This excludes the rural population of a territory not much smaller than Athens in 500 BC.

These estimates need to be used carefully.  Reading the Athens article, the population given for greater Athens (i.e. the urban bit) is 155,000 only 60,000 of whom are citizens and 70,000 are slaves.  The Roman figure is the city of Rome and includes slaves, but doesn't estimate the proportion.  So, an estimate of the rural population and the number of slaves is required for Rome if this is to be meaningful.  That should give the potential military pool across all classes.  Then you need the regulations about selecting the army to work out what proportion of the available man power was mobilized.

This article may be useful, if anyone out there has a jstor account :

Roman Population, Territory, Tribe, City, and Army Size from the Republic's Founding to the Veientane War, 509 B.C.-400 B.C.
Lorne H. Ward
The American Journal of Philology
Vol. 111, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 5-39

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/295257?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104035757147

Interesting. The author cites a census (p7) taken in 509BC which placed the total population at 130 000 - with a minimum population  of 104 000 taking into account effective use of arable land in that time. One can certainly raise a citizen army of 20 000 men from that.

Don't forget the property qualifications and citizenship criteria.
Not every able body is allowed to serve.
You need to get that right before you start

Absolutely Mark, They have to be men of a certain economic standing who can afford to serve. Ironically when you do the sums, Spartan hoplites were probably cheaper to keep than Athenian  8)

Jim

One of the points in the article is that Servius Tullius seemed to be maximising the use of his available manpower by improving the ratio of heavy-ish to light-ish troops.   The early legions continued this approach up to c.314-310(?) BC with a light infantry component limited to the 20 leves in each hastati maniple.  The Roman system would thus allow considerably more troops to be fielded as close combat infantry than in an equivalent Greek population.

With regard to second-guessing Roman numbers, I think we can place too much reliance on modern attempts at working out what could have been.

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 18, 2014, 02:31:31 PM

Ironically when you do the sums, Spartan hoplites were probably cheaper to keep than Athenian  8)

An intriguing thought, Jim: how do you work that out?  And would this be overall or just during wartime?

To resist the Etruscan power I would argue the Romans adopted the state of the art hoplite tactics, but given the many small scale border raids with the surrounding hill tribes light armed javelin skirmishers must have been in constant deployment.  It could be that the nobles, cavalry, of Rome and tribal elements were used to light infantry skirmishing in the surrounding hilly land but the citizen hoplites reserved for the rarer, larger battles, to defend the city.
The Roman hoplite militia may have been the only forces organised in centuries and Dionysius' accounts sound a little heroic, possibly based on legends to provide a Greek audience with a "Roman history".  Nonetheless Rome's defeat of the Latin League in the mid fourth century significantly increased her pool of citizen manpower, and thereafter not simply a larger than average city state.
Robert Gargan

Dionysius' account of the last battle of the Sabine War of 505-503 BC is the one where the 'pila portent' of the night before inspired an outnumbered Roman army to heroic victory the following day.  For this to be remembered and sufficiently widely remembered to come to the attention of a Greek historian in Sicily argues that it was an event affecting a significant Roman force, and for it to conclude the war argues that it would have been much more than a border skirmish.

The problem with any 4th century hoplite hypothesis is that it has to disregard the character of combat expressed in Livy and Dionysius, which has consistent use of missiles followed by close fighting with swords from at least 480 BC.  That the Roman republic started out with a hoplite army seems almost certain, given the result of their battle with Tarquin in 509 BC - each side's right beat the other's left and the battle as a whole was inconclusive.  That they swiftly abandoned it thereafter practically screams from the pages of Dionysius and is supported by numerous hints in Livy, while anything supporting a hoplite organisation after 504 BC is simply absent from either source.

When I first approached this subject I was convinced that the Romans retained their hoplite organisation into the 4th century BC.  However when we began looking at the primary sources a very different picture emerged, hence the title of the article.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 18, 2014, 10:57:09 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 18, 2014, 02:31:31 PM

Ironically when you do the sums, Spartan hoplites were probably cheaper to keep than Athenian  8)

An intriguing thought, Jim: how do you work that out?  And would this be overall or just during wartime?

I wrote about it, it seems only yesterday, but I discover it was in Slingshot 258 back in May 2008!

Ever had the feeling that some of your articles are so old they almost qualify you as an eye witness.

However the core of the article, to answer your question directly is

"The Athenian hoplite was a hoplite because his land could produce more than 200 medimnoi which was about 8 tonnes of wheat.
Yet in 'Mess Contributions and Subsistence at Sparta', Thomas J. Figueira the mess contribution of a Spartan Hoplite, plus the ration he gives his wife is about 2 tonnes (this assumes that he sells wheat to buy wine, figs etc) and allowing for the comment that helots paid half over to the Spartans, this would indicate that the Helots farming his Kleroi had 2 tonnes as well.
Egyptian figures seem to reckon a family needed 727kg of wheat (equivalent, they obviously sold some of it to buy other things) to support themselves through a year then the grain left in the Kleroi could well support enough helot families to farm it."

So whereas it took eight tons of wheat to support an Athenian hoplite, his family, slaves, whatever, you could support a Spartan hoplite and his wife on two tons and the helots that ran the farm on another two tons.
Interestingly the standard of living of Spartan Helots was probably nothing to sneer at either. They were probably reasonably prosperous small tenant farmers.

Now then, We know that prior to his defeat at Sellasia in 221BC Cleomenes III freed 'such helots as could pay 5 attic minas' (Plutarch). Suddenly we get a glimpse of where the money has come from, the long term savings of these tenant farmers.

Jim

Thanks, Jim.

That is intriguing, and assuming we can continue wandering a little off topic for the moment, Sparta expected its citizens to adopt a rather lower standard of living than the average Athenian during peacetime (some would say a standard of living lower than that of the average Athenian pig, what with black broth, bare boards to sleep on and all the fun of life in barracks).  Seeing this reflected in assumed or calculated upkeep costs is illuminating (and one wonders in passing about the upkeep costs of an Athenian pig), albeit married Spartans did not spend their whole lives in barracks: Lycurgus just wanted them all to eat together so they could all see that everyone was equally gastronomically miserable.

Conversely, the Spartan never did anything other than soldiering, whereas the Athenian would have been a dedicated farmer, craftsman or merchant, hence the Athenian provided his own upkeep costs in peacetime whereas the Spartan required others to do so - the hard-saving Helots.  As an aside, some Helot families seem to have accrued a nest-egg at Plataea (Herodotus IX.80) when they helped themselves while gathering the Persian spoil for their masters.  Herodotus says that they 'later' (so presumably before c.430 BC) sold some of it to the Aeginetans, who bought it at discount prices.  The resultant money might have hung around for some time, at least until nobody would ask questions about how it had been acquired.

Even so, an interesting statistic, and thanks for bringing it to our attention.  Athenians evidently emphasised abundance and a comfortable buffer on the property ladder while Spartans emphasised efficiency.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 18, 2014, 10:57:09 PMThe early legions continued this approach up to c.314-310(?) BC with a light infantry component limited to the 20 leves in each hastati maniple.

This picks up something I remember wondering about when reading the article, namely the rorarii. Is it your contention, Patrick, that these were always "heavy-ish" infantry, or that they were such at the time of Livy VIII but were converted to skirmishers later, perhaps in the hypothetical changes of "c.314-310(?) BC"?

You can see why the Spartans were terrified of their people being corrupted by consumer goods. If everybody lives on black broth and sleeps on bare boards, then people are happy enough with it.


Digression here.
Looking back to my own childhood, a normal midday meal would have been Lancashire followed by Rice pudding. My father regarded this as a big improvement because when he was in farm work they'd cook the main meal in a pot over the fire.
Roast dinner on Sunday, on Monday they'd put a layer of potatoes in the pot, then a layer of carrots and turnip, then the cut up remains of the roast, then another layer of carrots and turnip, then another layer of cut up potatoes.
Each day they'd serve men out of the pot, and each day they'd top it up with carrots, turnip and potatoes and perhaps a bit of black pudding.
On a 'good' spot they'd even put a bit of cooked bacon in about Thursday. Otherwise by Saturday you were pretty well eating the vegetarian option  :o

Jim

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 19, 2014, 08:56:22 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 18, 2014, 10:57:09 PMThe early legions continued this approach up to c.314-310(?) BC with a light infantry component limited to the 20 leves in each hastati maniple.

This picks up something I remember wondering about when reading the article, namely the rorarii. Is it your contention, Patrick, that these were always "heavy-ish" infantry, or that they were such at the time of Livy VIII but were converted to skirmishers later, perhaps in the hypothetical changes of "c.314-310(?) BC"?

I wondered that. There is the case of them being mistaken for Triarii which I've seen used three ways.
1) was that they were light infantry so the fact they suddenly had big shields proves the army carried spares. (I've used this argument myself.)
2) That they had become 'proper' infantry (which is the thrust of the article)
3) Actually the triarii were a bunch of old men who tended to be left as camp guards, so the Rorarii cannot have been all that impressive. (A comment that has just occurred to me  ;D )

I found the article interesting and well worth mulling over. I thought it hung together and if you will, has set a new baseline to disagree with. (Which I feel is high praise)

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 19, 2014, 09:08:48 AMThere is the case of them being mistaken for Triarii

No, that was the accensi. Still a can of worms, but a different flavour.

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 19, 2014, 09:26:57 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 19, 2014, 09:08:48 AMThere is the case of them being mistaken for Triarii

No, that was the accensi. Still a can of worms, but a different flavour.

LOL

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 19, 2014, 08:56:22 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 18, 2014, 10:57:09 PMThe early legions continued this approach up to c.314-310(?) BC with a light infantry component limited to the 20 leves in each hastati maniple.

This picks up something I remember wondering about when reading the article, namely the rorarii. Is it your contention, Patrick, that these were always "heavy-ish" infantry, or that they were such at the time of Livy VIII but were converted to skirmishers later, perhaps in the hypothetical changes of "c.314-310(?) BC"?

The rorarii are only described in action once, namely in Livy VIII.9, at Vesuvius in 340 BC against the Latins.  Leaving aside the accensi and the diet of worms, the role of the rorarii seems to be that of reinforcing heavy infantry formations.  Unless their role changed earlier or later during the c.394-314 BC slot, or there was an intermediate step between 314 BC and the Polybian legion, I would see them as having done the same thing for the duration of their existence.  It fits in with the pattern of piecemeal reinforcement that we see in Dionysius VIII.65.2-3, with both Romans and Hernici sending forward small units bit by bit to shaky parts of the line.

Following Tarracina in 314 BC we have a blanket of hush covering legionary organisation until the Polybian legion blazes forth in all its glory.  OK, maybe we get a couple of smoke signals but we may not be sure how to read them.  What does stand out regarding the transition from the Livian (VIII.8 ) to the Polybian (VI.24 et. al.) legion is that 900 rorarii disappear from the one and 900 extra light infantry appear in the other.  The simple explanation is that the rorarii were converted from a reinforcing role to a skirmishing role (and after skirmishing they seem to have tucked in as the back ranks of hastati, principes and triarii maniples, so they were to an extent also doing their old job).  The full explanation might - hypothetically - be that the Romans initially decided to do things a la Poetilius and start the rorarii off as back rankers of the 'backbone' troops and only later worked out that they could do double duty and help out with skirmishing.  Unless we can extract some more precise clues from our interim hints I know not which would have been the case (or even if both are wrong and something else took place) so would suggest that the simplest approach - direct conversion of rorarii into velites - is probably the easiest and most credible.  Intuition suggests a period of interim inertia while the finer points were being worked out, so if putting together an army of c.310-280 BC I would feel inclined to give people the choice of which they prefer.

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 19, 2014, 09:08:48 AM

I found the article interesting and well worth mulling over. I thought it hung together and if you will, has set a new baseline to disagree with. (Which I feel is high praise)

Not bad for Rodger's Slingshot debut.  :)  Thanks, Jim.  It would be nice if it could somehow put the Society on the map - at least somewhere between the points marked: "Duncan was here" and "Matt Bennett/Phil Sabin did this".

I must admit I've often wondered about the Velites when they weren't skirmishing. Obviously some could help the cavalry, but it would get cluttered out there if they all did.
They've got a pretty good shield, and a proper sword, so it has occurred to me they'd make a good back rank or two for the infantry maniples

Jim

Patrick,
The evidence from Livy and Dionysius seems overwhelming, I only wish we could identify their source.
There are two illustrations of possible fourth century hoplites in Nick Sekunda's, Early Roman Armies (Osprey).  One on page 19 seems to depict two hoplites on bone plaques from Palestrina.  They seem to be holding round shields and spears.  The second illustration on page 22 claims to have its source in the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, but I haven't been able find further information.  Presuming you can find the pictures I would welcome your opinion - I'm not too sure how to copy them!
Robert

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 19, 2014, 05:07:06 PMThe rorarii are only described in action once, namely in Livy VIII.9, at Vesuvius in 340 BC against the Latins.  Leaving aside the accensi and the diet of worms, the role of the rorarii seems to be that of reinforcing heavy infantry formations.  Unless their role changed earlier or later during the c.394-314 BC slot, or there was an intermediate step between 314 BC and the Polybian legion, I would see them as having done the same thing for the duration of their existence.

Hmm. Thanks.

Quote from: RobertGargan on May 19, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
The evidence from Livy and Dionysius seems overwhelming, I only wish we could identify their source.

Livy himself suggests there wasn't much in the way of reliable sources for the earlier part of the period:

"The history of the Romans from the foundation of the City to its capture, first under kings, then under consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and consular tribunes, the record of foreign wars and domestic dissensions, has been set forth in the five preceding books. The subject matter is enveloped in obscurity; partly from its great antiquity, like remote objects which are hardly discernible through the vastness of the distance; partly owing to the fact that written records, which form the only trustworthy memorials of events, were in those times few and scanty, and even what did exist in the pontifical commentaries and public and private archives nearly all perished in the conflagration of the City." (VI.1 - the "capture" and "conflagration" being the Gallic sack)

And he's not much more optimistic later in the 4th century:
"It is difficult to decide which account or which authority to prefer. I believe that the true history has been falsified by funeral orations and lying inscriptions on the family busts, since each family appropriates to itself an imaginary record of noble deeds and official distinctions. It is at all events owing to this cause that so much confusion has been introduced into the records of private careers and public events. There is no writer of those times now extant who was contemporary with the events he relates and whose authority, therefore, can be depended upon." (VIII.40)

Quote from: RobertGargan on May 19, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
Patrick,
The evidence from Livy and Dionysius seems overwhelming, I only wish we could identify their source.
There are two illustrations of possible fourth century hoplites in Nick Sekunda's, Early Roman Armies (Osprey).  One on page 19 seems to depict two hoplites on bone plaques from Palestrina.  They seem to be holding round shields and spears.  The second illustration on page 22 claims to have its source in the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, but I haven't been able find further information.  Presuming you can find the pictures I would welcome your opinion - I'm not too sure how to copy them!
Robert

Lacking the volume in question, I tried an internet search with no useful result.  Does sir possess a scanner?  If so, please feel free to email me the results (or paste them on the forum, or failing that email them to the webmaster who can presumably perform this office).  If not, then my commiserations because the things do make life so much easier.  In fact, if anyone else has the relevant Osprey and a scanner please feel free to paste the pictures into a post here.

On sources, I understand that both Livy and Dionysius used numerous sources, perhaps with less discrimination than Polybius, but despite Livy's lament (which Duncan has ably pinned down) he did have several sources to work with, although he was unhappy that none of them were contemporary with the events they described.  He and Dionysius have however extracted material which depicts what appears to be a coherent and consistent broad picture.

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 19, 2014, 05:25:47 PM
I must admit I've often wondered about the Velites when they weren't skirmishing. Obviously some could help the cavalry, but it would get cluttered out there if they all did.
They've got a pretty good shield, and a proper sword, so it has occurred to me they'd make a good back rank or two for the infantry maniples

The late lamented Peter Connolly came to the same conclusion (in Greece and Rome at War).  Great minds might just possibly be thinking alike.  ;)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 19, 2014, 10:14:45 PMLacking the volume in question, I tried an internet search with no useful result.

Try here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YJAd-soQyF8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=palestrina+carved+ivory+plaques&source=bl&ots=sm4ml8SMgn&sig=rALDP9mHX4t7HzdCvSyypVr2xGA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PHh6U9n7A4eU7Qbj8YGACQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=palestrina%20carved%20ivory%20plaques&f=false) - and page down just a bit - for the Praeneste/Palestrina one.

Have found a scanner - not sure if I've succeeded in attaching illustration.
Robert Gargan

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 19, 2014, 09:54:20 PM

Quote from: RobertGargan on May 19, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
The evidence from Livy and Dionysius seems overwhelming, I only wish we could identify their source.

Livy himself suggests there wasn't much in the way of reliable sources for the earlier part of the period:

"The history of the Romans from the foundation of the City to its capture, first under kings, then under consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and consular tribunes, the record of foreign wars and domestic dissensions, has been set forth in the five preceding books. The subject matter is enveloped in obscurity; partly from its great antiquity, like remote objects which are hardly discernible through the vastness of the distance; partly owing to the fact that written records, which form the only trustworthy memorials of events, were in those times few and scanty, and even what did exist in the pontifical commentaries and public and private archives nearly all perished in the conflagration of the City." (VI.1 - the "capture" and "conflagration" being the Gallic sack)

And he's not much more optimistic later in the 4th century:
"It is difficult to decide which account or which authority to prefer. I believe that the true history has been falsified by funeral orations and lying inscriptions on the family busts, since each family appropriates to itself an imaginary record of noble deeds and official distinctions. It is at all events owing to this cause that so much confusion has been introduced into the records of private careers and public events. There is no writer of those times now extant who was contemporary with the events he relates and whose authority, therefore, can be depended upon." (VIII.40)

What is interesting about these passages is Livy's attitude. He shows exactly the the same care and discretion regarding his sources as would a good contemporary historian. Hence if he does affirm something we can give it serious consideration.

Not quite the picture of the credulous propagandist depicted by Robert Graves.

Except that Livy does sound very like all those writing history who, to write a new version of the past, must first discredit the old one!
Roy

And he is a bit unreliable, as we know

Quote from: Mark G on May 20, 2014, 08:56:37 AM
And he is a bit unreliable, as we know

But provided it is only 'a bit', still useful.

Duncan, Robert, thank you.  (Robert, the page attached and displayed perfectly).

The first and most obvious comment to make is that the Paestum scene does not depict Romans, and Praeneste's inhabitants did not attain Roman citizenship until 90 BC.  I would suggest that the Paestum scene depicts Greeks, Neapolis being within easy reach.  The 'heroically nude' figure seems to be configured more like a sunbathing peltast (with a helmet that may be more Samnite than Greek, though I am no real judge of these things) than a hoplite but is within what I understand to be the acceptable canons of Greek art.  This may tell us something about the Greek armies of the locale and period, but alas nothing about Romans (and no Republican Roman would appear in nude portraiture or sculpture - they did not even permit male relatives to undress in the same room as each other).

The Praeneste cist presumably represents an inhabitant of Praeneste rather than, say, an exiled Roman.  If so, this would give us a rare glimpse into the equipment of a Roman ally, possibly even an extraordinarius.  The spear is a bit short for hoplite use, but that could be just the artist fitting it into the frame (or having trouble with it generally: note how in the right hand frame the shaft is displaced where it leaves the hand).  Or it could be a dual-use spear habitually employed by the extraordinarii or Praenestine troops generally, conceivably the Praenestine version of the hasta.  I am (obviously) guessing here: the only reasonably firm conclusion seems to be that this does not actually tell us anything about Romans per se.  The greaves and armour would seem to rule out any possibility of him being a velite.

The Paestum scene (a few pages down in the book I linked to, for those who haven't found it yet) was the subject of an article in Ancient Warfare,  at a guess some time last year. The author - perhaps Ross Cowan? - was commenting, IIRC, on a theory by an Italian academic linking this scene to a specific action described by Livy, involving cattle and a mountain (memory hazy here!). The troops to the right, led by the heroic nude, would be Lucanians (Paestum/Poseidonia was a Greek settlement taken over by the Oscans at the end ofthe C5th, so politically they'd be Lucanian not Greek, ethnically and culturally I suppose a Greek-Oscan mix) allied to the Samnites; the hoplites to the left would be the Romans. An interesting theory but a bit speculative, I thought at the time.

The Praenestines are Latins, so one would at first sight expect them to be armed in exactly the same way as the Romans - judging from Livy VIII, anyway. I get the impression that Praenestine cistae are an under-explored source. Sekunda uses a couple, and there's an interesting one showing a census or recruitment scene (in Holliday's Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration... ?) which is on my list of artworks to include if I ever start the article on representations of Rome's Italian allies.

I'm not sure if extraordinarii are ever mentioned before the 2nd century, so I would be wary of citing them in a 4th-century context.

I would very much recommend the Sekunda/Northwood Osprey for anyone looking into the early Roman army. As ever with Nick Sekunda, you may not agree with all his conclusions, but he does dig up some very interesting evidence.

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 20, 2014, 10:08:10 AM

I'm not sure if extraordinarii are ever mentioned before the 2nd century, so I would be wary of citing them in a 4th-century context.

Good point.  One would assume that as they seem to be part and parcel of the system described by Polybius they would be around from the inception of that system.  If we ascribe that particular system to post-314 BC but not taking too long in the post they might just scrape into the 4th century BC, for whatever that is worth.

The Wikipedia entry for extraordinarii (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Extraordinarii) mentions a couple of interesting points:

Quote
Franz Fröhlich, in his work on the Guard troops of the Roman Republic, speculates that they were created shortly after the Latin War which ended in 338 BC. Livy mentions delectae cohortes (chosen cohorts) of the Socii in an episode as early as 310 BC; this is assumed to be the first mention of the extraordinarii [Livy IX.37]. Livy's description of the campaign leading up to the Battle of Sentinum in 295 BC also references both Campanian equites delecti as well as the use of allied troops to defend against an assault on the headquarters tents of a Roman camp, consistent with the description of the camp layout given by Polybius [Livy X.26].

The mentions of cohortes delectae in Livy would be consistent with extraordinarii coming into being as part of the Polybian system shortly after 314 BC.  Whether it helps with the Praeneste cist is another matter.  Good hunting with the subject material: there may be more to be discovered.  :)

As far as I can see the delectae cohortes of IX.37 are not actually said to be allies, desppite Wikipedia. Fröhlich is perhaps arguing from the view that Roman citizen troops at this early date were not organised in cohorts, which is fair enough. The Campanian cavalry at Sentinum, though, were surely Roman citizens (civitas sine suffragio since 338).

It seems to me that the extraordinarii as a regular institution, the systematic use of allied troops in such important roles, fits better with a Rome that is beginning to equate itself with Italy, rather than a Rome that is one of several Italian powers - which means a period after the Pyrrhic Wars. But I have no evidence for that at all, just instinct.

One might add to the observation about Roman troops not being organised in cohorts (which to me seems a less solid supposition than is widely assumed) that Roman regulars would stick with their respective legions and not be detached to guard the camp exits.  Velites perhaps (Polybius has these on camp guard duty), but velites were not organised in cohorts, at least not in Polybius' line-up, and could hardly be regarded as 'delecti'.  Extraordinarii however seem to have been in line for special duties and would be the logical choice for such a role.

The thousand Campanian cavalry (Campanisque mille equitibus delectis) are listed apart from the 'strong body of Roman cavalry' (magno equitatu Romano) but as part of the Roman contingent rather than the 'army of allies and Latins that outnumbered the Romans', so yes, they are associated with the Roman horse but they are not apparently part of it.  This would be consistent with extraordinarii being grouped with Roman cavalry on the battlefield to equalise the strength of the cavalry wings - a procedure nowhere explicitly stated but inferrable from various actions.  Hence I would be reluctant to classify the Campanian cavalry as 'Roman', and suspect the Romans themselves may have left them sine suffragio as part of a package which retained their military status as allies.  One possible indicator might be: if we can find any Campanians going through the Roman system of promotion via various offices (cursus honorum) in this period we shall know the Campanians were counted as Romans.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 20, 2014, 09:28:09 AMThe Praeneste cist presumably represents an inhabitant of Praeneste rather than, say, an exiled Roman.  If so, this would give us a rare glimpse into the equipment of a Roman ally...

By chance I've just found this French article (http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/mefr_0223-5102_1989_num_101_2_1641) which discusses the Praenestine cist in question. It is concerned with rejecting the idea that the cist depicts a Latin triumph (as argued by Larissa Bonfante Warren (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/501523?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104283631423) among others). Drawings at the end of the article show how Robert's hoplite-equipped figures fit into the scene. Warren argued for the cista being dated at c.100 BC (!); Richard Adam puts it around 340 BC. On the conventional viewpoint that hoplite equipment gave way to the scutum somewhen between the siege of Veii and the Samnite Wars, the hoplite armament might be anachronistic, depending exactly which date within that range one favours, but not wildly so - showing perhaps the equipment of the artist's father's generation. Latin hoplites in the 4th century seem to be a bit more problematic for Patrick's interpretation of the legion, unless we are to think that the Latin allies remained differently armed to the Romans until just before the war of 340-338.

I would be happy with that point, i don't think the Latin legions conformed immediately.