The Proto-Manipular Legion

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Duncan Head]

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.

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"?

[Jim Webster]

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 

Jim

[Jim Webster]

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.

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  )

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

[Duncan Head]

There is the case of them being mistaken for Triarii

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

[Jim Webster]

There is the case of them being mistaken for Triarii

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

LOL

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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".

[Jim Webster]

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

[RobertGargan]

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

[Duncan Head]

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.

Hmm. Thanks.

[Duncan Head]

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)

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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. 

[Duncan Head]

Lacking the volume in question, I tried an internet search with no useful result.

Try here - and page down just a bit - for the Praeneste/Palestrina one.

[RobertGargan]

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

[Justin Swanton]

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.