SoA Forums

Quote from: Mark G on November 02, 2024, 09:39:56 AMFeels like two parallel conversations. 

I think so.  Justin is focussed on the tactical while others are in grand strategy mode.

I'm sure many period specialist could challenge Justin's perception of hoplite warfare and their equipment (was a pilos helmet more complex than a coolus? Were they all heavily armoured or did some of them do without body armour?), it's clear that Romans fought differently. One of Patrick's insights on Roman armies that has stuck with me is that their system was based on "the long game".  They were well trained, building endurance, and organised in a way to allow them to easily introduce fresh troops into the line as the battle proceeded. If it was all about pila and a quick "chuck and charge", they'd be no more resilient than a bunch of barbarians, just with different javelins.

Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 12:24:22 PMThe only major change was Class I converted from the aspis to the scutum in 495 BC.

Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another.  It would effectively require a minor constitutional change, either a law being passed or a consular decree (and let us be honest, no-one can be sure what was the constitutional status of Rome in the late fifth century, given the doubts over whether the kings had ever truly existed, whether the Republic as popularly imagined had come into existence in 510, let alone the absolute chronology of any and all).

We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway.

QuoteDavid wrote: "Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another...We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway."

All of my research is in contradiction to everyone. However, I stand by it. Ok, warning, this is very long.

In Livy's (8 8-12) account of the battle of Mount Vesuvius, Livy writes that: "The Romans had formerly used small round shields; then, after they began to serve for pay, they made oblong shields instead of round ones." Here Livy makes it clear that after the Romans began receiving pay while serving on campaign, the Roman round shield (clipeas) was replaced with an oblong shield (scutum). Plutarch (Romulus 21) has the Romans under Romulus change the round shields of the Argive pattern to the Sabine oblong shield. Although the time line is inaccurate there could be some truth in Plutarch's claim the Romans adopted the scutum from the Sabines.

Stipendium
In 406 BC, in preparation for the long siege envisaged in capturing the Etruscan city of Veii, Livy writes that the Roman senate, for no apparent reason, decreed that the soldiers should receive pay (stipendium), from the public treasury while on campaign. (1) This was undertaken to alleviate the problem of the soldiers falling into debt while on campaign. As this generous act by the senate came about without any demands from the tribune of the plebeians, this endeared the plebeians towards the senate. (2) Livy mentions that one of the consular tribunes, Appius Claudius, opposed the soldiers being paid while on campaign, by declaring that pay should not be given as it had never been given. (3) Appius Claudius also recommended that the senate break down the power of tribunes (the Tribal Assembly). (4) Appius Claudius opposition to the granting of pay to the soldiers was rejected and the soldiers were granted pay while on campaign. (5)

Although Livy claims that the soldier's pay was introduced for the first time in 406 BC, some 15 years earlier in 421 BC, Livy contradicts himself by claiming the soldier were already receiving pay from a tax on the occupiers of public land. (6) Dionysius also mentions the soldiers receiving pay dating back to 486 BC, 478 BC, and 467 BC. (7) In all three references, Dionysius remains consistent in claiming six months' pay for the soldiers, which was equivalent to the military campaign season. In 502 BC, after defeating the Sabines, the Sabines had to pay a certain amount of money to the Roman army under the command of the consul Spurius Cassius Vecellinus, that had defeated the Sabines. ( In this situation, the Romans made the defeated Sabines pay for the Roman soldier's wages.

Livy's contradictory date for when the soldier's pay was first introduced has come about as a direct result of Livy or his source confusing the Appius Claudius of 406 BC with the Appius Claudius of 494 BC. In 494 BC, a different Appius Claudius was opposed to the soldiers being granted relief from debt while on campaign. In 406 BC, Appius Claudius was opposed to the soldiers being paid for a period of 12 months. Therefore, in 406 BC, because of the siege of Veii was being undertaken, which required the soldiers to serve for 12 months, the proposal to increase the campaign season from six months to 12 months, and the soldier's pay from six months to 12 months had been placed before the senate.

This means that in 494 BC, Appius Claudius opposed the soldiers receiving debt relief, which was the granting of pay for six months, while on campaign. In 406 BC, a different Appius Claudius opposed the soldiers campaigning for 12 months and receiving pay for 12 months. In conclusion, in 494 BC, when the Tribal Assembly was created, in order to alleviate the plebeian's agitation against the debt laws, in order to prevent a succession of the state, the senate unexpectedly granted the soldiers pay for six months while serving on campaign.

In conclusion, the Roman army was granted pay in 495 BC, in and following Livy's comment that after the Romans served for pay, in the following year, that is 494 BC, the Romans fought a major engagement against the Sabines. (10) In conclusion the Romans changed the round shield (clipeas) carried by Class I to the oblong shield (scutum) carried by Class II and III, in 494 BC.

Endnotes
1 Tacitus (The Annals 12 35)
(2) Festus (468 L), refers to the first class as classis clipeata, distinguished by its use of the clipeus (round shield). Festus (48 32 L) also adds that "The ancients used the term classes clipeatae for what we now call armies."
3 Dionysius (4 16−18), Livy (1 43)
4 Isidore of Seville (Etymologica 18 12), describes a bronze shield (clipeus) as: "a rather large buckler, so called because it shields the body and removes it from danger. When it is held opposed to the enemy, by its defences it guards the body from spears and darts. A clipeus is for foot soldiers and a buckler (scutum), for horsemen."
5 The Ineditum Vaticanum (FGrh 8391 3 14-19)
6 Dionysius (9 21), (9 61)
7 Livy (2 30), (2 46)
8 Livy (reference needed)
9 Plutarch (Romulus 21)
10 Dionysius (6 42 1-2), Livy (2 30)

The State Supplied Weapons
The armament requirements listed by Dionysius and Livy for the Roman army indicate that for the individual citizen to comply with these stipulations, the state supplied the men with their weapons issued from state arsenals. The view taken by many modern scholars advocating that the men supplied their own equipment is contrary to the writings of the ancient sources. Dionysius writes that Tarquinius Superbus "having for the ensuing year armed all the Romans and taken as many troops as he could get from his allies, led them out against the enemy." (2) Dionysius has Tarquinius Superbus: "resolved to lead an army against the Sabines, choosing such of the Romans as he least suspected of being apt to assert their liberty if they became possessed of arms." (3)

The important point here is that Tarquinius Superbus, worried about a coup état, has only chosen those men he can trust to be supplied with arms. If the men owned their own equipment, then Tarquinius Superbus would have had to disarm all those he did not trust. In 503 BC, the consul Menenius:" "having armed all the men of military age, marched out with them in good order and discipline." (4)

In 494 BC, during the Struggle of the Orders, the plebeians boycotted the militarily levy and demanded that their liberty be restored before arms were put into their hands. (5) This statement would be meaningless if the plebeians had to provide their own arms for a campaign. In 488 BC, the consuls Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius, "raised as large an army as they could from the register of citizens...They also got ready a great quantity of money, corn and arms in a short time." (6) In 477 BC, the Romans armed those juniors in the city. (7) In 450 BC, the consuls Appius and Spurius supplied their colleagues with arms, money, corn and everything else that was needed. (

For the year 463 BC, Livy writes that Quintus Fabius armed all men of military age in the city. (89) In 460 BC, a number of political refugees and some 2,500 slaves captured the Capitol. (10) The consuls Poplicola and Claudius were in a dilemma as to whether to arm the people or not to arm them. The consuls finally distribute arms, but on a limited scale. If the soldiers already have their own weapons and body armour, then why are the consuls in a dilemma about arming the people? Again, in 460 BC, with the Aequians and the Volscian army approaching Rome, in response the Roman troops were enrolled and issued with arms. (11) Again, if the soldiers are supposed to already have their own arms, why would there be a need to issue arms?

In 449 BC, the senate decreed a supply of arms to be sent to the defeated Roman army at Tusculum, so as to replace those weapons that had been lost in a previous battle. (12) In 439 BC, Spurius Maelius, a member of the equestrian order conspired to seize power and establish a monarchy. The plot was uncovered when a citizen happened to notice the conspirators were secretly stockpiling arms in Maelius' house. (13) Had the conspirators possessed their own arms as modern scholars believe, the conspirators had no need to conceal the weapons; they would have simply armed themselves in their own homes with their own weapons at the agreed time for the revolt. In addition to the references from Dionysius and Livy, both Gellius and Valerius Maximus mention the distribution of "public arms." (14)

In 386/7 BC Livy reports that Camillus ordered Quintus Servilius to mobilise and equip a second army, while Lucius Horatius was required to recruit a third army and to provide it with arms, missiles, corn and everything else to meet the demands of the situation. (15) This reference still maintains that the arming and issuing of military equipment was undertaken by the state. In his description of the ascriptivi, Varro defines the ascriptivi as men that took the place of the dead on the battlefield, who were enrolled as extras and did not receive arms. (16) This means that as the ascriptivi armed themselves with the weapons of the dead Romans, there was no need for the state to issue them with weapons when the army was being issued weapons.

After their defeat at Cannae in 216 BC because of the loss in military equipment, Livy writes that "armour, weapons, and other things of the kind were ordered to be in readiness, and the ancient spoils gathered from the enemy were taken down from the temples and colonnades." (17) In 205 BC, Livy reports that for the invasion of Africa by Scipio, the town of Arretium in Italy alone promised 3,000 shields, 3,000 helmets, and an equal proportion of javelins, short spears and lances to the number of 50,000. (18) Again, in all three references, it is the state, not the individual who provided the arms.

For military purposes, a uniformity of weapons guaranteed the Roman methodology of fighting was enforced, which would be disrupted if each citizen provided a varied assortment of armament and weapons. Therefore, the perception by modern scholars that the men provided their own military equipment does not belong to history. The property wealth of a citizen determined how he was to be equipped by the state; with the rich being better armed than the poor.

Because the state manufactured and controlled the distribution of the armaments, in order to keep costs reasonable, the equipment must have been simple and inexpensive in design. The property wealth of a citizen determined how he was to be equipped by the state; with the rich being better armed than the poor. According to Dionysius the issuing of state armaments meant those who could afford better armament, such as worn by Class I, paid a higher war tax:

"As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the 193 centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating." (19)

In support of the war tax involving payment for the military equipment issued by the state, for the year 508 BC, Dionysius writes that:

"This booty having been sold at public auction, all the citizens received back the amount of the contribution, which they had severally paid for the equipment of the expedition." (20)

Here Dionysius is explaining that the soldiers were reimbursed for the cost they had to pay for their military equipment (the war tax). This would indicate that the war tax on the military equipment was not governed by the soldier's property wealth or land holdings. Taking this into account, if a soldier met the specific age bracket for a specific property class, such a Class III, aged from 22 to 25 years of age, but did have the land wealth requirements for Class III (over 50,000 asses and up to 75,000 asses), but could pay the war tax for Class III, which would not be the same as the property wealth of Class III, that soldier was eligible to serve as a Class III soldiers and was issued the weapons and armour for a Class III soldier.

Dionysius further elaborates that the poorest citizen who voted last with one century (Class VI, the capite censi) "were exempt from the military levies and from the war-taxes paid by the rest of the citizens." (21) Dionysius also mentions that "those with the lowest rating in the census were stationed in the rear in battle and counted as a mere appendage to the forces that were arrayed in the battle line, being present merely to strike the enemy with terror, since they had no other arms but slings, which are of the least use in action." (22) As Dionysius describes property Class V as being armed with slings, as with property Class VI, property Class V (the proletarii), as they were not supplied with any weapons or armour, property Class V were also exempt from the war tax.

Endnotes
1 Dionysius (4 16−18), Livy (1 43), Dionysius (4 16−18), Dionysius (5 67), Livy (1 43), Festus (468 L), refers to the first class as "classis clipeata", distinguished by its use of the clipeus (round shield). Festus (48 32 L) also adds that "The ancients used the term "classes clipeatae" for what we now call armies." Isidore of Seville (Etymologica 18 12), describes a bronze shield (clipeus) as: "a rather large buckler, so called because it shields the body and removes it from danger. When it is held opposed to the enemy, by its defences it guards the body from spears and darts. A clipeus is for foot soldiers and a buckler (scutum), for horsemen."
2 Dionysius (3 57)
3 Dionysius (4 50)
4 Dionysius (5 44)
5 Livy (2 28)
6 Dionysius (8 16)
7 Dionysius (9 18)
8 Dionysius (11 24)
9 Livy (3 7), (3 10)
10 Livy (3 15), (3 20)
11 Livy (3 18)
12 Livy (3 42)
13 Livy (4 13)
14 Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 16 10 12), Valerius Maximus (2 3)
15 Livy (6 6)
16 Varro (The Latin Language 7 56)
17 Livy (22 57)
18 Livy (28 45)
19 Dionysius (4 19-20)
20 Dionysius (5 47 1)
21 Dionysius (7 59)
22 Dionysius (5 67)

Quote from: Imperial Dave on November 02, 2024, 09:45:42 AMI'm still reading the Devereux article

There's a lot to get your teeth into isn't there 

Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PM

QuoteDavid wrote: "Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another...We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway."

All of my research is in contradiction to everyone. However, I stand by it. Ok, warning, this is very long.

And deserves working up into two slingshot articles!

Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PMStipendium...

I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.   

Quote from: DBS on November 02, 2024, 05:34:47 PM

Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PMStipendium...

I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.   

This begs the question, was the Aes signatum coinage or merely the bronze equivalent of hack silver, in that they could be broken up, and had to be weighed to get their value

QuoteDBS wrote: I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.

Someone once told me this before. No money, so Volume I of my work is irrelevant and pointless. However, the ancient writes do talk about payment, so something was given, be it whatever, sheep, goats, credit or mother in laws.

The actual point is that academia has overlooked is Livy has confused the Appius Claudius of 495 BC, who opposed stipendium while on campaign for six months with the Appius Claudius of 406 BC, who opposed stipendium for 12 months. Therefore, Dionysius' claims of stipendium dating back to 486 BC, 478 BC, and 467 BC are now valid. And notice not one of Dionysius's dates are pre 495 BC. With stipendium being awarded in 495 BC, this helps to identify or narrow down when Class I changed from the clipeas to the scutum.

QuoteJim wrote: And deserves working up into two slingshot articles!

Trust me Jim, no one is interested in my research. Over the last 20 years I've mostly only received abuse, online and via private emails. Many have requested to read my work and yet, I haven't had any feedback from them, they responded that they have been too busy. I have heard this countless times from some many for nearly 20 years. It has to be some kind of record that should be entered in the Guinee's Book of Records. People aren't interested in wanting to know the ins and outs of the Roman legion and what exactly all that data in the ancient sources relates to. They are more interested in the soldier's pointy bits, as highlighted on RAT. My paper on the Equites Legionis and Singulares attracts 78 views over three months, and yet, a question about a weapon will attract over 200 views in a couple of days.

The net result is my interest in having my work published has evaporated, and combined with having to deal with a serious health issue, my continued research has been reduced to being a personal challenge driven by curiosity. As the curiosity gets quenched so does my enthusiasm to do anything with it. People are more than happy with their rather limited and distorted view of the Roman army, and don't want it challenged.

Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PM

QuoteDavid wrote: "Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another...We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway."

All of my research is in contradiction to everyone. However, I stand by it. Ok, warning, this is very long.

....and the rest....

I'm impressed and very much in agreement. Let me get back later as I might have a piece of relevant data.

Quote from: Monad on November 03, 2024, 04:56:11 AMDBS wrote: I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.

Someone once told me this before. No money, so Volume I of my work is irrelevant and pointless. However, the ancient writes do talk about payment, so something was given, be it whatever, sheep, goats, credit or mother in laws.

I think this raises an interesting point. We often hear comments about silver being minted to pay troops/mercenaries.
But whilst it was useful it was not 'compulsory'. So especially with your own citizens troops could be paid/supported with land grants, tax incentives, occasional donatives, rations for soldier AND family, or any combination of the above. Just because you didn't mint coins as such didn't mean you couldn't pay troops.

Seriously Justin, can you just stop reposting everything before you reply.

It's ridiculous

Seconded.

Quote from: Mark G on November 03, 2024, 10:45:19 AMSeriously Justin, can you just stop reposting everything before you reply.

It's ridiculous

l'm doing this with my cellphone. Tricky to prune a quote that way but let's see what I can do.

Edit: there, done.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2024, 09:12:27 AMSo especially with your own citizens troops could be paid/supported with land grants, tax incentives, occasional donatives, rations for soldier AND family, or any combination of the above. Just because you didn't mint coins as such didn't mean you couldn't pay troops.

Indeed, but the question is why pay troops, especially citizen troops?  There would seem to be the following motives:

1) The troops are dependent on pay and loot as a livelihood.  Applies to mercenaries, and indeed is their defining characteristic, and to impoverished members of your own society.  Athens wants a navy, it needs to find a way to pay the poor who will row its ships, more so than the hoplites who have their farms and can take part in more gentlemanly expeditions against the neighbours.  Similarly, some of the first Carthaginian coinage seems to be minted in Sicily, specifically to pay a partly mercenary field army.

2) The troops are going to be away for a long time and/or a long distance away, thus meaning they are stretching a gentleman's resources a bit, or neglecting the farm.  This seems a probable reason for the Romans introducing coinage in the early third century, as that is the point when their depredations against other bits of Italy consistently reach beyond a certain distance from Rome itself, regardless of whether we believe in the siege of Veii having lasted ten years a little bit earlier.

But we must be careful to distinguish between pay and loot.  You get the former (theoretically at least...) regardless of win, lose or draw.  You get the latter when you win, be it land, slaves, or the enemy's wine cellar.  The Romans are quite quick to catch on to the idea of using the seized land to create colonies, and thus laying the groundwork for their future resilience in manpower; but this is described (accurately or not) as a deliberate act by committee to settle and enrich the deserving poor, who thus enriched can be expected to turn up and serve as troops in the future (I would suggest unpaid in the generally accepted convention) precisely because you have made them yeoman farmers.

Slaves are also an investment for the future, as they can work the farms in the master's absence, but again, not pay, but exploitation of loot to ensure future success.  Give me a slave whilst I am in midst campaign, and I simply have one more mouth to feed in camp.  The problem with payment in kind is equity: not all slaves are equal; are you wanting a pretty girl, a muscular lad to work the land, or a skilled potter?  That bit of land has a vineyard, that bit of land has poor soil.  The whole point of coinage is a certain equity of face value.

There is also the separate idea of indemnifying loss, most usually of horses.  After all, all citizens serve at personal risk, but if you want the wealthiest also to bring a horse (and a good horse at that), which carries a serious separate risk of death, injury or illness whilst on campaign, then that is an inequitable burden that needs addressing.  But does not equal pay.

I would simply point out that the concept of pay, whether in coin or kind, imposes very significant organisational and resource issues.  At what point does Rome really become big enough to be able to manage such a burden?  Dividing up loot after a campaign is one thing.  Encouraging merchants to come into camp (assuming you stay in one place for long enough) to ensure your troops have access to basic commodities is one thing.  Recompensing Marcus because his horse was killed is one thing, especially if you do it by prioritising him for a looted horse.  Regular payment is quite another thing, whether coin or corn, for a modest city state.  That is why I am so sceptical about such a practice in fifth century Rome, especially when the source dates from five centuries later.  Early Third century Roman introduces coinage at precisely the point when pay becomes intelligible as both practical and likely a necessity.

Quote from: Monad on November 03, 2024, 04:56:11 AM

QuoteDBS wrote: I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.

Someone once told me this before. No money, so Volume I of my work is irrelevant and pointless. However, the ancient writes do talk about payment, so something was given, be it whatever, sheep, goats, credit or mother in laws.

The actual point is that academia has overlooked is Livy has confused the Appius Claudius of 495 BC, who opposed stipendium while on campaign for six months with the Appius Claudius of 406 BC, who opposed stipendium for 12 months. Therefore, Dionysius' claims of stipendium dating back to 486 BC, 478 BC, and 467 BC are now valid. And notice not one of Dionysius's dates are pre 495 BC. With stipendium being awarded in 495 BC, this helps to identify or narrow down when Class I changed from the clipeas to the scutum.

QuoteJim wrote: And deserves working up into two slingshot articles!

Trust me Jim, no one is interested in my research. Over the last 20 years I've mostly only received abuse, online and via private emails. Many have requested to read my work and yet, I haven't had any feedback from them, they responded that they have been too busy. I have heard this countless times from some many for nearly 20 years. It has to be some kind of record that should be entered in the Guinee's Book of Records. People aren't interested in wanting to know the ins and outs of the Roman legion and what exactly all that data in the ancient sources relates to. They are more interested in the soldier's pointy bits, as highlighted on RAT. My paper on the Equites Legionis and Singulares attracts 78 views over three months, and yet, a question about a weapon will attract over 200 views in a couple of days.

The net result is my interest in having my work published has evaporated, and combined with having to deal with a serious health issue, my continued research has been reduced to being a personal challenge driven by curiosity. As the curiosity gets quenched so does my enthusiasm to do anything with it. People are more than happy with their rather limited and distorted view of the Roman army, and don't want it challenged.

A man after my own heart! And if Patrick had still been alive, after his too.

I too have done research on the Legion and written non-standard stuff on how line relief worked. Published a book on it too. I've had some interest shown in my reconstructions of the legion, pike phalanx and hoplite phalanx but I've come to realise that platform is everything in academia - like it is for pretty much anything else these days. Platform means bandwagon which means considerable resistance to any radically new ideas, not because they can be refuted, but because they don't follow the general trend. I've yet to encounter anyone who agrees with my mechanism for line relief and at the same time anyone who has attempted to refute it. Funny old world.

Anyhow, on the topic of Livy and Romans swopping round for oblong shields, it helps to look at Livy's Latin. It's been my experience, again and again, that translators can make a real pigs' breakfast of the original texts.

The passage as per your translation:

"The Romans had formerly used small round shields; then, after they began to serve for pay, they made oblong shields instead of round ones"

"After they began to serve for pay" translates postquam stipendiarii facti sunt but the phrase literally means: "after they became stipendiarii." Now every single use of stipendiarium I could find in Livy means an entity that pays money and not and entity that receives money as pay:

QuoteThat the other states of Asia, which had been tributary [stipendiarii] to Attalus, should likewise pay tribute to Eumenes; and such as had been tributary [vectigales – synonym for stipendarius, with the meaning of payers of tribute/tax] to Antiochus, should be free and independent. – History: 37.55.6.

Those which had been tributaries [stipendiariae] to King Antiochus but had sided with the Roman people were granted freedom from taxation; those which had been partisans of Antiochus or tributaries [stipendiariae] to King Attalus were all ordered to pay tribute to Eumenes. – History: 38.39.6.

For the present he resolved to persist in the lenient line of conduct with which he had begun, and sending collectors round to the tributary states [stipendiarias civitates], to give the soldiers hopes of soon receiving their pay. – History: 28.25.9.

So - following Livy's Latin - the Romans dumped the clipeus for the scutum soon after they started paying a tribute or tax. When did they start doing that? When Servius Tullus introduced the war tax to pay for the equipment and supplies issued to the soldiers. At that time he reorganised the military, introducing the 5 classes of which a little under half the infantry served in the 1st class and were still equipped with the clipeus (which they had to supply themselves) whilst the 2nd and 3rd classes had the scutum. Since this was a major reorganisation the implication was that the army did things differently before. My guess is that the soldiers were previously all equipped as hoplites or skirmishers. The poorer class hoplites would have found furnishing their equipment a burden so Servius Tullus made it manageable by centralising production and equipping the classes according to what they could afford to pay.

The army still operated more or less as a hoplite phalanx in the battle of the new Republic against Tarquinius Superbus in 508BC: "The right wings of both armies were victorious and the left worsted." – Livy: 2.6. Typical hoplite battle.

But it appears the clipeus fell out of use soon after that since the Romans began to use at least two lines in 496BC in another battle with Tarquinius, who this time led a Latin army that itself had at least two lines. It seems the Romans dropped the hoplite system of the Etruscans (who had only one line) for the multi-line system of the Latins:

QuoteAs Postumius was drawing up his men and encouraging them in the first line [prima in acie], Tarquinius Superbus, though now enfeebled by age, spurred on his horse with great fury to attack him; but being wounded in the side, he was carried off by a party of his own men to a place of safety. In the other wing also, Æbutius, master of the horse, had charged Octavius Mamilius; nor was his approach unobserved by the Tusculan general, who also briskly spurred on his horse to encounter him. And such was their impetuosity as they advanced with hostile spears, that Æbutius was run through the arm and Mamilius struck on the breast. The Latins received the latter into their second line [in secundam aciem]. – Livy: 2.19.

My take is that several lines means line relief and you can't do line relief with hoplite aspides since the shields are too wide to permit the front line to retire between the files of the open-order second line. That is why the hoplite phalanx was a single line. You can however do line relief with narrower oblong shields. Which introduces the topic of how line relief actually worked but does anyone want to cover that again?