10-03-2014, 08:21 AM
Quote:To answer many of the latest posting I think I will need two days to cover everything, and that’s omitting the absurdities. And some are not aware that the history of early Rome was written by other writers long before the birth of Livy. And when all else fails label it anachronistic, or should I say the favourite tool of the inept academic. As to money, the Roman monetary system is still an enigma to many academics. The good ones believe it should not be treated in the same fashion as our monetary system. Do you really think that when Cicero bought a vial for 100,000 secteres, some slave pushed a barrow full of the coins to the villa owner?
Dear Academia
I say this, you love to sprout that Livy and Dionysius use of the term cohort for the late 6th century is anachronistic. However, as no one in academia has any idea of what the size of a legion was or how it was organised in the late 6th century, what is your evidence that the legion was not organised into cohorts?
Once upon a time academia, you told us the cohort was only introduced with the Marian reforms but now you prefer to say it was introduced in 210 BC. This has come about because Polybius mentions the term cohort for the year 210 BC. Bell introduced this theory in 1966 and it was not widely accepted because it was in conflict with the Marion theory, and many an academic had accepted the Marian theory. However, a new generation of inept academics, whom lacking any ability or original thinking have embraced Bell’s theory (apparently they want to be seen to be different to the Marian theorist). I guess academia follows Maoism who was continually changing the red book on a yearly basis. So dear academia, what will the next theory be for the introduction of the cohort? And as you have no idea of the size and organisation of the late 6th century legion, or any legion, could you please just admit it and put a stop to this stupidity as too many have jumped on your idiotic bandwagon.
Such vitriol! Nothing like a spirited debate.
As to currency, Roman didn't mint bronze as coins (nor sestercie) in the 6th century BC, so I don't see how someone could have had a net worth of 100,000 of them to qualify for the 1st Class. Similarly, Dionysius uses Greek currencies in describing the amounts, which also are not accurate to the setting of 6th Cent. BC Rome. Meaning the description is anachronistic. The property requirements of the Servian constitution would have had to have been tallied in a manner that actually existed during its time. Same goes for the swords. Did Livy just not know Rome hadn't been introduced to the Spanish yet so couldn't possibly have copied their swords? Or did he just use the term for the sword that was popular in his own day? Me thinks the latter. As for the cohorts, who rightly knows? Maybe the 6th century legions had them, maybe they didn't. Other sources don't describe them at that early time period. Somebody is wrong.
Also, in regards to the war tax, Livy 4.36, 10.46, and 23.41 all state that the war tax was used substantially, if not wholly, to pay soldier's salaries, not to pay for arms. In addition, Livy 27.9 states the Socii also had to pay the war tax and I doubt Rome was buying them arms as well. Lastly, Plutarch's Life of Cato the Elder 5.6 states that military transportation costs were also paid for by taxes, so that's another thing taxes would have went for. Mules and horses are another. In addition, the war tax could go for paying for provisioning an army (men and beasts eat a lot), as well as buying ships, and other commodities not related to actual arms carried.
Another interesting couple of lines dealing with arms comes from Polybius' description of the Dilectus. After the "candidates" are chosen, placed in legions, and sworn in, but not placed into classes of soldier type yet, they are released:
"The tribunes in Rome, after administering the oath, fix for each legion a day and place at which the men are to present themselves without arms and then dismiss them." (Pol Hist 6.21.6)
Now I might be an inept academic
but to me that sounds like the men already had their own arms before they were even put into their classes. If they were issued state owned arms, when did this occur? The next time the legion meets, the men are placed into classes and maniples/turmae within their legion. After, the following occurs:"The tribunes having thus organized the troops and ordered them to arm themselves in this manner, dismiss them to their homes." (6.21.1)
So the whole day is spent taking roughly 5,000 men and organizing them into coherent classes of infantry and putting them into subunits, no easy task in of itself. At the conclusion, right before they are dismissed, the soldiers are told to arm themselves in the manner they are assigned (by class type) and then given another report date. So I think this can be used as evidence that, according to that source, at that time period, in those circumstance, the soldiers provided their own arms.
