04-12-2006, 03:24 PM
Aw, Jona, I did say 'according to tradition'! I certainly don't believe everything Livy wrote, though I do think Ogilvie's over-sceptical on occasion (not necessarily this one!).
What the Livy account implies is that winter campaigning was considered a particular hardship which was going to cause difficulties to soldiers who therefore needed recompense. Cornell puts the introduction of pay down to a re-shuffle in the political and military organisation of the Roman state; Louis Rawlings has mused privately that it may have been partly due to concerns about the availability of mercenary employment elsewhere in the late 5th century.
The tunnel thing about Veii is interesting, and I suspect draws on the prevalence of cuniculi in Etruria: there's another siege about the same time were the Romans are supposed to have captured the place in exactly the same way (sorry, can't remember details).
What the Livy account implies is that winter campaigning was considered a particular hardship which was going to cause difficulties to soldiers who therefore needed recompense. Cornell puts the introduction of pay down to a re-shuffle in the political and military organisation of the Roman state; Louis Rawlings has mused privately that it may have been partly due to concerns about the availability of mercenary employment elsewhere in the late 5th century.
The tunnel thing about Veii is interesting, and I suspect draws on the prevalence of cuniculi in Etruria: there's another siege about the same time were the Romans are supposed to have captured the place in exactly the same way (sorry, can't remember details).
