State issued equipment before the Marian reforms?

[Jesper D]

Is there any information on when the senate(treated here as "the state") started to finance legionary equipment continually or when they started to issue equipment regularly(two different questions..). The first instance of state financed equipment I can find is when Pyrrhos of Epirus threatened in 281 B.C.
During the second Punic war state financed equipment seemed to be common due to the great number of losses and thus need for recruits no matter what the costs. The question is if this became a habit after the second Punic war?

Secondly I wonder(related to the second part of the first query) how Rome managed to keep uniform equipment standard within a maniple once this sytem was put in place ~300 B.C. Any unit with heterogenous equipment standard will be inefficient. As organisation were one of the Roman strengths I assume they had some kind of system to address this, e.g. state supplied equipment, standardization of equipment(i.e. Instructions on what you MUST buy before joining your unit) or simply differentiation of legionaries depending on what equipment they brought. Observe that neither of these alternatives would interfere with legionaries paying the full cost of their equipment(or not).

The last alternative seems slightly odd as it would interfere with the age, experience and census class systems that seem to have been used to divide the troops into their respective units

[Epictetus]

Spivey and Stoddart in Etruscan Italy have suggested that the Servian reforms included the issue of citizen armour. This was still during the monarchy, some four and a half centuries before Marius. However, I think this is a contrary opinion, and most believe that citizens still had to provide their own at this time. (See Cornell The Beginnings of Rome, for example, who refutes this.)

Cornell argues instead that the reforms of 406 BC were when some equipment began to be regularly supplied. (This was also when soldiers began to be regularly paid and when the tributum was first used.) He ties this to a change in structure in the field army as well as a change in strategy towards conquered cities and tribes.

Indemnities began a regular feature of Roman military policy in the fourth century, and frequently entailed the requisitioning of military supplies, such as clothing and equipment, for the Roman army. This indicates that Roman soldiers were no longer serving at their own expense, but were receiving food and equipment, in addition to wages, as a regular condition of service. If this practice was already established in the 390s, as seems likely, it would be reasonable to connect it with the reforms of 406 BC. This conclusion is consistent with the hypothesis that from that time service in the legions was no longer the preserve of a wealthy group who could afford their own armour and weapons, but had been extended to all citizens who could meet a relatively modest property qualification.

Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome

Edit:

The last alternative seems slightly odd as it would interfere with the age, experience and census class systems that seem to have been used to divide the troops into their respective units

Cornell deals quite extensively with this, by the way. If you can get a hold of his book, start on about page 186 for a very fascinating round up of the competing ideas regarding this system. If you can't find the book let me know and I can try to summarise.

[Jesper D]

Yeah I've already had a look at this book, it will be with me within days. This is the best book regarding the early republic in your opinion? Is this(see below) a common consensus among historians?

1.That legionariy recruitment did not follow Servius Tullius Census at such an early date as ~400 B.C.
The 5th census class as a lower limit for army service seems to have persisted until the second punic war though...

2.Legionary equipment were state supplied and financed to some extent as early as ~400B.C.

Actually this brings up another subject I wanted to discuss....Shouldnt early Roman legionaries be better/heavier armed considering their wealth(IF wealth was what decided gear). According to my calculations even a fifth census class man should be able to afford a full hoplite suit, I've used Athenian prices from the 5th century(when metal was most likely more expensive) to check this... This would only imply that the fifth census man was not poor at all but rather quite well off.

[Epictetus]

This is the best book regarding the early republic in your opinion?

Definitely. Cornell is excellent. I think this book is pretty much the standard (in English, at least). He also wrote for the Cambridge Ancient History.

A great “companion” to Cornell is Forsythe’s A Critical History of Early Rome. While Cornell is very trusting in the ancient source material, Forsythe is of the “critical” school. In fact, in many cases Forsythe seems to be a direct rebuttal to Cornell. He has many instances where he disagrees with something Cornell wrote.

I would guess that both #1 and #2 are the consensus among historians. Of course, there are wide ranges of opinion on different issues. It does seem that many believe that in times of crisis the “lower limit” for service was basically discarded. Marius just made it permanent.

Shouldnt early Roman legionaries be better/heavier armed considering their wealth(IF wealth was what decided gear). According to my calculations even a fifth census class man should be able to afford a full hoplite suit, I've used Athenian prices from the 5th century(when metal was most likely more expensive) to check this... This would only imply that the fifth census man was not poor at all but rather quite well off.

I don’t know. I think it is difficult to try and gauge purchasing power in the ancient world. Metal was extremely rare and expensive compared to today, for instance. I would be inclined to think that the Romans set the wealth bar as low as possible in order to get as many people eligible for service as they could.

[Jesper D]

Hello,
Sounds good, how about Mommsen? His name is being thown around a lot here, is his History of Rome any good today or does Cornell and Forsythe cover him?

I don’t know. I think it is difficult to try and gauge purchasing power in the ancient world. Metal was extremely rare and expensive compared to today, for instance. I would be inclined to think that the Romans set the wealth bar as low as possible in order to get as many people eligible for service as they could.

Hehe, this was the position that I had when I started the Bronze or Brass thread. I could not understand how so many early legionaries could be:

1.Armoured and equipped with so many metal objects.

2.Use Brass or Bronze instead of Iron.

I was simply told that the price difference between Iron and bronze were probably not a major issue and that metal prices were not so high as "we" think. Mining industry seems to have been advanced already in classic Greece.
A full suit of armour is implied to have cost 300 Drachmae(considered very expensive! Maybe a fine, ornate set?) in 4th century Thasos (J.pouilloux - Recherches sur l'histoire et les cultes de Thasos, 144, pp. 371-80). Using ancient coins prices to evaluate the prize of Bronze in 5th century Athens gave an estimate of 65 Drachmae per talent or 2-6 Drachmae per kg. A Hoplite is estimated to make 1 Drachma a day in fith century Athens. Minimum recruitment limit for a roman legionary(~500BC-200BC) - 1100 Drachmae. A Roman legionary also had pay at least from 400 BC.

I have no idea what Romans valued in life, but as a living being one's own life is generally highly valued. Having property worth 1100 Drachmae it seems reasonable(again what do I know..) for someone to be willing to give this guy a loan of perhaps 200 Drachmae(for a simple but full hoplite suit) against his salary instalments plus property as security - and this is assuming the legionary in question does not have any cash or valuables(worst case scenario) or did not get any state support(which I find harder and harder to believe the more I read about the military system of the early republic).

[Epictetus]

Sounds good, how about Mommsen? His name is being thown around a lot here, is his History of Rome any good today or does Cornell and Forsythe cover him?

Oh, no way. Mommsen covers the spectrum. Cornell and Forsythe frequently mention Mommsen.

When it comes to Roman historians there are:
1) Gibbons and Mommsen
2) everyone else
:wink:

However, more recent writers like Cornell have much more information (especially archeology) that Mommsen never dreamed of. They are also a bit more to the point and are more interested in addressing currently debated topics. So they are simply more up-to-date.

Also, most recent writers seem to be a bit more specialised. Cornell and Forsyth are specialised in time frames, others in subjects, like militiary history. When you start Mommsen, it is like he assumes you know nothing, so he tells everything. (Literally everything: like where Rome is.) He was a specialist in everything, although I would probably guess that the law was his prime interest.

Interesting points you bring about prices. I haven't studied this, so was just going by general assumptions.

[Jesper D]

Have anyone checked out the abridged Mommsen book? What is that about?

[Thersites]

See my [urll1eru31]http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus/Arms%20control%20in%20Antiquity.pdf[/url] Chapter 5 for Republican Rome. In Spanish, though.