Why were the Triarii differently equipped?

[Corvus]

I also think its a mistake to put wealth and experience together.
I think in the polybian legions it was experience that decided in what type of infantry a person served.
The division into infantry classes by wealth is from an earlier system.

[Urselius]

It seems to have been age related - on average the older soldiers would have had more experience in war, and on average an older man would have been more wealthy than a younger man.

[JaM]

that might be the case in modern times, but ancient times are different. Humans aged faster. 20 years old men was at top of his physical strength, he had best stamina he could have. once you are older and older, you are going down, and amount of training is just making difference smaller, but it doesn't disappear, even today.. Hastati were used as first line of attack because they were young, therefore could tire down enemy without being tired as fast themselves. Once they were withdrawn, Principes attacked already tired enemy and would decide the fight (most likely locally, not on the whole line)

[JaM]

nope. not true. If you are member of wealthier family, you will have much better equipment than some old guy from lower class family... age makes no difference, their society was not based on age like that.. there were wealthy and poor, so even young sons from rich families could run around in Mail, while 40-45 years old Triarii could run around with nothing but just a tunic or a pectorale.

[Timus]

nope. not true. If you are member of wealthier family, you will have much better equipment than some old guy from lower class family... age makes no difference, their society was not based on age like that.. there were wealthy and poor, so even young sons from rich families could run around in Mail, while 40-45 years old Triarii could run around with nothing but just a tunic or a pectorale.

My understanding is that one couldn't be a triarius if one did not meet the wealth requirement and we could assume that because of that Triarii were expected to show up with a full panoply.
The question then would be, what happen if one is a 40 year old roman citizen that doesn't (or no longer) own 10 000 drachme. Does he serve with one of the other class ? Does he stay home ? ... ?

[Urselius]

Yes, true. I emphasised "average" because it is important. A 40 year old man is far more likely to have inherited wealth from a dead father than a 19 year old youth. Therefore, the average 40 year old is likely to be wealthier than the average 19 year old. Of course there would be exceptions, that is what statistical theory tells us.

[JaM]

i think that depends on society from which you take that average men. Imagine today, only citizens who's wealth is above certain level would be accredited to enter army. it would depend on that wealth level, how well equipped that army would be (assuming they would need to buy own equipment as Romans had to) Well suited families (especially those with wealth over 10.000 drachmae) would be capable providing high quality equipment to all its members, as their survival would be the most important thing - another example (not sure if I already mentioned here) - during current crisis in Ukraine, government doesn't have enough of money to buy ballistic vests to all soldiers. Instead, they buy their own. Normal vest costs around 1500euros, while average monthly pay at Ukraine is around 300 euros, which mean majority of people cannot buy it on their own, so they go and sell their cars, flats or any possible wealth, just to buy a ballistic vest for their son, to give him a chance to survive in war.. ultimately, his life is more precious to them than money..(btw, those who cannot buy it, are using any other form of protection, they for example are buying hardened steel plates cut off from military vehicles and use them as addon armor..) I think same behavior would apply in ancient times as well. If your family has money, they would buy appropriate protection to all its members going into war, just because you are youngest, it doesn't mean they would give you worse armor, some would do the exactly the opposite, and father would give his armor to his youngest, who would be serving in first line.. (as a father, you really want to protect your kids..)

All this social background needs to be taken into consideration...

[antiochus]

Many of the comments made in this thread indicate most of those that have posted on this thread read modern works on the Roman army and are not aware of what the primary sources are actually stating.

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 the men supplied their own equipment is contrary to the information found in the primary sources. Dionysius (3 57) 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.” Again relating an incident attributed to Tarquinius Superbus, Dionysius (4 50) 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.”

The important point here is Tarquinius Superbus, worried about a coup ďétat, 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.” (Dionysius 5 44) 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.” (Dionysius 8 16) In 477 BC, the Romans: “armed the youth that were in the city.” (Dionysius 9 18) In 450 BC, the consuls “Appius and Spurius supplied their colleagues with arms, money, corn and everything else of which they stood in need.” (Dionysius 11 24)

Livy is also forthcoming with references of state issued armament. For the year 463 BC, Livy (3 7), (3 10) writes that “Quintus Fabius was in command of the city; all men of military age were, by his instructions, armed.” In 460 BC, “the consuls were in a dilemma: to arm the people and not to arm them...they did finally distribute arms, though on a limited scale.” (Livy 3 14) If the soldiers are supposed to supply their own arms, then why are the consuls in a dilemma about arming the people? In 460 BC, “troops were enrolled and arms issued.” (Livy 3 18) Again in 460 BC, “Valerius armed the people for the recovery of the Capitol.” (Livy 3 20) In 449 BC, the senate decreed a supply of arms to be sent to the defeated army at Tusculum so as to replace those weapons that had been lost. (Livy 3 42) 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 happen to notice the conspirators were secretly stockpiling arms in Maelius’ house. (Livy 4 13) Had the conspirators possessed their own arms as modern scholars hold, there would have been no need to conceal the weapons. The conspirators 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 (Attic Nights 16 10 12) and Valerius Maximus (2 3)mention the distribution of “public 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 supplied 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. According to Dionysius (4 19-20), 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 hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating.”

Dionysius (7 59) further elaborates that the poorest citizen who voted last with one century (the capite censi) “were exempt from the military levies and from the war-taxes paid by the rest of the citizens.” This indicates Classes I to V was required to pay the war tax. In support of the war tax involving payment for the military equipment issued by the state, for the year 508 BC, Dionysius (5 47 1) writes that:

“This booty having been sold at public auction, all the citizens received back the amount of the contributions which they had severally paid for the equipment of the expedition.”

Because the state manufactured and controlled the distribution of the armaments, in order to keep cost reasonable, the equipment would have been simple and inexpensive in design.

As my posting will not change the opinion of anyone, could someone at least give me a thank you for wasting my time.

[Walhaz]

I actually agree. While I understand the idea of the soldiers of small communities arming themselves at their own expense, I think that at a certain size of city or community the idea of everyone showing up with their own weapons and armor becomes untenable. My understanding is that even in some of the Greek city-states they gave up the notion of hoplites providing their own gear and just armed everyone from the city arsenals. Really, if everyone is paying a war-tax then it amounts to the same thing.

[Corvus]

Because the state manufactured and controlled the distribution of the armaments, in order to keep cost reasonable, the equipment would have been simple and inexpensive in design.

This is not true, there are a lot of examples of helmets with decorations and also of armor.
I dont think the citizen got supplied with their own equipment in early republic and later on. But I do believe that the change came before the reforms of Marius, maybe at the time of Grachus.

But I dont think that at any time the division into classes was of military purpose. It was more a political one, as writen in T. J Cornells book "The beginnings of Rome" :

It is extremely unlikely that the division of the people into graded property classes had a military purpose. It is true that Livy and Dionysius give the various classes distinct types of armour and weapons, but this looks highly artificial; the idea, for example, that classes II and III were formed in order to differentiate between men who could afford greaves and those who could not, is patently absurd. This is not to say that the heavy infantry were all armed exactly alike; it is inevitable that there would be individual differences between soldiers who provided their own equipment. It is less likely, however, that in the context of hoplite warfare there would be separate infantry units bearing different kinds of equipment

But I think that in the manipular legion, it was like said here before depending on Age where a citizen served.
Because think of it, what would happen to people who are hostati, are in the age to be principes, but cant afford the armor to move to the other group? That doesn't make sense and such case is mentioned nowhere in the works of Livius or other authors.
Maybe in the pre manipular legion the division who served where, was done by who can afford what armor, but that must have changed when the manipular legion was introduced

[antiochus]

Magister Populi wrote:
It was more a political one, as writen in T. J Cornells book "The beginnings of Rome" :

Citing Cornell is not proof of anything. Your opinions are not proof of anything, just your opinion. Most of this thread has been just people’s opinion. Also the rules require you to display your real name.

[Urselius]

It was not necessarily an either/or situation. States could, and often did keep arsenals of weapons and armour, often centrally stored, and expect most of the soldiery to provide their own equipment. We know this is true of the Komnenian period Byzantine army. Soldiers were expected to equip themselves out of their pay and/or grants of taxes from imperial land (pronoia), however, in a crisis the emperor Manuel I is recorded as issuing mailcoats to soldiers from an arsenal in Constantinople.

[Corvus]

Magister Populi wrote:
It was more a political one, as writen in T. J Cornells book "The beginnings of Rome" :

Citing Cornell is not proof of anything. Your opinions are not proof of anything, just your opinion. Most of this thread has been just people’s opinion. Also the rules require you to display your real name.

Well, and you can be more nice mate :grin:
Also quoting Livius and Dionysius like you did is not proof if we follow your logic and its proven that not everything what Livius and other ancient authors write about this period is 100% authentic. So whats the point what you said?
Yes its a discussion and we wont find out the truth, unless archaeologists don't uncover something connected to it, or somebody builds a time machine

I quoted I scientific work, which is based also on ancient sources. So don't really see the point.

[Corvus]

It was not necessarily an either/or situation. States could, and often did keep arsenals of weapons and armour, often centrally stored, and expect most of the soldiery to provide their own equipment. We know this is true of the Komnenian period Byzantine army. Soldiers were expected to equip themselves out of their pay and/or grants of taxes from imperial land (pronoia), however, in a crisis the emperor Manuel I is recorded as issuing mailcoats to soldiers from an arsenal in Constantinople.

I agree with you.
In emergency's the state could provide the soldiers with armor, but its more an exception.
Like after Cannae, when new legions were raised.

[Renatus]

Steven has cited the evidence that he believes supports his case. Now I think it only reasonable to ask that those who take the contrary view cite the evidence that supports theirs.