Posts: 64
Threads: 22
Joined: May 2014
Reputation:
2
Quote: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.
The most examples he quoted, are examples from time of an emergency.
It makes sense, that the population, that is not supposed to do service in the legions , gets armed in a time of an emergency, when the city is at danger.
besides that, we cant trust what Livius writes to 100% and need be critical, because he is not a primary source.
Daniel
Max wrote:
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.
How about showing some proof to support your claims? Your comments indicate to me you are just repeating material that you have read, but have not undertaken your own investigation of the material that you have read. You are placing too much faith in the words of others.
Max wrote:
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
That doesn’t give someone a license to make unsubstantiated claims.
Max wrote:
I quoted I scientific work, which is based also on ancient sources. So don't really see the point.
Then you are not aware of how academia works. Connell fails to adequately address ancient sources that contradict his theory, such as those I have provided. Connell has purposely done this to protect his theory. I have in my collection a (scientific work) that claims Connell “does not pay sufficient attention to two fundamental distinctions: that between the literary and the historical value of annalistic historiography and that between its value as a source for the history of archaic Rome and its value as a source for traditions and beliefs valid in the late Republic.”
Posts: 64
Threads: 22
Joined: May 2014
Reputation:
2
That doesn’t give someone a license to make unsubstantiated claims.
Quote:How about showing some proof to support your claims? Your comments indicate to me you are just repeating material that you have read, but have not undertaken your own investigation of the material that you have read. You are placing too much faith in the words of others.
If you believe that everything what Livius writes is true and I need to show you proof here of it, than it doesnt makes sense to continue our discussion. I dont have time to go through all books and give you here quote and examples.
I think most of the user here will agree that sources like Livius are not always right.
Quote:Connell fails to adequately address ancient sources that contradict his theory, such as those I have provided. Connell has purposely done this to protect his theory. I have in my collection a (scientific work) that claims Connell “does not pay sufficient attention to two fundamental distinctions: that between the literary and the historical value of annalistic historiography and that between its value as a source for the history of archaic Rome and its value as a source for traditions and beliefs valid in the late Republic.”
You, who is aware how academia works and also says , and follow the principle, please give me a concrete example and not general formulations.
Anyways, I am not interested in arguing with you, since its not the topic of the thread.
I am here to hear some interesting theories and get new information, beyond the classical sources.
back to topic: Are there any scientific/academic work which describe in detail the triarii?
Daniel
Posts: 1,973
Threads: 40
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
101
Quote:Connell “does not pay sufficient attention to two fundamental distinctions: that between the literary and the historical value of annalistic historiography and that between its value as a source for the history of archaic Rome and its value as a source for traditions and beliefs valid in the late Republic.”
I find this statement rather confusing. Are the distinctions:
(1) the literary and the historical value of annalistic historiography; and
(2) its value as a source for the history of archaic Rome etc.?
Or are they:
(1) the literary; and
(2) the historical value etc.?
In the latter case, the historical value seems to break down further into its value as:
(1) a source for the history of archaic Rome; and
(2) what the late Republic believed to be the history of archaic Rome.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Max wrote:
If you believe that everything what Livius writes is true and I need to show you proof here of it, than it doesnt makes sense to continue our discussion. I dont have time to go through all books and give you here quote and examples.
Well I make it a point to support my claims. Others on this list also go to pains to support their claims by providing source material instead of just making broad generalisations.
Max wrote:
Anyways, I am not interested in arguing with you,
I understand, you are a little out of your depth.
Renatus,
I'll send you the whole work.
Posts: 672
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
3
The Romans were always sensitive about arms (weapons) in the hands of citizens. People in towns and cities were not usually allowed to bear arms - rioters armed with spears and swords would be far more dangerous than those armed with staves and knives. A parallel can be seen in Tudor England where arms were usually kept in Parish churches, to be issued to militia (Trained Bands) for training and in time of emergency. There may well have been a different system for arms storage and issue than that for defensive equipment (armour) in early Rome.
Before anyone cries out "Where are your primary sources for this?" I'm a scientist and I am quite happy to deal in theories, if definitive proof is absent.
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Max wrote:
Are there any scientific/academic work which describe in detail the triarii?
You can try “The Principes and the So-called Camillan Reforms M. C. J. Miller Ancient World, Vol. XXIII. 2, pg. 59-70, (1992).
Martin wrote:
Before anyone cries out "Where are your primary sources for this?" I'm a scientist and I am quite happy to deal in theories, if definitive proof is absent.
In the matter of the troops being armed by the state or not, there is no evidence of the troops being required to provide their own equipment, yet this myth still continues to be circulated one book after another because too many academics copy the theories of another academic without first scrutinising the validity of such claims.
In 406 BC, the people’s tribunes objected to the proposal of the soldiers serving during winter and summer on the basis the soldier’s pay was a loan with interest, because the men would be away on campaign for longer than six months, it would cost the soldiers more to repay the war tax than the amount of money the state was paying each individual soldiers. (Livy 5 10)
If the war tax is not about the soldier’s equipment, then what is it about? Are those who believe the Roman soldier went to war with their own equipment in defence of their state believe they are being taxed for the privilege? So what are the troops being taxed for? Food and lodgings while on campaign. I hardly think so. Regardless of the evidence showing the state supplied the equipment, which are not all related to emergencies, they will continue to be ignored and the myth of the soldier’s supplying their own equipment will continue to be believed as an ingrained and deep rooted truth.
Posts: 672
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
3
"In 406 BC, the people’s tribunes objected to the proposal of the soldiers serving during winter and summer on the basis the soldier’s pay was a loan with interest, because the men would be away on campaign for longer than six months, it would cost the soldiers more to repay the war tax than the amount of money the state was paying each individual soldiers. (Livy 5 10)"
Please forgive me, but I cannot make sense of this paragraph.
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:"In 406 BC, the people’s tribunes objected to the proposal of the soldiers serving during winter and summer on the basis the soldier’s pay was a loan with interest, because the men would be away on campaign for longer than six months, it would cost the soldiers more to repay the war tax than the amount of money the state was paying each individual soldiers. (Livy 5 10)"
Please forgive me, but I cannot make sense of this paragraph.
Perseus has a better translation.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...99.02.0026
"And now, to crown all, they even had to pay a war-tax, so that when they returned, worn out by toil and wounds, and last of all by age, and found all their land untilled through want of the owner's care, they had to meet this demand out of their wasted property and return to the State their pay as soldiers many times over, as though they had borrowed it on usury."
These kinds of discussions can't really go anywhere unless one is using the original text. Relying on translations leaves too much room for misconceptions and inaccuracies. Not only do we have to decide on the veracity of the original author but we also have to deal with possible obfuscations by the translator. I, like Max, have a scientific background and find it offensive when the sources are deliberately mistreated to support a preconceived idea.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:If the war tax is not about the soldier’s equipment, then what is it about?
Using your own source, Livy specifically says that the war tax was raised to meet the expected increase in the cost of soldier's pay and seems to suggest that this pay was compensation for men being away from their fields and businesses. He makes no mention of equipment. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the triarii or any other group in the Roman army at this time didn't have to provide their own equipment. It seems to have been standard practice pretty much everywhere in Italy at the time. The horse provided to the equites seems to have been the exception.
Posts: 64
Threads: 22
Joined: May 2014
Reputation:
2
Quote:You can try “The Principes and the So-called Camillan Reforms M. C. J. Miller Ancient World, Vol. XXIII. 2, pg. 59-70, (1992).
Thank a lot, will read it!
Quote: It seems to have been standard practice pretty much everywhere in Italy at the time.
I agree, the same in Greek city states.
I think at some point it changed and probably before the reforms of Marius, but in the early republic it must have been that every citizen provided his own armor.
As I said in the beginning, there are not really signs of mass production of armor in this time. A lot of helmets and armor are decorated. If it would be provided by state, it would have lower quality and no decorations.
Also the state would need a lot of resources to produce and equip everybody with armor.
Regarding weapons: It is well know that roman citizen used to exercise on the mars field in armor and weapons.
So I doubt that they would go every time to the armory and take the weapons and bring it back.
Unfortunately we cant rely only on roman historians, as they goal wasn't to be objective, but to glorify roman history.
Daniel
Dan wrote:
Using your own source, Livy specifically says that the war tax was raised to meet the expected increase in the cost of soldier's pay and seems to suggest that this pay was compensation for men being away from their fields and businesses.
The subject of the soldiers being paid is more contentious than most believe. It is generally believed that the year 406 BC was when pay was first introduced for soldiers on campaign. I don’t know how it came about, but again it appears to be the work of a sloppy academic, and taken up by more sloppy academics. There are references to the soldiers receiving pay going back to 486 BC. Money then was taken from the public treasury, and when they defeated their opponent, the Romans made their enemy hand over money equivalent to six months of wages for the soldiers. However, as my sources are Dionysius and Livy, and as Max has told us “we can’t rely on Roman historians as they goal wasn't to be objective, but to glorify roman history,” then it is pointless for me to elaborate on the money issue, and therefore I bow to Max’s superior insights.
Dan wrote:
He makes no mention of equipment.
I didn’t say he did.
Dan wrote:
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the triarii or any other group in the Roman army at this time didn't have to provide their own equipment.
If as some believe a citizen had to provide their own equipment, then where is the evidence? I have provided sufficient evidence of the state supplying the equipment.
Dan wrote:
It seems to have been standard practice pretty much everywhere in Italy at the time.
Again, this is your assumption. Are assumptions which are based on terms such as “seems to” now considered evidence?
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:The subject of the soldiers being paid is more contentious than most believe. It is generally believed that the year 406 BC was when pay was first introduced for soldiers on campaign.
As you say, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that soldiers were being paid long before this. Livy says that EXTRA funds needed to be raised in 406 through a war levy because of the unusually high numbers of soldiers that were being deployed. The pay was compensation for not being home to run farms and businesses. It can't be for equipment. If you didn't meet minimum wealth and equipment standards beforehand then you couldn't fight. We would need evidence that these conditions were relaxed for some reason on this occasion. Keep in mind that, during the time in question, it would have taken the wealth of an entire extended family to field one bronze-armoured hoplite or triarii. No amount of soldier's pay would be sufficient for this expense.
Posts: 819
Threads: 64
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
9
FWIK, and I'm hardly a historiography expert, but from reading Livy it seems his writing is very anachronistic. Livy's works stemmed from the time of the Principate, when Rome was being governed by Augustus and things had been quite standardized militarily and civilly as compared to Rome's earlier history, when Rome's military was barely differentiated from a war band society (See "A Dedication to Mars: The Lapis Satricanus", Michael J. Taylor, AW Mag. article IV.1). Livy's own sources for the early history of Rome would have been quite bare, leaving much to guess work and creative license, as Romans didn't truly start recording their history until the 3rd century BC, from my understanding. If true, its not surprising that Livy would use many anachronistic concepts, like:
- Coinage, in the form of net worth figures for class distinctions involving the Servian Constitution, early 6th century BC. Most historians believe Romans didn't start coining bronze asses until the late 3rd century BC. (Livy 1.43)
- Cohorts (cohor) as a Roman citizen military unit type, used in the late 6th century BC (Livy 2.20)
- A Roman using a Gladius Hispaniensis (Spanish sword) in the mid 4th century BC, before central Italy had even been secured, let alone expanding into Hispania. (Livy 7.10)
Considering that during the time period Livy was writing, military equipment was for the most part issued out to newly enlisting soldiers and that a government bureaucracy was beginning to emerge (as compared to what existed in the 6th-4th centuries BC), I'm not surprised the "modern" concepts known to Livy ended up in his histories, especially during the "fuzzier" early years nearly untouched until he wrote it down. We do the same thing now, using modern military concepts to help better understand and explain Roman history. Absolute historical accuracy wasn't possible or desired, in my opinion. This isn't to mean that Livy can't be trusted, just that caution should be used in taking everything at face value, especially for anything relating to the 3rd Cent. BC and before.
From a realistic point of view, certain equipment would had to have been provided by the state, such as perishable equipment, like shields (roughly one campaign season life span before repairs or replacement, according to experimental archaeology), or pila shanks and shafts bending/breaking, etc., as well as section equipment, such as entrenching tools. Though all of this is cheap compared to the big costs of war, same as now, personnel salaries and logistical provisions. Which could easily explain the war tax, especially since Livy already states that most of the war tax went to stipends.
|
