caldrail

Its an interesting idea, but there's no reason to suppose the armies of the early and mid republic trained as a matter of course. There's no doubt that some training did occur. marius did not really introduce anything new in his reforms - what he did was formalise and standardise what was already going on on an ad hoc basis in legions already. Thats the important point. Training was not standardised before Marius, that it was done informally and only if the commander thought it desirable. Its easy to fall back on what we know and assume that training is as necessary for soldiering as it is today - well, strictly speaking it is - but back then fighting wasn't unusual, it was part of roman culture and had been right from the start. Whereas today recruits are given intensive training not only to learn and practice military skills until its second nature, but also to change the mindset of the recruit into someone who will perform willingly as a soldier as opposed to the reluctant civilian. For the romans, this change of mindset was hardly necessary. Arguably, the usage of weapons required training as much as today, and again I would agree it would have been desirable, yet the use of weapons wasn't something so alien back then, and remember today the average person rarely becomes familiar with military hardware or its effects. Also the idea of a citizens army is something that assumes the average citizen is a potential warrior. Apart from the amateurism that this naturally entails, you really shouldn't ignore the aggressive nature of mediterranean culture. I'm curious about these legiones urbana. Since under etruscan tradition each city would raise its own forces as an independent defensive army, something the romans adopted themselves, are these leghiones additional troops or the 'army of Rome' itself?

Could? Surely imperium was the right to command rather than the actual circumstance of doing so, which was dependent on circumstance. The praetor had the right to command an army limited to one legion. The two Consuls of Rome, were each allowed an army of two legions. The romans however levied men as required. Whilst traditionally the consular 'army of four legions' was enacted every year, they were only called upon to assemble in times of hostility. No, the number of legions did vary sometimes. The Third Macedonian War for instance required more legions, and the Punic Wars involved drafting men to replace battle losses. I'm not sure the militia urbana (if that actually existed in the early/mid republic) could be described as a legion. The urban cohorts of imperial times weren't considered so. The citizen army spent very little time training, and this amateur status of roman soldiering was no different to any other hoplte army of the time. Fixed training schedules came in with the reforms of Marius. It is true that armies were trained on occaision and for specific reasons rather than as a general policy, so for instance we see a spartan mercenary training the carthaginian defenders to fend off roman attack at the last moment, not at the onset of campaigning. The servian legions were levied in March and dissolved in October. If they had trained for a few months, what about their enemy? Are they going to wait patiently for the romans to finish drilling?

Why go to all that effort? No-one can find their way around town anyhow...

Difficult to compare insurance. So much depends on your driving record and the risk assesment of the vehicle you want to drive. I didn't realise petrol (sorry, gasoline ) was that expensive in the US.

The news is full of our local elections. It seems the media has smelled blood, and have joyfully reported the embarrasement of our prime minister. The headlines are coming thick and fast as Labour returns its worst result for forty years. Gordon Brown of course says his party needs to listen and then they can move forward. Listen by all means GB, but people are starting to vote with their... erm... vote. In Zimbabwe Mugabe has lost the vote, but not the war. After twenty eight years in power, he retained enough votes to call for a rerun of the election. And I suspect he'll keep on until everyone votes him back in whether they have a gun pointed at them or not. Thankfully, Ken Livingstone is not so determined to continue as Lord Mayor of London and it seems Boris Johnson, the colourful character for whom no public cock-up is too embarrasing, will walk away with the title. Its about time. At least BJ knows he's a comedian. Traffic Diversion Of the Week On saturday night traffic on the M4 motorway (the main highway west from London to Wales) will be diverted through Swindon town center. Well... I know the local authorities want more visitors to our fair town, but doesn't diverting traffic seem a bit desperate? So tonight Swindon town center will be full of irate and confused drivers trying to negotiate our road junctions in a vain bid to find the right exit back to the motorway. At least the Man Who Headbutts Cars will be busy.... Celebrity Update of the Week Melinda Messenger, our very own local blonde bombshell, is to split with hubby Wayne Roberts. Wow. Where else can you get news like this, hard hitting stories about people that matter?... Huh?... What do you mean you've never heard of her?.... She's a celebrity for crying out loud, and for those who genuinely want to show sympathy for her, her entire range of paper towels is now available by mail order...

Then again, I doubt the americans are paying nearly

Absolutely not. There is no evolution between the roman legion and modern organisation. The ancient romans based their organisation on the formalisation of the warband, whose loyalty was directly to a leader (although the citizen army did attempt, as did the republic generally, to forestall personal ambition by sharing command). The modern regimental system evolved from the 1600's and owes its loyalty to the unit or nation state. There is no direct connection between roman practice and our own. The classic roman legion as we know it had almost ceased to exist by the late roman empire except in a reduced form, and in any case the romans were increasingly reliant on foreigners for their defence without any roman organisation. Thats the first time I've heard that in thirty years of wargaming, and the current symbols we use were drawn up by nato strategists and bear no connection to legionary practice. Can you supply any documentary evidence for the literary use of roman unit symbology? I really would be interested. By studying its command structure, its methodology, and understanding the roman military as an entity unrelated to the modern day in that respect. The laws of chemistry are exactly what they've always been. Its our understanding thats changed, and using medieval logic to understand another way of organising soldiers is not going to help.

In Britain BMW is trying to portray itself as the choice car of professionals, whilst half of those on the road are actually driven by out-of-work young afro carribeans. Currently, BMW outsell the Ford Mondeo, which is about as ordinary as a family car can get. Therefore the sales campaign is to win back the class they lost back in the 80's.

Although heat conduction would have caused adjacent buildings to catch fire spontaneously, the fire spread faster along open streets that naturally tended to capture wind. This means the fire might spread in direction not aligned with the prevailing wind direction. tacitus reported that those men attempting to fight the fire were attacked and forced back, and others seen spreading the fire were claiming to be acting on orders. The main suspects are.... 1 - Nero, acting against senatorial rivals by ensuring their homes (and thus their places of political business) were destroyed, also because it meant he had an opportunity to rebuild Rome as his own personal city, Neropolis. Notice Nero wasn't present when the fire started and he made very visible efforts to co-ordinate the relief effort. 2 - Christian Activists, since Nero and the city of Rome were deeply loathed by christians of the period for their decadence. The Book of Revelations in the bible dates from this time and clearly states the resentment felt by judaean exiles. 3 - Opportunists - who sought to profit from land exchanges by some advantageous land clearance 4 - Political rivals, who decided that a disaster would end Nero's career and notice that the fire restarted on the estate of Tigellinus, Nero's advisor. 5 - Bad luck, in that another fire in the tinder-dry city of Rome got out of hand and that the current weather assisted the spread of flames. Cyclones are natural air movements that you find everywhere in the world. There's one pushing over Britain as I write this. Sometimes it has strong winds associated with it if the pressure gradient is high, but not always.

But Colonel Dodge was a military man who instinctively attempted to describe the roman legions in terms he understood. Regarding the roman classes of the servian era, although these classes existed in the voting assemblies at the time the record was written, the various allotted equipment was very different from that issued to roman soldiers of the day, and since sculptural displays were all the evidence to go by, the writer used that to construct what he thought was the allocation. The reality of hoplite warfare is that you fight with what you brought with you. Although in general this means your wealth dictates who well you're equipped, thats not a binding factor, and if you glance through the definitions of roman hoplite equipment described, are you really suggesting the romans bothered themselves with such defined distinctions? Of course they didn't, the hoplite army was a citizen force who turned up to fight with anything they had. The romans had long experience of war and I really can't see them ignoring practicality, especially since the whole point of the citizen army was to put aside social differences for the common good. The later writer was piecing it all together and made assupmtions that the various classes were visually seperated - as indeed was the case in his own time.

Warfare is never a sure thing. Inferior armies have sometimes won out by better leadership or strategy. A lot depends on circumstance and who was the sneakier, since ancient battles were sometimes decided where and when the forces met. Now operhaps Stilicho has an advantage here? Caesar, for all his leadership qualities, was careless on campaign, and against a worthy adversary could have have been suckered into a trap. On the other hand, you might argue that he would turn it around on the field. Its impossible to say, though I suspect Caesars legion was more effective as a fighting force.

There is a very deep problem is describing another world in terms of your own. Thats how people used to think in the middle ages. By using modern terminology and function in describing something much older and different, you aren't really making it understandable at all. The roman armed forces were organised differently from ours and for that reason need to be studies as they were.

Yep. Can you guess why?

British politeness is a funny thing. I'm not known for being polite, yet people who use more direct language than me are. Its very much in the eye of the beholder isn't it? The real reason I'm not considered a polite person (besides my natural bluntness) is that I don't quite fit the expected ettiquete and protocol for the social group I happen to be with. Even the yobboes and grunts who swear like troopers and behave like animals can be considered polite because in an intuitive way they give deference (or at least enough of it) to their social seniors. I on the other hand have more anarchastic leanings and to me a 'man in a suit' is probably a con artist or a complete idiot, not the 'man in charge' that the yobboes see. So the man in the suit talks to me and is quietly astonished or upset that I don't visibly recognise his superiority, thus I'm not polite and the yobbo is. Men in suits like BMW's and Mercedes - they're considered suitable cars for a 'man in charge', whereas to me they're hoplessly boring luxury saloons I wouldn't buy if a gun was held to my head - and indeed, my love of sports cars has seen me lose more than one career for that very reason - that stupid human love of status symbols. You might argue the sports car is also a such a symbol. I wouldn't, although I do agree the sports car is often a genital extender, but again for me my choice of car is about my own personal enjoyment, the driving experience, not what it means to people I pass on the street or leave behind in my rear view mirror. Its just a cross I have to bear

Nonsense. During most of republican history (i.e., with the exception of the very early republic), consuls were elected by the Comitia Centuriata, not by the senate. Thats perfectly fine with me. Please take it up with the author concerned. I think that the reason modern commentators try to equate ranks, is to compare the size, and perhaps the purpose of a unit. No it isn't. The modern system is well known to us, very familiar, and therefore warm and comfortable. The roman system is different and requires some consideration, its unfamiliar to us. The modern system is built on the regimental system, the roman system is based on the warband. The fact two formations two thousand years apart have roughly the same size is neither here nor there. A modern regiment is approximately the size of a legion, thus a colonel. The colonel is a modern rank with a defined role. He is the commander of a regiment. The romans didn't use the regimental system (though I admit they came very close to one) and therefore the legionary commander was not a colonel. The modern colonel does not timeshare his command with his peers as happened in early and mid republican Rome. Was a decurio a sergeant or a lieutenant? No, he was a decurio. A sergeant is a rank derived from medieval horsemen of lowly status, it has no connection with legionary organisation, nor does his authority, status, and responsibility equate to the sergeant. Save for such as Caesar and Patton, (on occasion), generals do not lead from the front lines. The roman tradition is that they did - now bear with me on this. In the original roman society, before the eternal city was actually founded, men led warbands on raids or very rare battles. This tradition led to roman civic leaders taking command of their military. Thus we see consuls, elected politicians, given authority by virtue of their job to command two legions. Praetors, being lesser magistrates, were only allowed to command one. Now as armies grow larger and more sophisticated, it becomes necessary to hang back and command from a position where visibility and communication are expected to be at their best. You might argue generals don't like getting involved in the sharp end, but this simply isn't so in roman times. The great majority of roman generals (I shouldn't really use that word ) were willing to fight if it became necessary - that was the roman way - that personal courage was an example to your lessers, a hangover from the warband of older times. However, the roman status system also meant that these commanders wouldn't usually fight alongside the men because they were not common soldiers. If a local unit is/was hard pressed, an adjacent unit, if it is/was able to, could try to ameliorate affairs on its own initiative. This was the beauty of the roman system - it allowed this initiative and flexibility on the field but it also required an understanding between commanders and subordinate centurions. Cannae is the case in point. It must have been frighteningly obvious to the centurions on the wings of the roman advance that they were going in the deep end - but did they react? No, because there operational orders were to advance as one, to steamroller the carthaginians back into the sea. This is the flip side of the roman system, the disadvantage, in that the commanders set the operational orders before the battle began, and that precise ordering of individual cohorts was difficult. Centuries would not be re-ordered at all.

Agreed, but they aren't ranks are they? They are responsiibilities allocated temporarily. These men were not given control of formations designed to co-ordinate units beneath them, they simply had the authority to control them. Thats the difference.

No, british computers bring up a dialog informing you politely that it wasn't possible to log you on and that you may need to seek further assistance...

Why? Do the Italians have oil?

Its become apparent that many people are struggling to understand the roman system of command and control. Of course you do, so does everyone else, we have only a few scant sources to go by and no-one of the lower ranks has left any record of their experience. The modern military is easy to understand. We have grown up and been educated in an era where the modern system exists, some of us have experience of it in real life, and for us its almost second nature. The romans thought of their own system as second nature too, and although their methodolgies sometimes paralleled our own, it belonged to a different culture and mindset. Sure, we can compare various subdivisions and attempt to equate those with forces we undertstand, but isn't that like trying to understand real life by studying soap operas? The modern regimental system has its origins in the 1600's, and only really developed in sophistication over the last 100 or 200 years to cope with the need to occupy huge swathes of territory and cope with mechanised warfare with heavy weapon and air support beyond visual range. Modern armies are widely dispersed, way beyond the ability of a general to see for himself whats going on, and he relies absolutely on communication from lower strata to know whats going on at all. For the roman general, everything is close at hand. Even if he commands huge numbers of men, its likely he can view directly much of what goes on. Also, the need for soldiers of ancient times to communicate up and down a chain isn't necessary. Such means are not available in most cases, so they act on their own cognisance, based on what they observe and the need to support each other. Units are not dispersed - they are massed together. They cannot radio for artillery or air support - the technology doesn't exist. All their battlefield assets are already in place (although there are cases of allies approaching from another place - such things have always happened in warfare). Comparing a roman legion to a similar size unit in the US Marines is ridiculous. The two are composed of men with different fighting methods and mindset. Consider this... Your unit, a small infantry squad, is ordered to advance along a road to secure a small village. You come under heavy fire. Pinned down, you call your HQ for support. They tell you to hold tight, and within fifteen minutes shells start whistling overhead. Unfortunately this has attracted attention to yourselves, and your squad leader observes enemy AFV's approaching along the road nearby. Your situation is getting out of hand. HQ informs you they have no more support (presumably the enemy is reacting across a broad front elsewhere too) and a fall back is required. However, the general will soon learn via his intelligence officers that an enemy counterattack is in progress. He assigns reserves some miles back, and by tomorrow your brigade will focus its attention on your original target.... You see? its all communication back and forth. The easiest way to beat an enemy is to wreck his command and control. Once you take out the ability of the pyramid to pass mesaages up down and along, the whole organisation crashes into chaos. The romans never really had that problem. Marc Antony was able to control an army of thirty legions, some 150,000 men, plus naval assets anchored along the coast. He had no radio. He had no pyramid structure to pass messages to and fro. What he did was organise the legionary commanders and make them aware of exactly what was required for the next day. Now thats easy to interpret in terms of a pyramid - whats the difference you ask? - but that army of thirty legions was simply a gathering of thirty legions. There was no corps, division, or brigading of those men to enable local command. Antony wanted as much direct control over his legions as he could. Your cohort is ordered to advance - you heard the trumpet call. The centurion calls the order but its expected anyway. The order came from the generals position up there on the hill, and the entire legion - all of its cohorts - advance as one. The village nearby is ignored - it has no military value. A man does not skulk in the shadows, he stands shoulder to shoulder with his friends and fights with courage. The enemy have seen your advance. How could they not see it? Arrows swoop down in great clusters. You use your shield for protection - waht fool wouldn't? - but the advance continues as you step over a handful of dead or wounded legionaries. Does the general observe the enemy archery? Probably, but risk is everything in warfare, and as you approach, the trumpet call for "Charge!" is heard. The centurion raises his sword, calls the order, and you begin to rush forward as the barbarians ready themselves for mortal combat. The next line behind waits ready to rush to support you, but for now, you must fight....

Help me out here. If there weren't a command structure, how could a legion march anywhere, let alone do battle? Who'd tell the rear guard and flankers where to go? ]There was a command structure. There were officers. The Consul/Legate/Tribune with Consular Powers would give the orders, as would the junior officers and centurions, and so forth. You're thinking in modern terms. The modern armies do not concentrate their forces any more than they have to - its dangerous to have too many soldiers in one place and therefore a chain of command is absolutely vital to conduct their business. For the romans, it was the opposite, it was very beneficial to have as many of your troops in one place as possible. This meant it was easier to command directly, and indeed, the romans preferred to do so. After all, the cohort developed for this very reason, to cut the number of lesser ranks. The army commander - a consul or praetor - orders his men where to march and form up. The tribune of the day ensures his legion conforms. Centurions have a part to play in manoevering but remember command was made by trumpet as well, and that was very direct - there was no need to issue orders down a complex pyramid structure. In any case, when the fighting started, the centurion was leading by example at the front right in the thick of it, to inspire his men, and thus was too busy to pass down commands. a legion is almost the same size of brigade. I think my analogy can be salvaged, by comparing the Legion to a Brigade (which RW has already done). Like a Napoleonic Brigade, a Roman Legion is made up of several independant/semi-independant units: Battalions or Cohorts. There's no comparison. So what if a brigade is roughly the same size? They're completely different formations for different era's for different purposes. A brigade exists to provide local control and support. There was no such structure in the roman armies and no requirement for one. Since a brigade exists to control units in a local area, it has no comparison to a legion, a self contained military division, which operates in one place together. NO! the senate have many many consul that run the government, the legions and the province. I missed this gem earlier. Just for you RW, here's some definitions of a consul. Chief roman magistrate during the republican era. Two consuls were elected by the senate every year Imperial Rome Second Edition C J Carella The years two counsul's were the senior elected magistrates of the roman republic, and held comman in important campaigns. Sometimes the senate extended their power after their year in office, in which case they were known as proconsuls. Roman Warfare Adrian Goldsworthy The number of lesser offices changed with time, but Rome always had two serving consuls. Though the office was originally restricted to the patricians, plebian aristocrats later succeeded in having the consulship shared between the two orders, so that there was often one patrician and one plebian consul. Consuls were legislators and generals. Originally they commanded Romes principal armies, but as time went on they tended to remain in Rome and spend their consular year in civil activities, afterwards commanding abroad as procinsuls. Chronicle of the Roman Republic Philip Matyszak

These class descriptions date from a later time - they were 'reverse engineered' by roman writers and must be viewed as suspect. In particular the equipment, which probably wasn't strictkly adhered to and in any case the individual soldier bought what he could afford or obtain, not what the class dictated he could.

Tried to log on to the PC at my local library this morning. Apparently my domain did not exist and therefore I'm a non-entity the computer network doesn't recognise. Hey, I know I'm unemployed but this is a public facility right? The man at the desk assured me it was merely my login card that had expired. He tapped a few keys, smiled, and sent me on my way. Right then, log on... wait.... Oh joy, I'm still a non-entity. So having gone back to the man at the desk I discover there's now a long queue of non-entities struggling to log on, and most of them have jobs. The somewhat flustered gentleman went back to the PC with me to check that I wasn't some klutz who couldn't get his password riight, fending off queries from others sat waiting hopelessly at their PC's. having seen me fail to log in, he then attempted the log in for me (can you imagine how smug he would have looked?) but that failed too. Running out of options, he then logged me in as a guest. Hi. My name is Mr Guest. Can't wait to find out if Caldrail is still a non-entity tomorrow morning.... Accident of the Week Goes to me. Along the main pedestrian shopping area I strolled down to the bank. The sun was out although the ground was still wet from a heavy rainshower a few minutes earlier. There I was minding my own business, threading my way through the disinterested crowd, when.... My foot slipped a little. Whoops, lets regain my balance.. whoops, slipped again, worse this time.... Uh-oh, this doesn't look good... Oh no! I'm falling over! Well I didn't just fall over, I left the ground entirely and dropped to the pavement with quite a thud. A concerned gentleman kindly asked if I was ok and offered to help me up, but that was too much after making such an exhibition of myself. I thanked him and was on my way. I've got quite a bruise on my right knee.

I thought the stuff was running out? Not sure I want to put that to the test.... Oh, come on. One Bear more or less isn't of any consequence in the ontological scheme of things. Doesn't that depend how many bears there are in the first place? And since I'm the one on the receiving end of a somewhat miffed bear with pellet damage to its fur, that I cannot run faster than it, that I cannot climb trees better than it, and that its a great deal bigger and meaner than me, I'm not keen to pick a fight. Rambo was trained to eat raw bears, I wasn't.

There's fifty or more horsemen coming at you fast. The horses are heavy, their hooves are pounding the ground, you can feel the ground vibrate. The riders are screaming for your blood and raise their weapons to strike - its not good for morale I can assure you. Granted its unlikely the charge is actually going to bump into you as such, but these riders can use their weight, height, and mobility to advantage. In roman times, the cavalry was used in a light role, standing off where-ever possible from the infantry and pestering them with spears, making them nervous, keeping them occupied until the enemy infantry arrive, possibly from another direction - and making it very lethal to consider running away. Infantry can survive cavalry attacks if they maintain close order with some means of defence, otherwise the horsemen will start pulling them apart.

The great dangers of reconstructing career patterns primarily from epigraphy are that we impose an artificial order on the evidence or force it to conform to our own preconceptions of what an army should be like. It was no coincidence that the german scholars who pioneered the reconstruction of the roman army's rank structure in the late 19th century created an image of a force that was remarkably similar to the german armies of their own day, especially in the great variety of NCO ranks. Later, british scholars were inclined to see similarities to british arms... ...We need to be both very careful of imposing anachronistic cultural assumptions on the romans and aware that there are many things which our evidence cannot tell us. The Complete Roman Army Adrian Goldsworthy This information applies to the pre-marian legionary levy. The Levy Service in the legions was the right and duty of the Adsidui, the body of citizenry owning property of at least 400 denarii in value and so able to support themselves financially. A census was held every five years, in which the Adsidui were registered in tribes and distributed into five classes according to wealth. The census concluded with a religious ceremony of purification, known as the 'lustration' lustratio. The proletarii, citizens whose property fell below the minim levy for inclusion in the census classes were not normally required to serve in the legions during this period, other then in times of dire emergency. Roman males became eligible for military service during their 17th year, and were only required to perform military service as iuniores, until their 46th year. In times of emergency, such as the mobilisation of 170BC for the Third Macedonian War, the oath could be administered to the seniores up to their 50th year. Normally citizens were required to perform six years of service continuously in the same legion, or sometimes in seperate levies. They could serve as long as 16 years in the infantry, or 10 in the cavalry, and even longer as a volunteer. When an army was levied, the citizens would meet in a dilectus or 'choosing', at which they were allocated to the various legions. Infantry were paid one third of a denarius daily, cavalry a full denarius, and from this deductions were made for food and equipment. The Legion ...Each legion had six tribunes attached to it. Service as a tribune brought great honour, and even ex-consuls would serve as tribunes. Normally the six tribunes would divide themselves into three pairs, each pair taking it in turn to command a legion for two months (the pair may have taken it in turns to command on alternate days). In the imperial period the legion was commanded by a legatus. Polybius does not refer to military legati[/i]; they became incrreasingly common as the 2nd century BC drew on, though still not as legionary commanders...[/i] Republican Roman Army 200-104 BC Nick Sekunda & Angus McBride Further information is available about the somewhat longwinded process of selection for a levy of this period - By this time the Roman army in most years consisted of four legions, divided into two armies, each commanded by a consul. There were twenty four military tribunes, six to each legion... ...Polybius also describes a most elaborate method of appointing military tribunes and selecting the men, which as Parker says, "resembled picking up sides for a game". The four tribunes named first are posted to the first legion, the next three to the second, the following four to the third, and the remaining three to the fourth. After the distribution and posting of officers has been made so that each legion has the same number, those of each legion take their seats in seperate groups, and they draw lots for the tribes, and summon them individually in order of the draw. From each tribe they first select four young men or more or less the same age and build. When these are brought forward the officers of the first legion have the first choice, the second the second choice, those of the tird the next choice, and those of the fourth take the last. Another batch of four is brought forward, and this time the officers of the second legion have the first choice and so on, those of the first being last to choose.... ...By continuing in this way to give each legion the first choice in turn, each gets men of the same quality. The Roman World John Wacher The rigmarole concerned with the levy is astonishing. Each man in the legion, some 4200 men strong (or even 5000 in times of emergency) is brought forward to swear an oath to obey orders. Then the legions are dismissed with orders to present themselves at a certain time and place unarmed, at which point the division between velites, hastatii, principes, and triarii is formalised. Polybius proceeds to describe the system of mobilisation; each consul appoints a seperate meeting place, for he had his own share of the allies and two roman legions. The allies are commanded by officers appointed by the consuls, who are called praefectorii sociorum... The Roman World John Wacher The 'army of four legions' needs to considered in the light of their requirements, not our modern day experience. Whilst there is little comparison between modern times and the post-marian professional army, there is even less for the citizen levy described by Polybius. Firstly, the roman army of this time did not actually exist as a permanent organisation. It was levied every year or at the start of a campaign, and whilst four legions were traditional in this period, this was not a necessarily mandatory.organisation, which might only last for one campaign season of six months anyway. A Praetor for instance would be given command of a single legion as an army commander if smaller forces were needed. Also, significantly, there were several occaisions when the minimum property qualification was reduced deliberately. The size of the armies quoted by Polybius is therefore misleading, because Rome at this time rarely needed anything larger. It was a manifestation of roman conservatism rather than strict ruling. Second, the roman armies described are an evolution of the warband, the 'assembly of armed men', a citizens army as opposed to a professional standing force. Notice how the tribunes share command - no man is held to be permanently in charge- a very republican sentiment. Officers are selected before the men, and none hold their positions permanently - including the consuls, rulers of Rome, who are elected annually. Thirdly, the legatii were not permanent army commanders until the reforms of Augustus, and during the period described by Polybius would appear to have functioned as executive officers of some kind. Fourthly, notice the solemnity and ritual involved in assembling the troops. My own feeling is that the dilectus must have taken at least a minute, possibly more, to select between each group of four candidates. A group of similar men had to be found, ordered forward, and then chosen by the tribunes. Even allowing for the boredom of the event as it wore on, it could easily have taken an entire day from sun-up to sun-down, considering that the cavalry also needed allocating and the extraordinarii too (Those who would fight in the center of the line). There's no mention of refreshment either. Since roman tradition was so important, one wonders if this ritual was a limiting factor on the size of the consular armies and what would happen if time was an issue or if larger forces were desperately needed. Polybius is therefore describing an ideal event, rather than an exact procedure that occured every single time.