Pompieus

It wasn't until 362 BCE or so that the Roman army was split into 2 legions, and not until around 311 that each consul commanded an army of 2 legions plus allies. In 390 the "legio" was the entire levy, perhaps 6000 infantry and 1800 horsemen (?). Livy says the Romans were badly outnumbered and outflanked (v.38)

You're welcome. One sometimes hesitates to make a lengthy reply for fear of seeming pedantic. Check out the sources mentioned. Parker is dated (1928 I believe) but is the classic work, a good grounding and still the best modern work on the distribution of the legions in the first century AD. Keppie is recent and very good on the transition from republic to empire. Brunt can be hard to find sometimes but is the best (only?) source for the army of the republic. Livy, Caesar and Tacitus are the primary sources and along with inscriptions are the basis of all these works.

Several passages in Livy show that republican legions did have numerals but they were not apparently permanent prior the long commands of Pompey and Caesar in the 60's and 50's BC. Before the mid 1st century BC the legions were ceremonially reconstituted each winter and probably re-numbered. No one has proposed a satisfactory explanation of the method for the numbering, but the legions commanded by the consuls of the year were always numbered I - IV and other commanders avoided using these numbers. SO: Flaccus was consul of 125 BC so he commanded either I & III or II & IV. In 105 there were 2 Legions in Africa (they had been fighting Jugurtha since 112), regular garrisons of probably 2 in Spain and 1 in Macedonia. Mallius was consul of 105 so he had either #s I & III or II & IV while the other 2 consular units probably went to Cisalpine Gaul. Servilius had raised his legions as consul the prior year. So if the system (if there even was a system) worked by seniority, the African units were probably V & VI (Sallust doesn't say), and the garrisons of Spain and Macedonia could have been VII, VIII and IX leaving X & XI for Servilius. Or Servilius could have had VII & VIII leaving IX, X, and XI for Spain and Macedonia. However, this is all highly speculative. In 58 BC Caesar took command as proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria with 3 legions, Transapline Gaul was added when it's prospective governor suddenly died with a fourth legion. Caesar's Commentaries don't say which was in the Transalpina, but it was possibly X, with VII, VIII and IX in Cisalpina. In 58 Caesar says he had legions VII, VIII, IX, X, XI and XII in Transapline Gaul and brought the newly raised XIII and XIV from Cisalpina in spring of 57. Threre is no clear evidence of which legions were in Gaul and Germany in riegn of Augustus, and there was much movement of units from Gaul to Spain, Noricum and back. probably V, XVII, XVIII and XIX were there most of the time. In 6 AD the planned campaign to conquer Germany probably involved Tiberius marching from Carnutum in Pannonia with VIII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XX and XXII and Sentius Saturninus from Mainz with XVII, XVIII, XIX, I and V. This campaign was interrupted by the Pannonian revolt. In 14AD Upper Germany was held by V Alaudae & XXI Rapax at Vetera and I Germanica & XX at Colonia Agrippina. Lower Gemany had XIV Gemina & XVI at Moguntiacum and II Augusta at Argentorate(?) and XIII Gemina at Vindonissa. Caligula raise XV and XXII Primigenia Vespasian had in the Upper Province: I Adiutrix, XIV Gemina, VIII Augusta and XI Claudia. The Lower: II Adiutrix, VI Victrix, XIII Gemina, XXI Rapax and X Gemina. II Adiutrix soon left for Britain and XIII Gemina swapped with XXII Primigenia in Pannonia. All this can be found in P.A. Brunt "Italian Manpower", H.M.D. Parker "The Roman Legions" and L Keppie "Making of the Roman Army".

Roman historical writing did not begin until the time of the Punic Wars with Q Fabius Pictor, who wrote in greek. Cato was apparently the first Roman to write a history in latin, in the 160s BC. Both these and other minor contemporary annalists are lost, however. Caesar, Sallust and Livy are the oldest surviving histories in latin.

I've always had trouble believing that an army of 40-45000 could annihilate an army of over 86000. I think Brunt, DeSanctis et al are right in thinking Polybius either misunderstood the Roman term for a legion and its ala of allies, or was exaggerating the disaster for the greater glory of the Scipiones. There was, in fact, an alternate tradition (preserved in Livy (xxii.36)) that there were only four reinforced legions present, rather than eight. Destruction of 30-40000 men in a single day was catastrophe enough...worse than Antietam, almost as bad as Borodino or the first day on the Somme in 1916 from a much smaller population! In "Italian Manpower" (pg 419-420) Brunt estimates that on the eve of Cannae (216) the Romans had mobilized about 90000 men since 218 and had suffered losses of about 25000. Leaving about 65000 men in the field (13 legions). He estimates 15000 citizens lost at Cannae (a low estimate?) and another 9000 lost when 2 legions were destroyed in Gaul in 215. This from a pool of about 230000 qualified citizens. Four new legions (at reduced strength) were raised in 216-215 (not counting the freed slaves recruited by Gracchus) so that, he says, about 108000 men were mobilized between 218 and 215 and about 50000 lost (not counting allies or proletarii). He argues that in 215 the property qualification for legionary service was reduced due to these losses, allowing 5 new legions to be raised in 214 and two in most subsequent years of the war.

On line you could try the old Wm Smith Classical Dictionary (dated but a good grounding) on the "Lacus Curtius" website: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...MIGRA/home.html In print a good place to start is the Oxford Classical Dictionary or Lintott's "Constitutuion of the Roman Republic". All in english I'm afraid...by the way, your english is excellent. Unfortunately we Americans are fairly Philistine about other languages (myself included). We get so little chance to use what we learned in school. There are also some good websites on the Roman calendar on line, discussing the months, Kalends, nones and ides, comitial days, holidays nundae etc.

From around 223BC down to 153BC the elections for consul and praetor generally took place in February-March and the magistrates took office with the new year - on the ides of March. When the start of the consular year was switched to 1 January (153BC) the elections usually took place in December. The elections were left to the last minute because one of the consuls had to return to Rome from his province to conduct them. After Sulla's dictatorship, however, the consuls stayed in Rome during their year of office and the elections were held earlier. As was mentioned above, by Caesar's time they were normally held in July.

Though dated, there is also M I Rostovtzeff's "Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire"

There is a chapter in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. xxviii) which lists the units under the command of the Comes Litoris Saxonici per Brittaniam. It lists one legion, one cohort, four numeri, one militum and two vexillationes of equites (cavalry) and their stations. viz: legio II Augusta - Rutupis cohors I Baetasiorum - Branoduno numerus Fortensium - Othonae numerus Turnacensium - Lemannis numerus Abucorum - Anderidos numerus exploratorum - Portum Adurni militum Tungrecanorum - Dubris equites Dalmatarum Branodunensium - Branduno equites stablesianorum Gariannonensium - Gariannonor The Western part of the Notitia is generally dated around 420

"... the barbarians departed from Rome, and pitched their camps in several places in Tuscany. Almost all the slaves in Rome then fled from the city, and enrolled themselves among the barbarians, to the number of forty thousand." Isn't it possible that many (perhaps most) of the slaves who reinforced Alaric were former followers of Radagaisus who had invaded Italy with a large force and been defeated by Stilicho outside Fiesole in August of 406? Some of his warriors had been drafted into the Roman army after the defeat, but most were sold as slaves in Italy.

A.H.M Jones says in his magisterial Later Roman Empire, p. 1038: "No career officer of German origin - as oppposed to tribal chieftains like Alaric and the two Theodorics who extorted high military commands from the government - is ever known to have betrayed the interests of the empire to his countrymen. The same applies to the rank and file. There is no hint in our sources that Germans recruited into the regular army and properly administered and disciplined were ever unreliable. The trouble was caused when, from the time of Theodosius the Great, barbarian tribes which had forced their way into the empire were given the status of federates."

Near as I can tell, ma donna Nephele's post includes nearly all that is known about the august priestesses. There were apparently never more than 6, regardless of the status of the individuals. When a vacancy occured due to retirement or death the Pontifex Maximus nominated 20 nobly born girls from whom the new priestess was chosen by lot. There were three instances of consternation due to the sacred fire going out! In 206 and 178 BCE the responsible Vestal was punished by being scourged by the Pontifex Maximus, but Valerius Maximus says (1.1.7) the Vestal Aemilia was saved by the miraculous intervention of the godess. One duty of the Vestals that has not been mentioned (I don't think?) was guardianship of the mysterious secret relics which protected the Roman state. These were apparently kept in one of 2 earthenware jars kept in the innermost sanctuary of the temple of the Vestals (adyum ?), that no one but the Vestals and the Pontifex Maximus could enter. Speculation is that the jar contained the "Palladium' - the small figure of Athena that had fallen from heaven, been taken from Troy by Odysseus and Diomede and brought to Italy by Aeneas. There is also the grim possibility that the Vestals got caught up in the fierce political struggles within the nobility following the fall of Gaius Gracchus. Munzer thinks the conviction of three Vestals in 115 -114 BC could have been politically motivated.

Unless one accepts the theory that the enormous cost of the army and the taxation needed to maintain it is what wrecked the economy of the urban centers in the West.

The military changes made by Diocletion and Constantine achieved their goals. They put an end to the continual military rebellions and usurpations that came close to causing the disintigration of the Empire in the third century, and they provided a sound strategic framework and army organization that defended the Empire (at least the Eastern half) for 300 years. Luttwalks "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" gives an interesting take on Imperial defense. He says that the Flavian method of "preclusive security" and "forward defense" had become inadequate due to the multiplication of "endemic threats" and evolved into a system of "defense in depth". In spite of the modern jargon, his arguments make a lot of sense. The essence of strategy doesn't change that much over time.

As you noted, the vicarius was the "governor" of the Diocese of Africa, and the procurator was probably the manager of the Imperial estates (the res privata) in the province of Africa. The proconsul was likely the governor of the province of Africa. Certain provinces like Africa and Asia had senatorial governors of high status who were ex-consuls, just as in the days of the Republic. The res privata had a complex heirarchy of managers with a magister or rationalis for each diocese and procurators for each province. The procurators, as you say, leased out the imperial properties, collected, accounted for and forwarded the rents, handled upkeep and resolved any legal problems. The military functions were by this time separate from the civil, financial and jurisdictional functions of provincial governors and were carried out by a dux or comes.

Once again I erred...the reference to Cicero is not a letter but the speech Pro Plancio, but it is to the point. Cicero was defending an equestrian aedile from Atina who was prosecuted by M Iuventius Laterensis (the defeated candidate who was the descendant of consuls on both sides). Laterensis claim was that only bribery would explain the defeat of so noble a candidate by one so base. Cicero says: For it is the nature of any free people, and above all of this ruling people, which is the master and conqueror of all races, that it has the power to give or take away by its votes whatever it wishes with regard to anyone it wishes.

It's true that the Roman voters could rarely be convinced to vote for a consular or praetorian candidate whose name had not been familiar to them for decades, but they did have a say, and competition for their votes was fierce. The "wild-card" in Roman politics though was the use of the Tribal Assembly to pass legislation and to elect Tribunes, Aediles and other minor magistrates. In the Tribal Assembly every citizens vote counted equally within the Tribe (unlike the Centuries where the votes of the older, wealthier citizens counted more), and it is possible to claim (as Millar does) that laws passed in the Tribal Assembly were the "real expression of the political will of the Roman people." One of Ciceros letters commiserated with a friend from a consular family who had lost an election for aedile to a nobody from a rural town whose friends had all flocked to the city to vote for him. The vote of the Tribes was vital and could, and often did, reverse decisions of the senate on provincial assignments and money matters. There is lots of controversy over how much effect the ruling class had on the voting of the Tribes thru clients and patronage, and who exactly was present in the forum to represent the rural Tribes on voting days? - was it the wealthy landowners who resided in the city? did men of moderate means make the trip from their farms to town to vote on a bill that interested them? were the disposessed farmers who moved to the city to live on the grain dole still voting in the rural Tribes?

Roman voting and the extent of democracy in the Roman Republic is indeed a fascinating and, sometimes controversial subject. To amplify a bit: The curiate assembly had fallen into disuse in the middle and late republic, it's functions were limited to formally conferring imperium on magistrates after their election, and the approval of certain types of adoptions. By the middle republic the curiae were usually represented by the lictors in attendance on the presiding magistrate and their action was a mere formality. The 193 centuries were important in electing the major magistrates and the assembly was weighted in favor of the wealthier and older citizens. The vote was taken by bloc (a majority of each century won the century and each century had one vote) The centuries voted in a strict order (with the wealthiest citizens in centuries with far fewer members voting first) and ended when a candidate won a majority of centuries. However, a reorganization of the assembly took place sometime before 241BCE such that the centuries became subdivisions of the tribes. There is considerable controversy over how this was done and whether it made the centuriate assembly more democratic. The tribal assembly had begun as a revolutionary gathering of the plebians during the struggle of the orders, but had come to include (for purposes other than electing tribunes of the plebs and plebian aediles) all citizens, and, after the Lex Hortensia of 287BCE, its enactments became binding on all. It was the tribal assembly that passed nearly all legislation in the middle and late republic. there were originally 4 (not 1) urban and 17 rural tribes based on geographic districts. Between 495 and 241BCE 14 additional rural tribes were added to represent citizens in newly absorbed regions of Italy. After 241 no new tribes were created, the existing tribes were expanded to include separate districts in different parts of Italy. The extent of democracy in the tribal assembly is even more controversial. Check these for more information: Roman Voting Assemblies- L R Taylor, Voting Districts of the Roman Republic - L R Taylor, The Constitution of the Roman Republic - A Lintott, The Crowd in the Late Roman Republic - F Millar

What about the equestrian order? Did not the ordo equestris include EVERYONE with the required census (viz 400,000 sestertii) WHO WAS NOT A SENATOR - that is everybody the censors had not added to the list of senators? Including both those individuals assigned to the 18 equestrian centuries (those who held the equo publico) AND those with the required census in the centuries of the first class? Also including the sons of senators who were not old enough or distinguished enough to have been added to the senate - like Pompey? And could not a patrician who had fallen on bad economic times (like the young Sulla) fall out of the equestrian order completely and be registered in the capiti censi And wasn't everybody who was not a member of the 22 or so surviving patrician clans (regardless of their economic or social status) a plebian? Oh, and the real working poor (the industrial population of the city of Rome may have had more influence on politics than has generally been assumed if you believe Fergus Millar's "The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic".

Absolutely right! A little better research would have answered! He attacked Pompey in 59 BCE by prosecuting Gabinius for ambitus but was thwarted by a Pompean praetor and was chased from the rostra by an angry crowd. In 57 he spoke against delaying the aedelician elections (Clodius was standing and Milo wanted the delay to allow a prosecution). But he proved amenable to the blandishments of the triumvirs at the conference of Lucca and as tribune in 56 delayed of elections in support of Pompey and Crassus as you say. His prosecutor in the trial after his tribunate was the future historian and consul of 40 BCE Asinius Pollio.

Sorry ma'am, can't find your man... The only Gaius Porcius Cato I can discover is the consul of 114 BCE who must have been born around 157BCE and thus can't be an associate of Curio and Clodius. This guys career was dolorous enough; he was the grandson of Cato the censor by his first wife Licinia, his father died as praetor designate in 152 BCE. He was also the grandson of Aemilius Paullus as his mother was Paullus' daughter and a sister of Scipio Aemilianus - who was thus his uncle. He was a friend and follower of Tiberius Gracchus but survived the reactions of 132 and 121 BCE, either by withrawing his support in time or thru the efforts of his influential relatives. He was elected consul for 114 BCE and went out to govern Macedonia, but was badly defeated by the celtic tribe of the Scordisci. Upon his return he was prosecuted for repetundae and convicted, but his relatives apparently managed to make sure the fine imposed was so small as to not injure his social or political status. His downfall came in 109 BCE when he was condemned for bribery by the Mamilian Commision, probably for accepting gifts while part of an embassy to Jugurtha in 116 BCE. His relatives couldn't help him in face of the popular outrage and he went into exile, possibly at Tarracco in Spain.

You might also want to check out the pertinent chapters of Syme's "Roman Revolution" and Gruen's "Last Generation Of The Roman Republic". They provide differing interpretations of the evidence of Pompieus' allies, enemies and his relationships with the rest of the Senate and the other two eventual Triumvirs. (and are both exhaustively footnoted)

The first book of Polybius (Loeb edition, available on the "Lacus Curtius" site) uses the english word "mercenaries" regarding Carthaginian troops at least four times (I.30, I 34, I.42, I.46), mentions Carthaginian "recruiting officers in Greece" (I.32) "Indian Elephant drivers" (I.40), "Celts and other mercenaries" (I.43). Book I.67 thru I.88 describes the revolt of the Carthaginian troops that took place after the end of the First Punic War, and attributes it to the revolt of mercenary troops viz: "Hired soldiers" (I.71) and "hired troops of various nationalities...Iberians, Celts, Ligurians, Belearic Islanders, Greek half-breeds...mostly Lybians" (I.71). Only the Lybians could have been under Carthaginian political dominance and be considered "levies" of some kind. The others could have had no motive but pay and booty. Is "mercenary" a pejorative word in Polybius? - possibly. And it is probably true that in the Second Punic War, the Celts fought for revenge and booty as much as pay, many of the Iberians and Belearic Islanders were probably levies or allies from areas under Carthaginian control or influence, and many of the Numidians were from allied kingdoms. Might this reflect a change in the nature of Carthaginian state and army which having lost it's naval dominance had begun to rely more on the landowning classes in Africa and Spain (including the Barca family?) and less on the merchant class that had been dominant during the first war? The comparison to Roman auxilia is apt, but much different from the socii.

The reason the Roman Republic survived the disaster at Cannae and Hannibals invasion was the nature of the Roman confederacy. The Latin and Oscan peoples of Italy were united with Rome voluntarily, not by compulsion, and the power and resilience of so large a coalition was nearly invincible. Rome was the aknowledged leader of the Italian peoples since the Gallic invasion of the 4th century BC. When the Gauls swept into Italy Rome played the role Athens had played in Greece when the Persians invaded. She stepped up to lead the national defense and payed the price in 390BC. Unlike Athens, however, Rome did not take advantage of her leadership position to exploit and interfere with her allies. Instead Rome led the military coalition and left thier internal affairs alone. She took up the causes of her allies as her own and defended them against Gauls, Carthaginians, Illyrian pirates and Pyrrhus. Certianly there were problems from trime to time, but overall Rome managed the alliance well and even began the inclusion of individuals, and eventually, whole allied states into the citizen body of Rome - something unthinkable to the Athenians. Hannibals intent in invading Italy was to break up what was believed to be an empire of subject states who hated thier overlord and were anxious to throw off her domination. In fact the Roman alliance was nothing of the kind, only Capua and the least civilized peoples of Lucania and Bruttium deserted the alliance. Even the Etruscans and the Samnites, who had struggled longest and hardest against Rome, stayed loyal to the leader of Italy and opposed the foriegner. As long as the majority of the allied states remained loyal, Rome could mobilize nearly unlimited rescources of men and supplies from all Italy and Hannibal could be forced to keep on the move and thus unable to besiege and take cities, and eventually be crowded into a corner of Italy and contained. The Second Punic War illustrates the limits of purely military success and the importance of understanding exploiting the political as well as the military enviornment.

Interestingly, it also took Arthur Wellesley (the future Duke of Wellington) five years (1809-1813) to expel the French from Spain (going in the oposite direction). Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of the country.