Roman Military History Timeline 900 Bc - 575 Bc

[Caesar CXXXVII]

early Roman warfare based in warbands

 

I think so too . This type of warfare was common in all of Central Italy until c. 5th century BCE . Maybe that the reforms of "Servius Tullius" and the establishment of the early form of the Comitia Centuriata were in connection with the insertion of Greek style of Hoplite warfare .

[Gaius Octavius]

From:"The Making of the Roman Army - From Republic to Empire"; Lawrence Keppie, Barnes & Noble Books, 1994, pp. 14-16.

 

"Rome naturally had an army from its earliest days as a village on the Tiber bank. At first it consisted of the king, his body guards and retainers, and members of clan-groups living in the city and its meagre territory. The army included both infantry and cavalry. Archaeological finds from Rome and the vicinity would suggest circular or oval shields, leather corselets with metal pectorals protecting the heart and chest, and conical bronze helmets. It must, however, be emphasized at the outset that we have very little solid evidence for the organization of the early Roman Army.

 

"The wars between Rome and her neighbors were little more than scuffles between armed raiding bands of a few hundred men at most. It is salutary to recall that Fidenae (Fidene), against which the Romans were fighting in 499, lies now within the motorway circuit round modern Rome, and is all but swallowed up in its northern suburbs. Veii, the Etruscan city that was Rome's chief rival for supremacy in the Tiber plain, is a mere 10 miles to the north-west (fig. 1).

 

"In appearance Rome's army can have differed little from those of the other small towns of Latium, the flat land south of the Tiber mouth. All were influenced in their equipment, and in military tactics, by their powerful northern neighbors, the Etruscans, whose loose confederation of Twelve Cities was the dominant power-grouping in central Italy in the middle of the first millennium BC (sic). Roman antiquarian authors have preserved a few details about the institutions of the early Roman army, and it is just perhaps possible to establish some sequence of development. It was believed that the first military structure was based on the three 'tribes' of the regal period - the Ramnes, the Tities and the Luceres - all Etruscan names and so a product of the period of strong Etruscan influence. Each tribe provided 1000 men towards the army, under the command of a tribunus (lit. tribal officer). The subdivisions of each tribe supplied 100 men (a century) towards this total. The resulting force - some 3000 men in all - was known as the legio, the levy (or the 'levying'). The nobility and their sons made up a small body of cavalry, about 300 men, drawn in equal proportion from the three tribes. These were the equites, the knights; all men who had sufficient means to equip themselves for service as cavalry belonged to the Ordo Equester, the mounted contingent (usually known now as the Equestrian Order)."

 

This following commences during, but goes beyond the period being discussed, yet may be instructive.

 

SERVIUS TULLIUS AND THE FIVE CLASSES

 

"For the student of the early Roman army, it might seem that a fixed point exists in the reign of the sixth king of Rome, Servius Tullius, about 580-530. Servius is credited with establishing many of the early institutions of the Roman state. In particular, he is said to have conducted the first census of he Roman people, and to have divided the population into 'classes', according to their wealth (see fig 2). This Servian 'constitution' had a double purpose, political and military. In the first place, it organized the populace into centuries (hundreds) for voting purposes in the Assembly. The groupings were linked to the financial status of the individual, and his corresponding ability to provide his own arms and equipment for military service. Thus the resources of the state were harnessed to the needs of its defense. The equites, the richest section of the community, were formed into 18 centuries. Below them came the bulk of the population, who served as infantry, divided into five 'classes'. Members of the 'first class' were to be armed with a bronze cuirass, spear, sword, shield and greaves to protect the legs; the 'second class', with much the same panoply minus the cuirass; the 'third', the same but lacking the greaves; the 'fourth' had spear and shield only, and the 'fifth' was armed with slings or stones. In each class those men who were over 46 (the senores) were assigned to defend the city against possible attack, while the remainder (the iuniories) formed the field army. Below the five classes was a group called the capite censi, i.e. men 'registered by head count', with no property to their name, who were thereby disqualified for military service.(1)"

 

Note #1. Livy i.43; Dionysius of Halicarnassus iv.16

 

_______________

 

I have a few quibbles. In paragraph 3, sentence 5 above, the book says: "It was believed...." Does that mean that their is a new belief or that earlier writers believed so; or that the author will provide the latest belief.

 

In the very last paragraph "...harnessed to the needs of its defense." Not to offence?

 

Those men aged 46 or more were left to defend the city. I feel that there must have been some limit as to their number.

 

----------------------

I put the last paragraph in because one might extrapolate backwards to earlier times.

Was there no Senate and senators during this period?

Edited December 22, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Gaius Octavius]

This thread is almost what I wanted for 'Academia'. It is going along smoothly. Hopefully, some qualified member will consolidate and edit it and submit it for inclusion under the "Military" heading of the 'Home' page.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Was there no Senate and senators during this period?

 

I did not find any scholar saying that there was no Senate in those times (Monarchy and Tyrany) .

The big question is what kind of a Senate ?

Some believe that since the 7th century Rome had a fixed Senate of 300 Patricians with Patres Auctoritas etc' and others (including little me) believe that the early Senate was on a ad hoc basis , that is , the king/Tyrant/magister populi had his relatives , companions and some patricians inserted in the Senate as he pleased . The number of Senators and its structure were not fixed and the Senate had no powers but acted as a advisory body .

[roman wargamer]

Was there no Senate and senators during this period?

 

I did not find any scholar saying that there was no Senate in those times (Monarchy and Tyrany) .

The big question is what kind of a Senate ?

when Rome was founded they have 100 Patrician family who act as senate body or council of the state.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Thank you all for adding to the discussion. I plan on updating this section and creating another for the next distinct era of Roman military progression in the next week.