Hastati, Pricipes, Triarii

[Julius Ratus]

I was wondering, when is the latest recorded date wherein the Romans split up the legion into Hastati, Principes, and Triarii? Games and such seem to point that the various sections fell out of vogue after the Marian reforms. In Conn Iggulden's Emperor series he has Hastati and Triarii in Caesar's legions.

[votadini]

I've always thought such distinctions passed at the end of the 2nd Cent.BC with the Marian reforms.

[Primus Pilus]

I was wondering, when is the latest recorded date wherein the Romans split up the legion into Hastati, Principes, and Triarii? Games and such seem to point that the various sections fell out of vogue after the Marian reforms. In Conn Iggulden's Emperor series he has Hastati and Triarii in Caesar's legions.

 

Conn Iggulden's books are generally quite fictional. The terms no longer existed in their original context when dealing with the post Marian organization and armament of the "Imperial" legion. However, the names did remain as a sort of honorific title to rank the centuries within each cohort as can be attested by the names and classification of the centuriones. (scroll down to the officer section and the chart showing the layout for an example here).

 

Additionally regarding the honorific title from the William Smith Dictionary:

But even after the distinction between Hastati, Principes, and Triarii was altogether abolished, and they were all blended together in the cohorts, the same nomenclature with regard to the centuries and their commanders was retained, although it is by no means easy to perceived how it was applied. The cohorts being numbered from 1 to 10, and the first cohort having unquestionably the precedence over the others, we may suppose that the rest took rank in like manner in regular order, each containing three maniples. The first maniple in each cohort may have been considered as representing Triarii according to the ancient arrangement, the second maniple in each cohort as representing Principes, the third as representing Hastati. If this hypothesis be admitted, the Primipilus, whom we find mentioned down to a very late date, was, under the new system, the first centurion of the first maniple of the first cohort, and as such had as formerly the charge of the eagle; thus also, when Caesar says (B. C. III.64), "Hoc casu aquila conservatur omnibus primae cohortis centurionibus interfectis praeter principem priorem," he must intend to designate the first centurion of the second maniple of the first cohort, who would at full length have been denominated primus princeps prior; in like manner, "Cretensi bello octavum principem duxit" (Ep. ad Brut. I.8) will denote the second maniple of the eighth cohort, "Q. Fulginius ex primo hastato legionis XIV. qui propter eximiam virtutem ex inferioribus ordinibus in eum locum pervenerat" (Caes. B. C. I.46), and "Cum signifer primi hastati signum non posset movere loco" (Cic. de Div. I.35), the third maniple of the first cohort.

 

It just needs to be understood that the legions were standardized at this point and there was no distinction to speak of regarding armament or general purpose of these titles.

 

Also from the William Smith Dictionary:

As a necessary result of the above arrangements, the distinction between Hastati, Principes, and Triarii ceased to exist. These names, as applied to particular classes of soldiers, are not found in Caesar, in Tacitus, in the treatise of Hyginus on castrametation, nor in any writer upon military affairs after the time of Marius, while Varro explains them as terms no longer in use. The words Hastatus and Princeps occur at a later period, in connection with the legion, but are used only with reference to the precedence of the centuries and of the officers by whom they were commanded, as we have pointed out when treating of the centuriones.

[Julius Ratus]

Thank you, Primus Pilus.

[PubliusClodius]

Thank you, Primus Pilus.

 

This is quite true, after the Marian reforms of the army class distinctions were eliminated (Thanks largely to the Germans) as the army became open for any to join. This was a direct result of the defeat of every army sent out to deal with the Germans. When Marius was given control his soldiers were Roman Citizens with no property , or "the head count".

 

PC

[M. Porcius Cato]

[This is quite true, after the Marian reforms of the army class distinctions were eliminated (Thanks largely to the Germans) as the army became open for any to join.

 

Class distinctions in the army were alive and well before, during, and after the much-hyped Marian reforms. Two examples suffice: (1) property qualifications remained for the military tribunes, and (2) freedmen could not serve in the ranks. Marius dropped one property qualification, but he was no egalitarian.

 

When Marius was given control his soldiers were Roman Citizens with no property , or "the head count".

 

Historians estimate that the head count made up only about 10% of the post-Marian legions. This should come as no surprise. An urban mob was a worthless army. In 217 BCE, 90 BCE, and 6 and 9 CE, armies were raised from urban conscriptions, with hardly encouraging results. When Scipio and Norbanus, for example, joined an all-urban regiment to their army in 83, the damned proles ('vernacula multitudo, lasciviae sueta, laborum intolerans') has so little stomach for the fight that they deserted to Sulla (so much for class solidarity, neh?).

 

The head count in Rome were mostly freedmen and of servile origin (recall Scipio Aemilianus' admonition to the mob, "I brought the lot of you here in chains!"), and they had little to no loyalty to Rome, to the republic, or to their commanding officers. At least the rural poor could be motivated by their greed for land, and so it's from their ranks that the post-Marian army came, not the gutters of Rome.