Earliest "Legion" in Rome

[Antiochus III]

When did Rome start using a non-phalanx formation? what were her earliest legions like? what was the command structure? I'm sort of looking for an in depth description of roman warfare from 500- 250 bc. i know thats a lot, but if you could chip in just a little that would be great. I;m sure caldrail will have a ton to say.

 

Antiochus III

[M. Porcius Cato]

Great question. From Livy, it's fairly clear that the (legendary) king Servius Tullius assembled hoplites, presumably in the phalanx formation depicted in Etruscan art. It's also clear that this system was not used during the Punic Wars, where we have the wonderful description of the 'Polybian' legion (HERE's the Polybius, Bk 6). But how did the Polybian legion evolve?

 

On this issue, there is (surprisingly) nothing in Adrian Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army. However, Livy provides a nice answer in his description of the war with the Samnites (Book 8):

At first the Romans used the large round shield called the clipeus, afterwards, when the soldiers received pay, the smaller oblong shield called the scutum was adopted. The phalanx formation, similar to the Macedonian of the earlier days, was abandoned in favour of the distribution into companies (manipuli); the rear portion being broken up into smaller divisions. The foremost line consisted of the hastati, formed into fifteen companies, drawn up at a short distance from each other. These were called the light-armed companies, as whilst one-third carried a long spear (hasta) and short iron javelins, the remainder carried shields. This front line consisted of youths in the first bloom of manhood just old enough for service. Behind them were stationed an equal number of companies, called principes, made up of men in the full vigour of life, all carrying shields and furnished with superior weapons. This body of thirty companies were called the antepilani. Behind them were the standards under which were stationed fifteen companies, which were divided into three sections called vexillae, the first section in each was called the pilus, and they consisted of 180 men to every standard (vexillum). The first vexillum was followed by the triarii, veterans of proved courage; the second by the rorarii, or "skirmishers," younger men and less distinguished; the third by the accensi, who were least to be depended upon, and were therefore placed in the rearmost line.

 

When the battle formation of the army was completed, the hastati were the first to engage. If they failed to repulse the enemy, they slowly retired through the intervals between the companies of the principes who then took up the fight, the hastati following in their rear. The triarii, meantime, were resting on one knee under their standards, their shields over their shoulders and their spears planted on the ground with the points upwards, giving them the appearance of a bristling palisade. If the principes were also unsuccessful, they slowly retired to the triarii, which has given rise to the proverbial saying, when people are in great difficulty "matters have come down to the triarii." When the triarii had admitted the hastati and principes through the intervals separating their companies they rose from their kneeling posture and instantly closing their companies up they blocked all passage through them and in one compact mass fell on the enemy as the last hope of the army. The enemy who had followed up the others as though they had defeated them, saw with dread a now and larger army rising apparently out of the earth. There were generally four legions enrolled, consisting each of 5000 men, and 300 cavalry were assigned to each legion. A force of equal size used to be supplied by the Latins, now, however, they were hostile to Rome. The two armies were drawn up in the same formation, and they knew that if the maniples kept their order they would have to fight, not only vexilla with vexilla, hastati with hastati, principes with principes, but even centurion with centurion. There were amongst the triarii two centurions, one in each army - the Roman, possessing but little bodily strength but an energetic and experienced soldier, the Latin, a man of enormous strength and a splendid fighter - very well known to each other because they had always served in the same company. The Roman, distrusting his own strength, had obtained the consuls' permission before leaving Rome to choose his own sub-centurion to protect him from the man who was destined to be his enemy. This youth, finding himself face to face with the Latin centurion, gained a victory over him.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, A

 

Here comes the very first mention of a Legion on T. Livius' Ab Urbe Condita (Liber I, Cp. XI), at the aftermath of the Sabine maidens abduction:

 

Dum ea ibi Romani gerunt, Antemnatium exercitus per occasionem ac solitudinem hostiliter in fines Romanos incursionem facit. Raptim et ad hos Romana legio ducta palatos in agris oppressit. Fusi igitur primo impetu et clamore hostes, oppidum captum; duplicique victoria ouantem Romulum Hersilia coniunx precibus raptarum fatigata orat ut parentibus earum det veniam et in civitatem accipiat: ita rem coalescere concordia posse.

 

"Whilst the Romans were thus occupied, the army of the Antemnates seized the opportunity of their territory being unoccupied and made a raid into it. Romulus hastily led his legion against this fresh foe and surprised them as they were scattered over the fields. At the very first battle-shout and charge the enemy were routed and their city captured. Whilst Romulus was exulting over this double victory, his wife, Hersilia, moved by the entreaties of the abducted maidens, implored him to pardon their parents and receive them into citizenship, for so the State would increase in unity and strength."

[caldrail]

The word legion refers to 'levy' of men, and it means that Romulus had raised a city army for his campaign. The composition of these early armies was however not significantly different from their enemies, and this was also before the greek inspired phalanx was adopted. Therefore a legion in romulus's time was nothing more than a warband of large size.

[caldrail]

There is some interesting debate about changes in the early roman military.

 

Tradition claims that the tribal system was introduced by Romulus in the 8th century BC. But modern historians are unanimous in concluding this cannot be the case. The three tribal names (Tities, Ramnes, and Luceres) are clearly etruscan. Consequently the system of three tribes and thirty curiae was introduced under the direct influence of the etruscans, probably toward the end of the seventh century BC. This immediately raises the much larger problem of which method of warfare and equipment was used by three tribes. It is possible that hoplite tactics and equipment were introduced in Rome at the same time as the tribal system - ie a little before 600BC; but it is more probable that they were introduced some half-century later by Servius Tullius...

....The introduction of hoplite tactics to Rome is associated in roman historical tradition with the penultimate king of Rome, Servius Tullius (578BC-534BC)....

....The fact that the Servian system was entirely unsuitable for the recruitment of a manipular army confirms its predominantly hoplite character, and it is hardly suprising that in creating this system Servius Tullius is thought to have introduced hoplite tactics in Rome.

Early Roman Armies - Nick Sekunda, Simon Northwood, Richard Hook

 

In ancient times, when the romans used rectangular shields, the etruscans fought in phalanxes with bronze shields, but havinmg compelled the romans to adopt the same equipment they were themselves defeated

Diodorus

 

The Romans took close battle formation from the Etruscans, who used to attack in phalanx

Athenaeus

 

The Etruscans did not fight in maniples but made war on us armed with bronze shields in a phalanx; we were re-armed and adopting the equipment of the enemy we formed up against them, and in this way were able to conquereven those most accustomed to fighting in this way

Ineditum Vaticanum

 

So, the introduction of phalanxes to the romans had less to do with the Servian reforms and more to with having to compete with Etruscan armies?

[M. Porcius Cato]

So, the introduction of phalanxes to the romans had less to do with the Servian reforms and more to with having to compete with Etruscan armies?

 

We're getting off-topic, but they are not mutually exclusive possibilities. The Servian reforms--like the 'Camillan', 'Polybian', and 'Marian' reforms--could have been designed to compete with the strongest enemies of Rome.

[caldrail]

The Marian reforms appear to be more of a desire to improve the legion in the light of personal experience, not to mention take on board as standard certain trends existing in the roman military prior to his reforms. The reason I brought the subject up is that the Servian reforms are not usually described in connection with events. Don't know anything about 'Camillan' reforms. Any further info on that?

 

Back on topic then. As a framework for the development of the legion, the Servian reforms introduced a 40 century legion will more than likely consisted only of class I soldiers. At some point (the jury is still out on when) two extra centuries were added of class II and III soldiers, making a sixty century legion some time around the end of the 5th century. Certainly by 400BC there was a single legion of 6000 men as Romes army, during a period when military tribunes were voted into office with consular powers. In 366BC the romans returned to the dual consul system, and its likely the single legion was split in two. By 311BC we see four legions, each of 3000 heavy infantry and 1200 light, making it 4800 strong. Importantly, there's no evidence that classes IV and V were ever organised into centuries at all.

[Antiochus III]

Thank you for the info. From what I gather, no one really knows exactly when the phalanx system ceased to be used entirely, when the manipular legion started to be standard, and exactly how it evolved to become what it was during the war with Epirus and the punic wars. I was afraid that would be the case. Still, however, thank you all very much for the info you did provide.

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

The phalanx system was junked by the end of the 4th century BC. No-one knows the eact date, and the work of Livy quoted by MPC is a reconstruction, as is many of the descriptions of earlier roman history bequeathed to us, so we do need to be wary about its accuracy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Marian reforms appear to be more of a desire to improve the legion in the light of personal experience, not to mention take on board as standard certain trends existing in the roman military prior to his reforms. The reason I brought the subject up is that the Servian reforms are not usually described in connection with events. Don't know anything about 'Camillan' reforms. Any further info on that?

 

Good point about the Marian reforms: it's an oversimplification to think that every reform was designed to beat a particular class of competitors (e.g., phalanxes, war bands, etc.). The 'Camillan' reforms were the reforms that changed the hoplite army of the regnal period into the republican army described by Livy. I'm guessing the idea is that this organization is sufficiently different from the Polybian army to need its own designation.

 

Digging around for more in depth treatment, I found Miller, M.C.J., 'The Principes and the so-called Camillan Reforms' in: Ancient World XXIII.2 (1992) 59-70. This essay is also reprinted in Michael F. Pavkovic (Ed.), The Army of the Roman Republic. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of either.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Don't know anything about 'Camillan' reforms. Any further info on that?

The 'Camillan' reforms were the reforms that changed the hoplite army of the regnal period into the republican army described by Livy. I'm guessing the idea is that this organization is sufficiently different from the Polybian army to need its own designation.

Salve, Amici. Here comes Mestrius Plutarchus, Vita Camilli, cp. XL-XLI:

 

"All with one mind chose Camillus dictator for the fifth time... instantly took upon him the command and went to levying his soldiers. Knowing that the prowess of the barbarians lay chiefly in their swords, which they plied in true barbaric fashion, and with no skill at all, in mere slashing blows at head and shoulders, he had helmets forged for most of his men which were all iron and smooth of surface, that the enemy's swords might slip off from them or be shattered by them. He also had the long shields of his men rimmed round with bronze, since their wood could not of itself ward off the enemy's blows. The soldiers themselves he trained to use their long javelins like spears,

Edited June 15, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Don't know anything about 'Camillan' reforms. Any further info on that?

The 'Camillan' reforms were the reforms that changed the hoplite army of the regnal period into the republican army described by Livy. I'm guessing the idea is that this organization is sufficiently different from the Polybian army to need its own designation.

In addition, Daremberg & Saglio in their Dictionnaire des Antiquit

[Kosmo]

When did Rome start using a non-phalanx formation?

 

The manipuli, the roman non-phalanx formation, was used also, and maybe developed, by Samnites and other southern Italians. The Italian allies of Pyrrhus and the romans were using manipuli during the Italian expedition of the king of Epirus. My guess would be that manipuli were used by the roman army around the Second Samnite War.

[ASCLEPIADES]

When did Rome start using a non-phalanx formation? what were her earliest legions like?

Check this out

[caldrail]

the main introduced innovations would have been the age distribution over the battlefield (hastati, principes, triarii) and the infantry's division in maniples; cohortes were still absent. This general structure would have endured some century and a half, until the Marian Reform.

 

Not quite. The cohort was increasingly appearing here and there before the Marian Reforms. The maniple wasn't meeting the needs of the roman legions and it was found (by experiment? Accident?) that in battle the cohort was a more useful size, the main reason why Marius adopted that formation as standard.