A History of the Roman World (65 page)

34
P
ATRES CONSCRIPTI
. The implications of this term have been endlessly debated in both ancient and modern times. The general view was that the
patres
were the original patricians (members of the
maiores gentes
) and the
conscripti
the plebeians later added to the Senate. It is uncertain whether the phrase means ‘enrolled fathers’ (
conscripti
being an adjectival qualification) or
patres et conscripti
(cf. the phrase
qui patres qui conscripti
). In the former case early virtual automatic membership (the privilege of certain families) will have been supplemented by the inclusion of other important members of the community, and then the whole body was enrolled as
patres
. Alternatively the Senate came to comprise
patres
, who did not need formal enrolment, and non-
patres
who had to be enrolled (
conscripti
): these need not be identified with the
minores gentes
nor strictly with the plebeians, who may not have been so clear-cut a group in the very early period. For the latter view see A. Momigliano,
Quarto Contrib.
, 423 ff.: the existence of a group of
conscripti
, who were neither patricians nor plebeians (but who later merged with the plebeians) would help to explain the presence in the Fasti of the early Republic of names of consuls that are apparently plebeian: they would have been
conscripti
(cf. ch. iii, n. 2). Ogilvie (
Early Rome
, 59) believes that under the monarchy all members of the Senate were automatically patricians, but that this ceased with the establishment of the Republic, when patrician status was restricted.

35
T
HE TRIUMPH
. See above, n. 18. The king in his triumphal
insignia
in some sense represented Jupiter, but (despite much debate) the idea of divinization was probably not involved. In the early days of the Republic a minor form of triumph was developed, the
ovatio
; this may approximate more closely to the early pre-Etruscan form of celebration before the Etruscans had elaborated the ritual (e.g. the general went on foot or horseback, not a chariot). In the late third century generals who were refused full triumphs by the Senate might hold unofficial ones on the Alban Mount during the Feriae Latinae. For later developments (241–133
BC
) see J. S. Richardson,
JRS
, 1975, 50 ff.

36
T
HE CALENDAR
. Since ‘Numa’s’ reform does not refer to the dedication of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in 509
BC
it must have been earlier than that, while if Aprilis is an Etruscan word the reform probably was made in the sixth century. A. K. Michels,
The Calendar of the Roman Republic
(1967), however, attributes this pre-Julian calendar to the decemviral period, but this view is contested by R. M. Ogilvie,
Cl. Rev.
, 1969, 330 ff. (cf. A. Drummond,
JRS
(1971), 282 f.). Ogilvie (
Early Rome
, 42) also suggests that although the lunisolar calendar was established during the Etruscan period, it was not openly published, for all to see and read, until the time of the Decemvirate. The introduction of the new month of January is not generally thought to have resulted in changing the beginning of the Roman year from March to January until 153
BC
. Mrs Michels, however,
believes the change to be older and that in 153 what happened was only the bringing into line of the official consular year with the older calendar year. On the calendar see, besides Mrs Michels’s book, E. J. Bickerman,
Chronology of the Ancient World
(1968), 43 ff. and A. E. Samuel,
Greek and Roman Chronology
(1972), ch. v. On the calends and the king’s proclamation: Macrobius, i, 15, 9–13; cf. Lydus,
de mens
, iii, 10.

37
L
EGES REGIAE
. A collection of laws ascribed to the kings existed in the second century AD (Pomponius,
Digest
, i, 2, 2, 2). It was called
ius Papirianum
because it was allegedly composed under Tarquinius Superbus by a Sextus Papirius, while a C. Papirius, the first Pontifex Maximus, was said to have restored a collection, made by Ancus Marcius, of some laws of Numa which had been recorded on tablets in the Forum and become illegible (Dion. Hal., iii, 36). All such
leges regiae
preserved in the ancient writers have been collected: see, e.g, Riccobono,
Fontes
, i, 1–8. They deal chiefly with religious matters and may reflect early rules of the regal community, even if they were not published in the Forum as were the later Twelve Tables, though the survival of the inscription under the Lapis Niger shows that publication cannot be quite excluded. For a defence of their basic historicity see A. Watson,
JRS
, 1972, 100 ff.

38
D
UOVIRI PERDUELLIONIS
. A. Magdelain,
Historia
, 1973, 405 ff., has attempted to show that these officiais were invented by later annalists.

39
T
HE EARLY CAVALRY
. A. Alföldi,
Der frührömische Reiteradel und seine Ehrenbezeichnen
(1952), identified the patriciate with the 300 cavalry. This view has been challenged by A. Momigliano,
Quarto Contrib.
, 377 ff. and the discussion has been continued in
Historia
, 1968, 385 ff., 444 ff. De Martino,
St. d. cos. rom
, edn 2, I, 197 ff., believes that the equestrian centuries
were
reserved for patricians, but that to argue that the patricians had acquired their political privilege from their monopoly of the cavalry is to view the problem wrongly: the patricians derived their power rather from the
gentes
. For the dissociation of the mysterious
proci patricii
from the
sex suffragia
see Momigliano, op. cit, 377 ff. Ogilvie (
Early Rome
, 44 ff.) believes that in the earliest army cavalry was more important than infantry, but he rejects (56 ff.) Alföldi’s identification of the patricians with an aristocracy of knights who formed the royal cavalry.

40
H
OPLITE WARFARE
. The archaeological evidence suggests the introduction of hoplite tactics in the mid-sixth century: see A. N. Snodgrass,
Arms and Armour of the Greeks
(1967), 74 ff. This provides a conclusive argument against those (e.g. M. P. Nilsson,
JRS
, 1929, 4 ff.) who dated the ‘Servian’ reform to the mid-fifth century as the organizational means of introducing a Greek hoplite system. Further, our sources (Diodorus, xxiii, 2 and the
Ineditum Vaticanum
, 3) say that it was the Etruscans who taught the Romans to fight ‘with bronze shields and in a phalanx’.

41
R
EFORM OF THE ARMY
. It is widely agreed that the manner in which (though not necessarily the date at which) the army reforms were made has been solved by P. Fraccaro,
Atti del sec. Congr. Naz. di Stud. Rom.
, iii (1931), 91 ff. (=
Opuscula
, II (1957), 287 ff). Cf., e.g., J. Heurgon,
Rise of R.
, 150 ff.; for a general sketch of the evolution of the legion see A. J. Toynbee,
Hannibal’s Legacy
, I (1965), 505 ff.
    There are, however, still champions of a much later and slower development. Thus G. V. Sumner (
JRS
, 1970, 76 ff.) argues that Servius created a centuriate organization of the army of 3,000, based on the 30
curiae
and the 3 original tribes. When the new territorial tribes were created in the mid-fifth century (so Sumner believes), a phalanx of 3,000 hoplites in 30
centuriae
was established; at the same time the new model army was adapted for political purposes as a new Comitia Centuriata, no longer based on the
curiae
. This
legio
was increased to 4,000
c.
431
BC
, and to 6,000
c.
405 when the Comitia Centuriata took on its classical form of five classes. After 367 it was divided into two legions, and by 311 the four-legion manipular army had been created.

42 C
LASSIS AND INFRA CLASSEM
. The supposition of a division between
classici
and those
infra classem
is based on Cato (
apud Gellium
, vi, 13, 1) and Festus, p. 100, L). It has been supported by Beloch,
Röm. Gesch.
, 291, A. Bernardi,
Athenaeum
, 1952, 3 ff. and A. Momigliano,
Terzo Contrib.
, 596;
Quarto
, 430 ff., but it has been questioned by E. S. Staveley (in a valuable paper on work done on the early Roman constitution 1940–54 in
Historia
, 1956, 79) who argues that Gellius does not prove or even imply that there were ever less than five
classes
in the centuriate organization and that Cato’s remark derives not from fifth-century records but from an unclear distinction of his own day when
classicus
may have indicated social standing.

43
T
HE TRIBES
. After 241
BC
the total number of tribes was, and remained at, 35. Fabius Pictor (frg. 9P) attributes to Servius the creation of 4 urban and 26 rustic tribes; Livy (i, 43, 13) ascribes the four urban tribes to Servius at the time of the institution of the census but does not mention the rustic ones; but elsewhere (ii, 21, 7) he says that 21 tribes were formed in 495
BC
. Probably 20 of these (the 4 urban and 17 rustic, i.e. excluding the tribe Clustumina) should be attributed to Servius. A fragment by an unknown writer on the Servian constitution (
Papyrus Oxyr.
, 17 (1927), n. 2088) refers to Servius’ division into tribes. In general see L. R. Taylor,
The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic
(1960).

44
D
ATING THE COMITIA CENTURIATA
. Early views are discussed by G. W. Botsford,
The Roman Assemblies
(1909), more recent ones by E. S. Staveley,
Historia
, 1956, 74 ff. For later discussions see P. Fraccaro,
JRS
, 1957, 64; P. de Francisci,
Primordia Civitatis
(1959), 672 ff; L. R. Taylor,
Voting-Districts of the Roman Republic
(1960), 3 ff.; A. Momigliano,
Terzo Contrib.
, 594 ff.; R. M. Ogilvie,
Livy
, 166 ff.; G. V. Sumner,
JRS
, 1970, 76 ff.; F. De Martino,
St. d. cos. rom.
, edn 2, I, ch. vii.
    As an example of those who accept Fraccaro’s explanation of the growth of the army (see n. 41 above) but reject his dating we may quote briefly the position of De Sanctis (
Riv. Fil.
, 1933, 289 ff.) who maintains that the Servian order cannot be earlier than the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the fourth: if it existed in the regal period it would imply a population of 200 inhabitants to a square kilometre, which De Sanctis rejects as impossible. He also emphasizes the improbability that Rome could put 6,000 men into the field at so early a period. He distinguishes three periods of development: (
a
) The earliest of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry with three praetors (this accords with his theory that three praetors and not two consuls, or praetors, took the helm as the monarchy declined). (
b
) This army, based on Thousands and the old tribes and
Curiae
, was gradually increased. In 444 when three military tribunes took supreme control in the state, the army still contained only 3,000 men. The increase in the number of these military tribunes (three or four from 426 to 406, six from 405 to 367) implies an increase in the Thousands of the army. It was at this period, sometime between 405 and 367, that the new ‘Servian’ order was introduced, probably immediately after the Gallic sack, (
c
) In 366, when consuls were substituted for military tribunes, the legion of 6,000 men was divided into two separate legions, each under six tribunes; six were nominated by the consuls, six elected by the people. When the number of legions and tribunes was later increased the additional tribunes were elected by the people. Fraccaro’s explanation of the method of transition from one to two legions is to be followed.
    The chief merit of De Sanctis’ argument seems to be that it explains the fluctuating number of military tribunes: they varied with the number of Thousands of men levied annually. But since one of them sometimes remained in the city, their numbers may not depend strictly on the military organization. De Sanctis also implies that the ‘Servian’ order was introduced after the Gallic sack; it is difficult to see how this arrangement
based on sixty centuries would square with the occasional appointment of seven, eight, or nine military tribunes (and De Sanctis himself rejects Beloch’s elimination of the odd numbers from the Fasti as arbitrary). Again, not all De Sanctis’ arguments are irrefutable. For instance, if Frank’s calculations are accepted
Econ. Survey of Anc. Rome.
, I (1933), 19 ff., there is no objection on the score of population to placing the ‘Servian’ reform early. But even if these are rejected, the existence of a given number of centuries need not imply that at any given time they all contained 100 men. As De Sanctis says, a century of the census must have contained two or three times more people than a century of the legionary army. Is it not then possible that, accepting Fraccaro’s position, the primitive Romulean centuries were doubled by ‘Servius’ for census purposes; that each military century formed a part only of the census century of a full 100 rather than that the census century exceeded the military century of a full 100; and that the military centuries only gradually reached a full total which would produce an infantry of the line of 6,000 men? Other objections to De Sanctis’ views have been advanced by Fraccaro (
Athenaeum
, 1934, 57 ff. =
Opuscula
, II (1957), 293 ff.) that he and Beloch have been forced to imagine a Comitia Centuriata earlier than the ‘Servian’ one, of which tradition records no trace; and that if the ‘Servian’ reforms had been later than the regal period, their chronological position would have been mentioned (e.g. the decemviral legislation is not referred to Romulus or Servius !).