"Livyan" instead of "Camillan" units?

I know that the Polybian reform is called so because Polybius described the army of Rome in the period between the First Punic War and the Marian reforms.
But for the Camillan period, I suppose that the EB team called it so because Marcus Furius Camillus was the one who gave the first stipendium to the legionaries and was a dictator against Gauls and talic peoples, not because the guy who left us records about how the Roman army was in that time is called Camillus (or because he did a huge reform just like Marius).

What would you think if instead of "Camillan" the first Roman units would be referred to as "Livyan"? Just because Livy described the army of Rome of the period before the First Punic War, in the same way of Polybius for the Polybian units. In some Italian sources I also found the term "esercito liviano" ("Livyan army") together with "esercito polibiano" ("Polybian army"), so it is also used by historicians and not a fantasy word.

Or do you absolutely prefer "Camillan"? :)

I think it's better to go by the person who made the changes if possible. Otherwise the Marian reforms would logically be the Appianian reforms or something similar. I think the reason we don't refer to the Polybian reforms by the person who instituted them is that they were probably so gradual that there isn't one person who brought it all about. But I could be wrong. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Connacht

I know that the Polybian reform is called so because Polybius described the army of Rome in the period between the First Punic War and the Marian reforms.
But for the Camillan period, I suppose that the EB team called it so because Marcus Furius Camillus was the one who gave the first stipendium to the legionaries and was a dictator against Gauls and talic peoples, not because the guy who left us records about how the Roman army was in that time is called Camillus (or because he did a huge reform just like Marius).

What would you think if instead of "Camillan" the first Roman units would be referred to as "Livyan"?

---

There is no particularly good reason to name the pre-Polybian army "Camillan", but I think it's preferable "Livian".

Camillus' name is probably used for two reasons: Livy names him the second founder of Rome (after the Gallic sack of the city) and Plutarch claims he armed the legionaries with different helmets and modified shields. While I don't think that Plutarch's claim can be taken literally, it does suggest that Camillus may have been responsible for a significant military modification of some sort. It's unlikely that he was solely responsible initiating payment of the stipendium. This began when he was a military tribune with consular powers, but a rather junior one.

The case that the pre-Polybian army should be named for Livy, just as its successor was named for Polybios, is weak.

Polybios was actually present on campaign with the army he described. His description is remarkably detailed, presenting organization, pay, rations, unit types, numbers, weapons, and armor. He tells us how the army was recruited and mustered, and what the duties of a legion's military tribunes were. He mentions how a Roman camp was laid out and what the duties of the soldiers were while they occupied it. He tells us how the army marched, how it deployed for battle, how soldiers were rewarded for bravery, and punished for misconduct or cowardice.

In contrast to Polybios' eyewitness account, Livy is describing the "Camillan" army second-hand. This army had gone out of existence roughly two centuries before he wrote about it, and he's relying on an un-named primary source. His description is comparatively brief, running to just over a page in length. He focuses mostly on organization and says very little about arms or equipment.

Consequently, while it is difficult to credit Camillus for creating the so-called "Camillan" army, it certainly can't be said that Livy was the first to describe it, though his description is the only one to survive.

oh and PS. if we were to attribute it to Livy, the term would be Livian, rather than Livyan, since his name was Titus Livius and he's only called Livy because of the Anglicizing of his name, similar to why Cicero is occasionally referred to as "Tully," as opposed to Tullius, by some medieval/renaissance/enlightenment authors. -M

You forgot the most famous of all, Mark Antony :)

[face-palms] that was a bone-headed mistake on my part. -M