The Republican Armies, 500-44 BCE

[The Wizard]

Three things I'd like to add.

Lorica segmentata is a term which was fabricated in the 19th century, and there is no evidence of the Romans ever using the term. It's like the term 'Byzantines' for the eastern Romans in the middle ages. It's ok to use it, but there's a pretty large chance that the Romans wouldn't know what you'd be talking about if you ever asked them about it.

Also, this particular type of armor was not introduced until the time of emperor Claudius (that is the first time that it appears, and since the legion was state-equipped in that time, we can quite reasonably conclude that that was the time it was invented or perfected). Before this, all soldiers of the cohort-based legions (as well as the manipular legions) wore lorica hamata: chainmail.

Also, the Romans didn't possess the first professional army. Alexander the Great had commanded one, but he was preceded by the Persians, the Assyrians, and the Egyptians. Personally, I'm doubtful that the Egyptian professional army was worthy of the title; sure, it was state-equipped and served a set amount of time, but the Assyrian army was all that, plus state-trained and working together in such a way that could only be achieved by a proffessional army.



~Wiz

[lonewolf371]

Alright, I edited the armor stuff, I haven't studied equipment extensively as I probably should have before I wrote this.

Although a question, were those armies actually "professional"? I know they might have had standard sizes and had some form of basic drill, but didn't the soldiers still supply their own equipment and work the fields during peace-time? Were they paid, drilled, and equipped by the state? Most of these are generally considered traits of a professional army, which is part of the reason why many armies (such as those used in the 30 years' war) aren't considered truly "professional" as they were not fully trained and supplied by the state.

[The Wizard]

Although a question, were those armies actually "professional"? I know they might have had standard sizes and had some form of basic drill, but didn't the soldiers still supply their own equipment and work the fields during peace-time? Were they paid, drilled, and equipped by the state? Most of these are generally considered traits of a professional army, which is part of the reason why many armies (such as those used in the 30 years' war) aren't considered truly "professional" as they were not fully trained and supplied by the state.

What you mention is the problem with Ramses II's 'professional army'. Although they were drilled, they provided their own equipment and worked the fields in peace-time (not including units of the Royal Guard, of course).

However, the Assyrian army was a full-time affair, was drilled, state-equipped, and capable of stragetic and tactical moves that no-one else was capable of at the time.



~Wiz

[Leet Eriksson]

Very well done article lonewolf thanks