introducción de tácticas hoplíticas en roma

8/14/2019 Introducción de tácticas hoplíticas en Roma

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduccion-de-tacticas-hopliticas-en-roma 1/12

The Introduction of Hoplite Tactics at Rome: Its Date and Its Consequences

Author(s): Martin P. NilssonReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 19 (1929), pp. 1-11Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/297312 .

Accessed: 28/10/2011 16:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/297312?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/297312?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs



THE INTRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME: ITS DATE

AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

By MARTIN P. NILSSON.

That the close connection between military organization and

state-organization has received little attention in this country isless to be wondered at, because this country is an exception to the rule.Being protected by its insular situation, it has had no need of a largestanding army within its boundaries. On the Continent the connectionappears clearly. Feudal organization was bound up with the art offighting by knights, and was upset as much by the invention of gunsand gunpowder as by economic development: monarchy wassupported by mercenary armies, and the men who introduced com-pulsory service have more than others contributed to the foundingof democracy.

But I leave it to others to judge modern history according totheir own opinions, and turn to ancient history, which I know betterand where the connection is more obvious, because warfare was analmost constant occupation in ancient states and military service aduty imposed upon the citizens. With the introduction of mercenaryarmies the political importance, often even the freedom, of ancientstates disappeared; in Rome it preceded only by two or threegenerations the founding of the principate.

The Homeric Age has justly been called an age of knights.Noblemen drove in chariots to the battlefield, descended and fought

before the rankand file as champions, the mass of soldiers only formingthe indiscriminate background which counted for little. In the

popular assembly also noblemen played the leading part, carried on

the debates and made decisions. What befell a man of the people whotried to interfere is depicted in the scene of Thersites. Noblemen

fought and spoke for the people; to them belonged property and

political influence.In the seventh century B.C. a new mode of fighting was developed,

hoplite-tactics.2 It is in striking contrast to Homeric warfare, a

1 Read at the Annual General Meeting of theSociety, June iith, 1929.

2 See my paper, Die Hoplitentaktik unddas Staatswesen in Klio xxii, I 928, p. 270 ff.

Because the Chigi vase is somewhat peculiar instyle, it does not afford a good clue to the date;

but the hoplite-phalanx appears on the Macmillan

lekytbos and the lekytbos from Rhodes in Berlin,

which is attributed to the first part of the seventhcentury B.c. by K. Friis Johansen, Les vases

sicyoniennes (see p. I84 and pl. xxxi and xxxii).

The lapse of time between this date and that

here suggested for the introduction of hoplite-

tactics at Rome-the forties of the fifth century B.C.

-is only natural; for innovations in the art of

fighting are only learnt from an enemy with whom



2 THE INTRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME:

contrast which is not diminished by the fact that hoplite-tactics

were, of course, developed gradually.I

The battle-line of the hoplitesis a moving wall of men, protected by their shields and stretchingtheir spears threateningly forwards. Its force depends on itscoherence. If it is not broken up, it sweeps away what it encountersand carries the day; but if a gap is made, if a single man flinches, itcan be rolled up and defeat is at hand.

The contrast is sharp. The Homeric knight was guided by strongself-assertion; he fought for his personal distinction, glory andbooty. The duty of the hoplite was much more humble-to holdhis place in the rank and file, not to desert his comrade even at the

cost of his life, so that no gap should be made which might involvethe peril and defeat of the whole army.2 To spring forward from theline to distinguish oneself through personal bravery was a fault no lessserious than untimely flight. The contrast is that of collectivism andsolidarity with individualism and personal ambition. In the Statethe same contrast prevails between the ideals of the nobility and theideals of the Greek polis. The polis was a severe master which imposedheavy duties on its citizens, and the obligatory character of theseduties was most clearly impressed on the battlefield.

The new tactics contributed to the breaking up of the old state of

the nobility no less than did the economic development, which hasreceived much more attention. Old tactics were obsolete, the art offighting and the bravery of the knights went down before the spear-guarded battle-line of the hoplites, as the knights of Charles the Bold ofBurgundy before the pikes of the Swiss: the predominance of thenoblemen in the state which was founded upon their similar positionin battle was undermined. The armour and weapons of the hopliteswere costly, but not nearly so costly as the keeping of horses andprocuring of armour. Consequently, many more citizens took theirplace in the hoplite-army; and, as they decided the destiny of the

State on the battlefield, it was only natural that it was given to themto decide its destinies in the popular assembly also. The ideal of theState of the hoplites (TroxL-,zc Tiv 06TLv) had always a firm grip onthe Greek mind.

a people is constantly warring-e.g. the Romans

took over manipular tactics during the Samnite

wars. There was no immediate contact between

the Romans and the Greeks, and wars between

Greeks and Etruscans were waged in Campania

only when the Etruscans attempted to conquer

that province. It may reasonably be suggested

that the Etruscans learnt to know and took overthe phalanx at this time, viz. the sixth century B.C.

Thus the date here suggested for its introduction

at Rome will appear to be reasonable. E.

McCartney, The Military Indebtedness of Rome

to Etruria in Memoirs of the American Academy

in Rosne, I, 1917, p. 156, refers the reform to

one of the Tarquins, whom we shall call Servius

Tullius, but relies solely upon the traditional

connection of the so-called Servian class-system

with Kin( Servius Tullius. That is obviotisly nio

good reason.

That the change came about gradually is

justly remarked by Kromayer in Kromayer und

Veith, Kriegfuhrung der Griechen und Romer(Handbuch der klass. Altertumswissenschaft, iv.

Abt., 3. Teil, 2. Bd., p. 2z; cf. p. 28); but

this, of course, does not impair the sharp contrast

in discipline.

2Cl. the oath of the young Athenian citizens

in Pollux viii, I05: OVW ey-KaTraXeiqwTrO

racapaaradT?vdv oTOL.



ITS DATFE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 3

It was the duty of every citizen to procure weapons and armour

for himself. As long as noblemen played the most prominent partin battle, there was no need of any organization, because class-senseand ambition drove them to take their places and win distinction.When a great many new citizens were placed in the decisive battle-line and it was extremely important that they should be as numerousas possible, the need became apparent to find out those on whom theduty to serve as hoplites could be imposed. The qualification becameone of property which sufficed to procure hoplite-armour. In thisway timocracy arose ; for, originally, timocracy is not founded onproperty as such but on ability to do military service, and this was,

as we have seen, bound up with the possession of property to a certainvalue. But already in Solon s laws a real timocracy had been developed,wealthier citizens having certain prerogatives, or to put it rightly,noblemen preserved some of their privileges, as did the knights inSolon s class-system, and timocracy was developed by attributingsome prerogatives to, and imposing certain special duties on, thewealthiest class.

It is certain that hoplite-tactics were introduced into Rome also.1

D r. Helbig has ingeniously shown that, in the earliest time of theRepublic, Roman tactics much resembled Homeric warfare.2 The

champions whom Dr. Helbig calls mounted hoplites rode to thebattlefield, dismounted, and fought on foot. The difference isthe use of the pilum, which implies chiefly that the Homeric knightsdrove while the Romans rode; the kind of fighting must have beenmuch the same. There is an old tradition concerning the introductionof hoplite-tactics to which Professor Ed. Meyer has drawn attention.It is incorporated in an account of some negotiations between theRomans and the Carthaginians at the outbreak of the first Punic War. 3

The Carthaginians say that they wonder how the Romans dare toembark on war with them, when they have neither a fleet nor

experience of naval warfare. The Romans reply that they havealwayslearnt from others, whom in the end they have overcome: theyhave taken over the phalanx from the Etruscans and manipulartacticsfrom the Samnites.

The reliability of the tradition cannot be disputed: from ageneral point of view it is extremely probable that the Greek hoplite-tactics were introduced into Rome and came between the old modeof fighting, described by Dr. Helbig, and the well-known manipular

This paper owes much to Professor Ed.

Meyer s illuminating article, Das romischeManipularheer, seine Entwicklung und seine

Vorstufen, first printed in the Abbandlungen derpreuss. Akad. der Wiss., I923, no. 3, and reprinted

with additions in his Kleine Schrilten ii, p. I93

seqq. ; but the connection between the reform of

the military organisation and the constitutional

reform is made on my own responsibility.

2 W. Ilelbig, Die Castores als Schutzgotter des

r6mischen Equitatus in Hermiiesxl, 1905) p. Ion;Zur Geschichte des riimischen Equitatsss in

Abhandlungen der bayer. Akad. der Wiss., phil.-

hist. Klasse xxiii, no. 2, i902. Cf. Kromayer and

Veith, loc. Cit., p. 235.

3Inedituni Vaticanumn iii; Hermiiesxxvii, I892.

Diodors romische Annalen, herausgeg. von A. B.

Drachmann (Lietzmann s Kleine Texte no. 97), p. 67.




tactics. The only question is, When did this happen ? Somescholars

have supposeda thorough army-reformafter the battle of the Allia,1but it is not certain that that great disasterwas causedby defects inRoman tactics and army organisation: it may have been due to afailure of nerve when facingan unknownand terriblefoe. In realitythe progressof Rome had begun some yearsbefore this date, and ithad alreadytaken the first steps which ultimately led to the masteryof Italy. The most remarkable f these is the conquestof Veii, fiveyears before the battle of the Allia ; but already n the last years ofthe fifth century Romehad made notable advances owardsthe south,conqueringand colonisingVelitrae,Anxur and other places. On the

other hand, the early and middle parts of the fifth century are filledwith incessant and fruitless wars with the neighbouring peoples.It seems,therefore,reasonable o ascribe his definiteprogressof Romeat the end of the century to the resultsof a reformwhich added tothe strengthandfighting qualitiesof the Romanarmy. Consequently,this may be dated some time beforethe close of the fifth century.

But general considerationshave a restricted value, and a moredefiniteargumentfor this datingcan be found. ProfessorEd. Meyer2hasbrieflypointedto the storyof the dictator, A. PostumiusTubertus,in 432 B.C., who put his son to death becausehe sprangforwardfromthe line and engagedin a victoriousduelwith an enemy3; and he hasjustly appreciatedit as an illustration of the contrast between theold mode of fighting and the new discipline of hoplite-tactics. I aminclinedto attribute still greatervalueto this story. There is nothinglegendaryabout it ; it is no wandering motif, although it has beentransferredo T. ManliusTorquatus. The case is very easy to under-stand at a certaintime, when the old mode of fighting, the springingforwardof the championsto gain personal distinction, was not yetforgotten, and when the severe discipline of the hoplite-phalanx,in

which to leave one s place in the battle-line was a crime no lessheinous than untimely flight, must at all costs be enforced. TheRoman mind was such that there is nothing improbable n the story,and the tragic issue impressed t on people s minds.

If this view is approved,we gain a ter minus nte quemfor theintroductionof hoplite-tactics ; it must fall shortly before 432 B.C.4

The date agreeswell with the aboveconsiderations,but in dating theintroductionof hoplite-tactics I should not dare to rely solely uponthis story : there are other circumstanceswhich seem to corroboratethe date in a strikingmanner.

Twelve yearsbefore this event, in 444 B.C., tribuni militarescon-1 For a contrary view see Ed. Meyer, loc. cit.,

p. 26 1. n. i.2 Ed. Meyer, loc. cit., p. 272.

3 I)iodorus xii, 64; Livy xxix, 5; transferredto T. Manlius rorquatus in 340 n.c. in Livy

viii, 7-cf. Periocba 54.

4 L am not unaware of the chronologicaldifficulties, but I share the opinion of prominentscholars of recent years that the fasti are betterthan they are generally supposed to be, and I do notconsider an attempt to correct the conventionaldates essential in this connection.



ITS DATE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 5

sulari potestate were elected instead of consuls. The purpose of the

change has been hotly disputed: it has almost always been connectedwith the demand of the plebeians for accession to the high offices,more especially the consulate, and has been interpreted as a meanseither to hinder the admission of the plebeians, if, with Diodorus, thisstep is dated to 450 B.C., or to put off the decision of the question, if,

with Livy, their admissionis dated to 367 B.C. I think such a view toonarrow. There may have been reasons, not only for a struggle inregard to the existing offices, but also for developing the institutionsof the State in order to answer its growing needs; and opinions may

have differed-as regards the manner in which this should be done.

Concerning the purpose of the change we know nothing for certain,but only what can be concluded from the names of the militarytribunes ; and this shows that it implied a militarization of the highestoffice of the State. Its holders were freed from part of their civil

functions, in order that they might be able to devote themselves moreeffectively to their military duties. This was evidently much needed,if at this time a thorough military reform was introduced and a newand severe military discipline was to be enforced.

Moreover, in the following year, 443 B.C., the censorship wascreated. The censors without doubt took over some of the duties

formerly incumbent upon the consuls; but the chief purpose of theiroffice is again attested by its name-it was to make the census, to

distribute the citizens into classes according to their property.Taxation may have existed in an earlier age, but it cannot have had

any great importance for the State before the introduction of hoplite-tactics. Withthat change it became all important to assessthe propertyof the citizens, in order to discover those whose duty it was to serveas hoplites. I am firmly convinced that the creation of the censorshipis connected with the introduction of hoplite-tactics ;- for this is

the only obvious and sufficient reason. The task of taxing the citizensbecame with this reform so important and so comprehensive that it

could not be carried out by the consuls, who had so many other

duties ; and, moreover, the highest magistrates had to be freed from

civil duties, in order to teach the newly-created army new tactics and

a new discipline.I think that the interconnection is evident and that the reform

of the highest office and the creation of the new office are best

explained in this way: for then we find a clear and adequate reason

for the change. The political effect of the army reform went farther

and caused a reform of the State-institutions also, and this latterreform had still more important consequences.The well-known Servian scheme of the classes has come down to us

remodelled by later generations. The property prescribed for each

of the classesis evaluated in arsses,and money was struck in Rome onlyin the middle of the fourth centuiry: moreover, it has been proved



6 THE IN TRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME:

that the asses referred to are the two-ounce asses which were

introduced in 269 B.C. This may only be a later evaluation of theamount of property which was defined in another manner; wecannot say whether any other change has been introduced. Thefollowing calculation has, however, been made. On the assumptionthat the assessment of the lowest class, II,OOO asses, corresponds tothe value of a heredium, a garden-plot of two jugera, the propertyprescribed for the first class would be slightly less than twenty jugera(i.e. about twelve acres or five hectares), which is really no great area.1According to this calculation, the great mass of the first class were notgreat landowners but at most well-to-do farmers, such as were able

to procure full hoplite-armour and weapons, and this seems to showthat the tradition is substantially correct.

The tradition also gives an account of the armour and weaponswhich were prescribed for the different classes. This account isschematic, and may have been remodelled according to later ideasand misunderstandings ; but in one point at least it seems trust-worthy, viz. that full hoplite-armour and weapons were prescribedfor the first class.2

Both these points, taxation and the prescription of certain armour,are essential to an army-reform through which a hoplite-phalanxwas created; before this, they had by no means the same importance.That the scheme of the classes was instituted by King Servius Tulliusis an ancient opinion which has long ago been discredited, but to whattime it is to be ascribed is completely doubtful. If the main principlesare older than the time to which the existing tradition belongs-andwe have seen that they certainly are-they agree in a remarkablemanner with the necessary premises of a hoplite-army, the first classcomprising those who were able and obliged to serve as hoplites.The scheme has been built up -upon earlier foundations like that of

Solon at Athens, but it is idle to speculate about the form which theclass-system may have had before that which is described in ourhistorical sources. The all-important main point is that the system isessentially adapted to the requirements of a hoplite-phalanx; andhence, if it existed at all before this time, it must have been verythoroughly readjusted when the army-reform which created thehoplite-phalanx was carried through.

The Servian classes and centuries form one of the popularassemblies in Rome, the comitiat centuriata. The military characterof this assembly is well known. It must needs meet outside the

pomerium on the Campus Martius. To summon it is called exercitumimperare. It is presided over only by a magistrate holding the

1 Accordingly I cannot accept the reasoning of

A. Rosenberg, Untersuchuegen zur rdmischen

Zenturienverfassung, p. 23, who tries to show thatthe first class comprised really wealthy men. His

use of modern statistics is more specious thansound.

2Cf. Ed. Meyer, loc. cit., p. a7o and n. 3.




imperium, i.e. military command, and during its meeting the red

war-flag flies on the Janiculum. It is the people under arms servingas a popular assembly.

This principle is old and time-honoured. The army was the

first popular assembly among several peoples of the Aryan stock-the

Teutons, the Homeric Greeks, the Macedonians and in Sparta.

Therefore it is presumably old in Rome too, older than Rome itself.

But it is to be noted that the comitia centuriata and the army are

not identical, although they are often said to be so. This is of course

obvious; for the effective army in Rome did not comprise all the

citizens whose duty it was to do military service. All the citizens

who were able to bear arms were summoned only when tumultus wasproclaimed. A levy was made in order to form the effective army.

Those who were not levied could not, however, be deprived of their

votes. This point, indeed, has been demonstrated at length by recent

writers. 1 Under these circumstances it is tempting to assume that the

Servian scheme represents the cadres from which the levy was made.

But that is not possible either. The levy was made according to the

tribes, and it is impossible to fit even the oldest twenty tribes into the

scheme of the Servian centuries. The necessary conclusion is that, the

Servian system is a voting-system with a military base; but we are

unable to guess the time when this voting-scheme was created, and

the changes which it may have undergone. Only one point seems

certain, namely, that its main principle is closely link edup with the

hoplite-phalanx and is derived from its creation.

We have noted, on the one hand, that the army is the oldest

popular assembly and, on the other, that the comitia centuriata

cannot be very old, because it is not a real army but a voting syst-em

founded on the hoplite-army. There existed in Rome an older

popular assembly, the comitia curiata. In historical times, it was an

unimportant relic from antiquity; but that it had onceexercised

the sovereignty in the State is demonstrated by the fact that the

magistrates had to be invested with their authority by a lex curiata

de imperio, althoughit was as sheer a formalityas the lex de imperio

through which in a later age the popular assembly invested the

emperorwith the sovereignty of the people. The comitia curiata had

long since passed out of practical political life and is very little known:

but from certain formalities which still survived it has been deduced

that it was based on the gentes, and this seems likely; for a popular

assembly answering to the gentilician State, which prevailed in the

early age of Rome as in the early age of Greece, must be presumed.The military system of this age in which the nobility prevailed

was also founded upon the gentes. It is surmised that the thirty

curiae were connected with the three oldest tribes-the Tities,

the Ramnes and the Luceres which remained as names belonging to

1 Especially by A. Rosenberg, loc. cit., p. 3 sqq. i ct.- Ed. Meyer, loc. cit., p. 270, n. 1.




the six first centuries of knights, the leaders of which certainly were the

tribuni celerum. This may have been the army of mounted hoplitesof the early age. A sidelight is cast on this military system by the storyof the three hundred Fabii who undertook the war against Veii andfell at the Cremera in 477 B.C. Whatever may be thought of thetrustworthiness of the story, its background, the ruin of a wholegens, can hardly be fiction; for in a later age it would have beenimpossible. On the other hand, it cannot be believed that all thesethree hundred men were patrician members of the gens Fabia. Wehave a vivid picture from the age in which military and state organisa-tion was founded upon the gentes. The gens marches into the war

with its retainers, the clients, forming one military unit which wascompletely crushed.

We have seen what an important change in the life and socialstructure of the State the introduction of hoplite-tactics into Greeceinvolved; and the effect must have been the same in Rome when theclients, who formerly followed their patrons in war as retainers,were placed side by side with them in the hoplite-phalanx. This wasstressed some years ago by Professor K. J. Neumann in his interestingsketch of early Roman history,2 but in my opinion with excessiveemphasis.

Neumann also assumes a great military and political reorganisationin the early age of Rome; but he adds that it started from a liberationof the serfs (Bauernbefreiung), supposing that the clients wereoriginally serfs. In order to organise the liberated farmers, the sixteenoldest rural tribes were created. This setting free of the serfs is,he thinks, later than the creation of the four urban tribes and the officeof the tribuni plebis, but earlier than the law of the Twelve Tables,because the latter recognise free property only. This theory has notgained approval, and its foundations are unstable. There is noindication to the effect that the clients were originally serfs or thatthe land tilled by them was in reality the property of their patrons.Hence the statement is not warranted that the reform was carriedthrough before the time of the decemviri. The ties which unitedclients and patrons were chiefly of a moral order but partly of aneconomic nature, and implied mutual aid and assistance. Thereis no sign that the clients were generally discontented with theirposition: in tradition they appear as helpers of the patrician faction.

In spite of these criticisms there is a kernel of truth in Neumann sview, which ought not to be overlooked. The old bonds between

patrons and clients were slackened, and the clients were freed from theoverwhelming predominance of the patricians when, in a certainrespect, they were put on an equal footing with the latter. The

1 Diodorus xi, 53; Livy ii, 49 seqq.2 K. J. Neumann, Die Grundherrschaft der

rom. Republik, die Bauernbefrei-uttgutnddie Entste-

hung der servianischen Verfassung, AkademischeRede, Strassburg, I900; and in Weltgeschichte(herausgeg. von Pflugk-Hartung), 1, 374 seqq.




inevitable consequence of the new military organisation, n which

the gentes had no importance whatever and well-to-do smallholderswere placed side by side with patricians n the hoplite-phalanx,wasthat the plebeians who did hoplite-service had to be conceded thesame importance n the popular assemblyas on the bat tlefield. So itis in the comitia centuriata, which is what the Greeks, called 7roXv-r oc

-(J)v O7tnL-vG)Vn a specifically Roman form. In fact, the reformushered n a new era in social development and politics.

It is, however, typical of the Roman character hat the constitu-tional reform which the military reform made necessarywas in nowise radical. The existing popular assembly, he comitiacuriata,was

not re-shaped, but was allowed to retain some of its functions. Byits side a new popular assembly,the comitia centuriata,was created,basedon the new military organisation. Further, it is typical of thepracticalpolitical sense of the Romans and of their tenaciousaristo-cratic tendencies that in this assembly votes were not counted byheads, as in Greece, but were proportionedaccording to the militaryvalue of the voters. The militaryorganisationwas simply transmutedinto a voting organisation,and by this means a real hoplite-statewas created and the numerical superiority of the lower classeseffectively counterbalanced.

The military organisation s in a certain manner connected withthe rustic tribes ; for these are the levy-districts. How old thesetribes are is uncertain. Their creation is ascribed o the epoch-of theKings,but this is of coursenot warranted. The first seventeentribesare earlier han the conquestofVeii; for the eighteenth and nineteenthtribes were created on the conquered territory. The seventeenthtribe, Crustumina,has a local name, derived from the town ofCrustumerium,which was conqueredat an uncertaindate about theend of the fifth century. The first sixteen tribes are the oldest, andthey areall named after patrician

gentes,though six of these vanished

so early that nowmember of them is mentioned in historical records.To these sixteenoldest rustictribesthe four urbantribeshave to

be added. Their agealsois unknown; but presumably hey are olderthan the rustic tribes. They became of importance in political lifewhen their heads, the tribuniplebis, were invested with legallyrecognisedrights as protectorsof the plebeians n 471 B.C. ; for I con-sider this view, which has been propoundedby ProfessorEd. Meyer, 1asbyfarthe mostprobable. This extremelystrangeofficemay perhapsbe understoodbetter if the duty of the tribuniplebiswas to afford

protection to the urbanplebs of a similar kind to that which thepatronsaffordedto their clients.If this view is correct, the assemblyof the plebs-the comitia

tributa, which created the tribuni plebis and carriedresolutionson

1 Ed. Meyer Der Ursprung des Tribunats unddie Gem,einde der vier Tribus, in Hermes xxx,

1895, I seqq ; reprinted in his Kleine Scbrilten,i, znd ed., p. 333 scqq.




behalf of the plebs, consisted originally only of the urban tribes.

Of course this assembly was only a separate meeting of the plebeians,an association like many others in Rome ; but the patrician state had

been compelled in a certain measure to acknowledge it and its leaders

as an integral part of the state-machinery. This was a sacrifice to

urban democracy which was not without its risks.

By adding the sixteen rustic tribes to the four urban tribes the

risk was eliminated by a stroke of genius. The country people, who

were more conservative than the artisans and dealers of the town,

and who shared the agrarian interests of the governing class and were

connected with the patricians through old and time-honoured bonds,

obtained an overwhelming majority in the comitia tributa. It would berash to guess that the rustic tribes were created and added to the

urban tribes at the same time as the political and military reform

sketched above was introduced; but in fact there exists a connection

which cannot be overlooked. For, if we assume that the rustic tribes

existed in an age in which military and state-organisation was founded

upon the gentes, they had no other function than to unite certain

gentes with their clients. When the clients were set free through the

great reform, the tribes became the organisation of the rustic plebs;and organisation of the classes was all-important in early Roman

history. Consequently, the importance of the rustic tribes for thelife of the Roman state only began with the reform which made

hoplites of the farmers and gave them the rights which this duty

conveyed.Thus the future development of Roman history was decided. The

farmerspredominated both in the comitia centuriata and in the comitia

tributa. They were in harmony with the land-owning nobility in pro--

moting agrarian nterests ; the only point of contention was which class

was to gain the greatest advantages from the territories which the

newly created hoplite-army added to the Roman state. In the

course of time both won. The nobility became really big land-

owners, and masses of Roman small-holders were distributed over

Italy: they made the possession of the conquered territories secure,and gave Rome its incomparable numerical strength, through which

it ultimately attained to the dominion of the Mediterranean world.

It has been well said that the Romans conquered Italy, not only bytheir swords, but also by their ploughs. The foundation was laid

through the army-reform, and the manner in which it was coupled

with a reform of the state-organisation.

This great reform has been reconstructed ex hypothesi it hasleft no traces in tradition except the creation of the offices of the

military tribunes and the censors, but in this fact there is nothing

peculiar. For the reform was primarily of a military order, and about

military reforms in the early age tradition is almost silent. Great

as was the importance of the accompanying reforms of the state-



ITS DATEAND II S CONSEQUENCES. II

organisation, they were nothing but consequences of the military

reform, and therefore they were less observed, less remembered andwere soon misconstrued in the tradition.

In tradition the outstanding point is the creation of the two new

offices, the military tribunate and the censorship, which the militaryreform made necessary in the place of the consulate. Certainlythere has been much controversy concerning these offices, especiallythe military tribunate, although their character was not wholly suchas is described by the tradition. For their creation involved an ex-tending and specialising of the offices, a means to meet the growingneeds of the state-organisation, and these were needs especially caused

by the military reform.If I am right, there is, on the one hand, a remarkable parallelism

between the historical development in Rome and in Greece. In bothcountries the first popular claim was that the laws should be writtendown and made accessible to all people. In Athens a quarter of acentury after Draco came Solon, and with him constitutionalreform. In Rome similar constitutional reform was introduced soon

after the legislation of the decemviri. But, on the other hand,the difference is great and characteristic. Solon s reform wasessentially constitutional and aimed at distributing duties and rights

among the citizens, and it differentiated them according to the thenprevailing ideas. It was framed in accordance with the peculiarityof the Greek mind, which was always theoretical and intellectual.The Roman reform was fundamentally military, and only in itsconsequences constitutional. It was framed in accordance with thepeculiarity of the Roman mind, which was practical and put theneeds of practical policy in the foreground. Therefore this reformbecame the foundation of Roman greatness.

introducción de tácticas hoplíticas en roma

Documents