CHAPTER IV

THE CENTURIES AND THE CLASSES

The ancient authorities represent Servius Tullius as the founder of an organization at once military and political—on the one hand the army composed of classes and centuries, and on the other the comitia centuriata. According to Livy[383]—

“From those whose rating was 100,000 asses or more he made 80 centuries, 40 of seniors and 40 of juniors, and termed them all the _first_ class. The seniors were to be ready for guarding the city and the juniors were to serve in the field. The arms required of them were a helmet, round shield, greaves, and cuirass,—all bronze,—for the protection of the body. Their offensive weapons were a spear and a sword. To this class were added two centuries of sappers who were to serve without arms. Their duty was to convey the engines of war. The _second_ class was made up of those whose rating was between 75,000 and 100,000 asses, 20 centuries of seniors and juniors together. They were equipped with an oblong shield (scutum) instead of a round one, and they lacked the cuirass, but in all other respects their arms were the same. The minimal rating of the _third_ class was 50,000 asses, and the number of centuries was the same with the same distinction of age, and there was no change in arms excepting that greaves were not required. In the _fourth_ were those appraised at 25,000 asses. They had the same number of centuries but their arms were changed, nothing being assigned them but a spear and a long javelin. The _fifth_ class was larger, composed of 30 centuries. They carried slings and stones for throwing. Among them were counted the accensi, the hornblowers, and the trumpeters, 3 centuries. This class was appraised at 11,000 asses. Those whose rating was less formed one century exempt from military service. Having thus armed and organized the infantry, he levied 12 centuries of equites from among the chief men of the state. Also the 3 centuries instituted by Romulus he made into 6 others of the same names as those under which the three had originally been inaugurated.” Afterward Livy speaks of the votes of the centuries in the comitia.

The ultimate source of this description, as well as of the similar account given by Dionysius, is the censorial document already mentioned,[384] sometimes termed the “discriptio centuriarum,”[385] sometimes “Commentarii Servi Tullii”[386] on the supposition that Servius was the author. In reality it belonged to the Censoriae Tabulae[387] of the period immediately following 269.[388] The document gave a list of the classes, centuries, and ratings, and furnished directions for holding the centuriate assembly. As the military divisions and equipments mentioned by Livy in the passage above had been discarded long before this date,[389] they could not have been described in the document. The account of them found in our sources must, therefore, have been supplied by antiquarian study.[390] The annalist who first used these Tabulae in the censorial archives was Fabius Pictor.[391] Whether Livy and Dionysius derived their account directly from him or through a later annalist cannot be determined.[392] Though Cicero’s source may ultimately have been the same, he seems to have depended largely on his memory and is chronologically, though not in substance, less exact. In assigning seventy rather than eighty centuries to the first class he most probably has in mind a stage of transition from the earlier to the reformed organization.[393]

A brief analysis of this description, as presented by Livy or Dionysius, will prove that it could not apply at the same time to an army and a political assembly: (1) The century of proletarians, which formed a part of the comitia, and which according to Dionysius was larger than all the rest together, was exempt from military service.[394] (2) The unarmed supernumeraries termed accensi velati must in their military function have lacked the centuriate organization, as will hereafter be made clear.[395] (3) The musicians and the skilled workmen who accompanied the army must also be eliminated from the centuriate organization of the army.[396] (4) The seniors, too, lacked the centuriate military organization.[397] (5) Thus the only pedites in the original centuriate system were the juniors. Even the military century of juniors was not in the beginning strictly identical with a voting century; and as time progressed, the one group diverged more and more widely from the other.[398]

Chiefly from these facts, which will become clear in the course of this study, we are warranted in concluding that the army was at no time identical with the comitia centuriata. As one was necessarily an outgrowth of the other, the military organization must have been the earlier. If therefore the original form of the centuriate system is to be referred to Servius Tullius, he will be considered the organizer of the phalanx, which the military centuries constituted,[399] not of the comitia.[400] This result harmonizes with the view of the ancient writers that the comitia centuriata exercised no functions—hence we have a right to infer that it had no existence—before the beginning of the republic.[401]

The following sketch of the development of the Roman military system from the earliest times to the institution of the manipular legion includes those features only which are essential to an understanding of the origin and early character of the centuriate assembly. The view maintained in this volume is, as suggested in the preceding paragraph, that the comitia centuriata in the form described by Livy and Dionysius developed from the early republican military organization, which was itself the result of a gradual growth. Reference is made to equipments chiefly for the purpose of throwing light on the relation of the Roman to the Greek organization and of the various Roman military divisions to one another.

I. _The Primitive Graeco-Italic Army and the Origin of the Phalanx_

Recent research has brought to light a period of Italian history during which the military system of the Latins and Etruscans closely resembled that of the Mycenaeans, the former doubtless being derived in large part from the latter.[402] The nobleman,[403] equipped in heavy armor, rode forth in his chariot[404] to challenge his peer among the enemy to personal combat. The mass of common footmen were probably grouped in tribes and curiae (Greek phratries, brotherhoods),[405] as in Homeric Greece[406] and among the early Europeans[407] before the development of an organization based on a numerical system. The arms of the footmen must have been lighter, and probably varied with the individual’s financial resources. These common troops could have had no special training or discipline, as they counted for little in war.[408] Yet in the Homeric age of Greece some attempt was made to keep the fighters in line, and to prevent the champions from advancing beyond it to single combat.[409] A similar tendency to even, rhythmic movement may be inferred for the Latin army.[410] The great innovators in this direction were the Lacedaemonians, to whom the honor of inventing the phalanx is chiefly due.[411] This improvement, which made an epoch in European warfare, could not have been later than the eighth century B.C. The phalanx was a line, several ranks deep, of heavy-armed warriors, who moved as a unit to the sound of music.[412] The depth varied as the occasion demanded; it was not necessarily uniform throughout the line, but for Lacedaemon eight may be considered normal.[413] The heavy-armed trooper carried a large shield, which covered the entire body, a helmet, and greaves; his offensive weapons were sword and spear.[414] Tyrtaeus mentions also a coat of mail though not as an essential part of the equipment.[415] The metal of their defensive armor was mostly bronze; their swords and spear-points were probably iron, which the mines of Laconia abundantly supplied.[416] Although it is well known that the phalanx was composed of smaller units, the original organization can only be conjectured. It is not unlikely that in the beginning there were tribal regiments,[417] divided into companies of fifty or perhaps a hundred,[418] which were made up of still smaller groups. The military age extended from the twentieth to the sixtieth year.[419]

The phalanx was readily adopted by other Greek states, which modified it to suit their several conditions. In Athens and probably elsewhere the army had a tribal organization,[420] but a census was introduced in order to determine who possessed sufficient wealth for service on horseback, in the heavy infantry, and in the light infantry; and when once the census classes were adopted, it was easy to extend them to political uses. In this way the four property classes at Athens, probably instituted about the middle of the seventh century B.C.,[421] became under Solon if not earlier a basis for the distribution of offices and other political privileges. Naturally the Greeks of Sicily and Italy adopted the phalanx, and it is reasonable to suppose that the Romans derived it, through the Etruscans,[422] from one of these neighbors.

II. _The Servian Army_

As the heavy troops of the Greek line were all armed alike, the Romans probably at first composed their phalanx in a similar way, without gradations of equipment. The complex system of census groupings in the army as we find it immediately before the institution of the manipular legion could only have resulted from a long development. The statement last made finds justification in the fact that the term classis[423] was originally limited to the first or highest census group, all the rest being “infra classem.”[424]

Not only was the organization like that of the Greeks, but the arms, too, were in the main Greek. The soldiers of the classis were equipped with helmet, shield, greaves, spear, and sword; as they wore a cuirass, they used a large round Etruscan buckler[425] instead of the man-covering Dorian shield. They were grouped in centuries,[426] forty of which composed the classis in the fully developed phalanx.[427] The age of service of the juniors, who alone fought in the field, extended from the completed seventeenth to the completed forty-sixth year,[428] whereas the seniors from the forty-seventh to the sixtieth year formed a reserve.

A still nearer connection can be found between the Roman and the Greek horsemen. As is proved by archaeology, the earliest Greek knights had no specialized weapons or armor and were not accustomed to fight on horseback, but were heavy infantry who used their horses simply as conveyance.[429] The same is true of the earliest Roman equites, whose equipment closely resembled that of the Greek horsemen. On account of their swiftness they were primitively called celeres.[430] Although these mounted footmen are generally known as equites, which in this sense may but loosely be translated knights, the Romans did not institute a true cavalry till the period of the Samnite wars.[431] It is a curious fact that some horsemen, Roman as well as Greek, were provided each with two horses,[432] one for the warrior and the other for his squire,[433] and that the mounted soldiers of Etruria were in these respects the same.[434] A further resemblance between the earliest Greek and Roman horsemen lies in the fact that they were noble.[435]

In their account of the growth of the mounted service during the regal period the ancient authorities show great inconsistencies. It seems probable that the early annalists pictured the increase in the knights in a way analogous to that of the senate: at first Romulus formed a troop, or century, from the Ramnes; afterward a second was added from the Tities; and still later the Luceres furnished a third.[436] Then Tarquinius Priscus doubled the number, making six in all, and Servius finally increased it to eighteen centuries. This simple development, itself a reconstruction, was complicated by the desire of the historians to make the number of knights under Servius agree with the number under Augustus, given by Dionysius[437] at about 5000; hence the assumption of 200 or even 300 knights to the century as early as the reign of Romulus.[438] It is possible by clearing away these evident misconceptions to discover the approximate truth.

When the chariot gave way to the horseback rider is not definitely known; at all events the change seems to have taken place under Hellenic influence, and could hardly therefore have been earlier than the beginning of the seventh century B.C.[439] The idea of the sources is that there came to be three troops of horsemen, furnished by the tribes,[440] as well as three regiments of foot, that before Servius the number of troops of horse was doubled, and that the six troops thus formed were named accordingly after the tribes Ramnenses, Titienses, and Lucerenses priores and posteriores respectively.[441] The priores had each two horses, the posteriores one.[442] Hence the essential difference between these divisions was in rank and wealth rather than in the relative time of their institution. Long after Servius both divisions continued to be patrician.[443] As the centuriate organization of Servius applied to the infantry, the cavalry remained little affected by it. The six troops with their old names survived, and eventually became a part of the comitia centuriata. In the military sphere, however, the troop no longer retained its identity; but the whole body was divided into twenty turmae, each composed of three decuries commanded by decurions.[444] When with the institution of the republic the phalanx was split into two legions, ten turmae of cavalry were assigned to each legion.[445] As in historical time the number of horsemen to a legion did not exceed 300,[446] and as we have no reason to suppose that at an earlier period this arm of the service was proportionally stronger, we may conclude that in the Servian phalanx, or double legion, the number did not exceed 600.

From the foregoing discussion it appears clear that the Servian military system rested upon a division of the citizens into four groups, closely corresponding to the Athenian census divisions: (1) the equites priores, like the pentacosiomedimni, (2) the equites posteriores, like the hippeis,[447] (3) the classis, like the zeugitae, (4) the light troops infra classem, like the thetes. The distinction between priores and posteriores rested not upon an assessment but upon a less precise difference in wealth, whether determined by the individual concerned or by the state we cannot know; it represented, too, a gradation of nobility. The distinction between the knights and the classici was one of rank; that between the classis and the soldiers infra classem was alone determined by the census.

III. _The Development of the Five Post-Servian Military Divisions on the Basis of Census Ratings_

This arrangement was by no means final. Further changes were made in both foot and horse which were to have a bearing on the organization of the comitia centuriata. After a time[448] two additions of men less heavily armed than the classici were made to the phalanx, whether simultaneously or successively cannot be determined. There were now forty centuries of classici, and the additions comprised ten centuries each, the second less heavily armed than the first, though they may both be considered heavy in contrast with the light troops. Perhaps the state according to its ability made up the deficiency in the equipment, so as to render the entire phalanx as evenly armed as possible.[449] It numbered sixty centuries of heavy infantry, composed of three grades which depended upon the census rating.[450] The light troops were also grouped in two divisions on the same principle. The first comprised ten centuries; originally the second may have contained the same number, in which case four were afterward added to make the fourteen known to exist in the fully developed system.[451] There were five divisions of infantry amounting to eighty-four centuries of a hundred men each. Undoubtedly the growth of the army to this degree of strength was gradual, though the successive steps cannot be more minutely traced.[452]

In making the levy the military tribunes selected the soldiers from the lists of tribesmen, taking one tribe after another as the lot determined.[453] The early Romans must have striven to distribute the population as equally as possible among the tribes in order to render them approximately equal in capacity for military service. As long as this equality continued, the officials could constitute the army of an equal number of men from each tribe. These considerations explain the close relation in early time between the number of tribes and of centuries as well as the suggestions offered by our sources as to an early connection between the centuries and the tribes.[454] While there were but twenty tribes we may suppose that the legion comprised but 4000 men, which was raised to 4200 when the twenty-first tribe was added. In this way can we account for the number of centuries to the legion. If but half the available military strength was required, the magistrates might draw by lot ten tribes from which to make the levy.[455] It was an easy matter as long as the heavy troops were limited to the classis;[456] but when two other ratings were added, and when meantime the tribes must have grown unlike in population, it became practically impossible to maintain for each rating a just proportion from the tribes;[457] and perhaps this was the chief reason for the modification in the method of recruiting. When therefore the tribes were increased to twenty-five, and it was deemed inexpedient to make a corresponding enlargement of the legion,[458] a new principle was adopted for the levy: after determining the ratio between the number of men needed and the whole number available, the officers drew from each tribe a number proportionate to its capacity.[459] It would agree well with all the known facts to suppose that the addition of the second and third ratings, followed by a more thorough organization of the light troops, belongs to the early republic (509-387),[460] when Rome needed all her strength in her life and death struggle with hostile neighbors. At the same time the purchase of armor and the increased burden of military duty would help account for the desperate economic condition of the poorer peasants of that epoch.

The proportions of the five ratings—20-15-10-5-2½ or 2—to be discussed hereafter,[461] suggest an explanation of their origin. It would be reasonable to assume that the normal holding of the well-to-do citizen was a twenty-iugera lot and that the Servian phalanx was composed of possessors of that amount, the light-armed being their sons and others distinctly inferior in wealth. In course of a few generations as the population grew, with no corresponding territorial expansion or colonization or industrial development, and with only a limited conversion of waste to arable land, many of the lots became divided and subdivided. The result was a weakening of the phalanx at a time when the state was in the most pressing need of military resources. The institution of the five ratings as a basis for the reorganization of the army was a temporary expedient for meeting the crisis, to be superseded not long afterward by a better system founded on military pay. In all probability the introduction of the five ratings, or at least the beginning of the movement in that direction, should be closely connected with the institution of the censorship in 443 or 435.[462] The supposition would give us a sufficient reason for the creation of this new office at that time, and the strengthening of the army would explain the success of the Romans in the wars immediately following.

How the five ratings were arrayed in battle is unknown. If the front counted a thousand men (milites),[463] the classis comprised four ranks (4000), the second and third ratings one rank each, making in all six ranks of heavy troops (6000).[464] Twenty centuries could be drawn from the two ratings of light troops to complete the eight ranks when needed.[465] But the Romans undoubtedly exercised the same good judgment as the Lacedaemonians in varying their formation to suit the emergency;[466] and for that reason it is wrong to assume the same depth for all occasions or an even depth for any one occasion. The management of long lines one-man deep must have been extremely difficult, if not impossible.[467] The explanation already suggested, that the state supplied the deficiency in equipment,[468] would greatly simplify the case, for there would then exist no need of arraying the census groups in successive lines. Whatever may have been the tactic arrangement, it did not continue long, for soon after the introduction of regular pay, about 400 B.C.,[469] the distinction between the ratings ceased to have an importance for military affairs.

IV. _The Question as to the Connection of the Supernumeraries and the Seniors with the Military Centuries_

A number of supernumeraries termed accensi velati accompanied the army. The epithet accensi proves them to have been outside the five ratings, while velati describes them as wearing civilian dress. We are informed by the sources that they carried water and weapons to the fighting men, stepped into the places of the dead and wounded, and acted as servants to the lower officers.[470] These men could not have been organized in centuries,[471] for they were drawn up in the rear behind the light troops; they extended along the entire breadth of the army,[472] and must have greatly exceeded one hundred or even two hundred. The musicians,[473] too, who accompanied the army were not grouped in two centuries, for they were distributed throughout the army.[474] There is no reason for assuming exactly two hundred musicians[475] or exactly two hundred workmen,[476] or for supposing that any of the men of this description were organized in centuries in the army. Reasoning in a similar way in regard to the seniors, we conclude that their organization in centuries could not have belonged to the original Servian system. A military century, as the name indicates, must have contained a hundred men.[477] But in any static population there are three times as many men between seventeen and forty-six as between forty-six and sixty[478]—in Rome there were three times as many juniors as seniors; and as the number of junior and senior centuries was equal, the latter could have contained only about thirty-three each, on the supposition that the whole male population between seventeen and forty-six years was organized in centuries.

The mere fact that the senior century contained so few men suggests that it was not a military institution. This impression is confirmed by the information that the seniors were reserved for the defence of the city, while the juniors took the field in active service.[479] When we reflect that even in the early republic the seniors could not often have been called on for defence, as the juniors were ordinarily sufficient for the purpose,[480] that the manning of the walls did not necessarily require a division into companies or an equipment like that for field service, and that when it was thought expedient for the seniors to serve in centuries or cohorts, their enrolment in these companies is especially mentioned, our conviction that the senior centuries did not belong to the original Servian organization grows into a certainty.[481]

V. _Conclusions as to the Servian and Early Republican Organizations; Transition to the Manipular Legion_

In our search for the Servian and post-Servian schemes of military organization we found it necessary to eliminate from the discriptio centuriarum all the centuries of pedites with the exception of the juniors. But even a military century of juniors could not have remained identical with a voting century; for the former comprised a fixed number and the same for all ratings, whereas in the comitia of historical time the centuries varied greatly in size, many of them containing far more than a hundred men each. In the four lower classes each century contained as many men as the entire first class;[482] and individuals constantly shifted from one class to another as their several properties increased or diminished.[483] It is a mistake, therefore, to think of the army as identical with even the junior centuries of the comitia.[484] Doubtless when the Servian army was first introduced, its organization was made to fit actual conditions, so that all who were liable to service found their place in it; but as the political assembly of centuries was instituted many years afterward, the army with its various enlargements could have kept meanwhile no more than approximate pace with the changing population, and at no time could it include the physically disqualified, who nevertheless had a right to vote in the junior centuries of the political assembly. On the other hand there were soldiers in the army too young to be in the comitia centuriata.[485]

The conclusion as to the strength of the army in the first years of the republic, before the latter had acquired any considerable accession of territory, corresponds closely with a moderate estimate of the population under the conditions then existing. The area of the state was about 983 square kilometers (equivalent to 379.5 sq. mi. or 242,899 acres).[486] Estimating the population of this agricultural community at its maximum of sixty to the square kilometer, we should have less than 60,000 for the entire area.[487] The number of men from seventeen to sixty, the Roman military age, should be about thirty per cent of the population[488]—less therefore than 18,000. If the ratio of juniors to seniors was about three to one,[489] we should have about 13,000 juniors to 5000 seniors. But a deduction must be made for slaves and for the physically incapacitated, leaving perhaps 9000 or 10,000 juniors and 3000 or 4000 seniors. These results are not unreasonable. Making allowance for several hundred supernumeraries,[490] we should then have no more than enough juniors to fill the eighty-four centuries of foot and the six troops of horse. It is clear, therefore, that all available forces were included in the army and that the junior centuries could not have contained more than a hundred men each.

Even before the phalanx had thus been brought to perfection, modifications were being made in the equipment under the influence of the Gallic invasion.[491] The introduction of pay, about 400 B.C., as has been said,[492] broke down the distinction of equipment based on degree of wealth, and not long afterward, probably in the time of the Samnite wars, the phalanx gave way to the manipular legion, which reached its full development in the Punic wars.[493]

VI. _The Five Classes and their Ratings_

Though originally denoting the men of the first rating, who possessed the fullest equipment,[494] the term classis with an explanatory adjective came to apply to the entire army[495] or to its component parts.[496] The plural “classes” came finally to mean the five census groups, represented by the five timocratic gradations of the comitia centuriata. What had formerly been the classis then came to be known as classis prima, and the “infra classem” ratings were numbered downward second, third, fourth, and fifth. Probably this extension in the use of the word was not made till after the disappearance of the ratings from the army—how much later we do not know. In a speech delivered in 169 in favor of the lex Voconia the elder Cato more than once examined into the meaning of classicus and infra classem.[497] A hasty inference would be that at this late date classis was still strictly limited to the first rating. It is to be noted, however, that the early meaning might be retained in a legal formula long after it had disappeared from general use, that classicus certainly preserved its original meaning notwithstanding the new development of the noun from which it is derived, and especially that the early sense of the terms classicus and infra classem was not generally known in 169, else Cato would not have taken such pains to define them. We know that the ratings were termed classes in 111,[498] and from what has just been said on the Voconian law it seems probable that the development took place long before 169. The circumstance that in their “discriptio centuriarum” Livy and Dionysius make no reference to the distinction between classis and infra classem would favor the supposition that they found no such distinction in their common source—ultimately Fabius Pictor. Hence it is not unlikely that classis was used in its historical meaning of property class in the censorial document from which Fabius derived his knowledge of the fully developed comitia centuriata, and which belonged to the period immediately following 269.[499]

Before the censorship of Appius Claudius Caecus, 312, military service within the census ratings was based on the possession of land, and the gradations of equipment, while they lasted, must therefore have been determined by the size of the estate reckoned in iugera.[500] Huschke[501] rightly inferred that the number of iugera marking the lower limit of each division must have been proportioned to the later money ratings, and assumed accordingly 20, 15, 10, 5, 2½ or 2 iugera as the respective minimal holdings of the five divisions. Although absolute certainty is unattainable, most scholars accept his conclusions as probable.[502] Before the change was made in the appraisements from amount of land to money, the census gradations ceased to serve a military purpose. In the further discussion of these groups reference is therefore solely to their political character, especially as expressed in the organization of the comitia centuriata. Till the time of Marius, however, the soldiers were ordinarily recruited from the classes—that is, from the citizens who possessed at least the qualification of the lowest group.[503]

The money ratings of 312 are not recorded; we know those only of the time following 269. The ratings of the earlier date must have been in the nominally libral asses then current. For a long time, probably down to 312, the _as_ remained at eleven to nine ounces in weight, then sank rapidly to four, three, and two ounces, reaching the last-mentioned weight in or shortly before 269. In this year or the following was legally adopted the lighter _as_, weighing two ounces, or a sixth of a pound, and hence termed sextantarian, and the heavier asses still in circulation were henceforth reckoned as sesterces, which now became the unit of value.[504] Two and a half sextantarian asses made a sesterce, and four sesterces made a denarius.[505] The _as_ continued to be copper, whereas the sesterce and the denarius were silver. In consequence of the use of the sextantarian _as_ the ratings must have been elevated to correspond with the decline of the standard; and the result of this change is the well-known series, 100,000, 75,000, 50,000, 25,000, 11,000.[506] There can be no doubt that under the standard used in 312 the ratings were lower than those given. It is incredible that the classis should ever have been appraised so high as 100,000 asses of ten-ounce weight or even of the value of sesterces (5 oz.).[507] But the ratings of 312 have not been definitely ascertained. Assuming but one elevation between the two dates and in the proportion of 4:10:: sextantarian _as_: heavy _as_ or sesterce, Mommsen[508] concludes that the appraisements of 312 were 40,000, 30,000, 20,000, 10,000, and 4400 asses respectively for the five classes. The adjustment however may have been gradual, as was the decline of the standard, and the former need not have corresponded exactly with the latter. But in so far as the Romans failed to bring about this adjustment, the censors must have found it necessary continually to advance the citizens from the lower to the higher divisions.

The ratings mentioned above as established on the basis of the sextantarian standard, namely 100,000, 75,000, 50,000, 25,000, and 11,000 asses for the five classes respectively, are those given by Livy.[509] Several variations affecting the highest and lowest classes are offered by other writers. Dionysius[510] states the appraisement of the fifth class at 12½ minae, which would be 12,500 asses. The usual explanation is that he is dealing in round numbers without especial regard to accuracy, for which reason Livy should be given the preference. It is doubtful however whether Dionysius was so inexact. More probably his estimate depended ultimately on the idea that the minimal number of iugera of the highest class was twenty-five,[511] taken in connection with the decimal ratio between the extreme classes—an interpretation which would help explain variations in the rating of the highest class to be mentioned hereafter; or with less reason we might assume that the statements of Dionysius and Livy represent earlier and later conditions.[512] The limit of 400 drachmas given by Polybius[513] proves a lowering of the minimal rating between 269 and the publication of his history.[514] It may have been made in 217, when the money system was again changed. As Polybius probably considered the drachma, or denarius, to be worth ten asses,[515] the limit which he mentions would be 4000 asses. Cicero states the minimal limit at 1500 asses,[516] and a still lower sum of 375, mentioned by Gellius,[517] marked the line of division between the taxable proletarians and the capite censi, who were exempt from taxation. As the differentiation between the two groups last named must have been effected before 167, when the Romans were relieved of the tributum,[518] the rating given by Cicero could not have been later than that vouched for by Polybius. The limit of 4000 asses, accordingly, had reference merely to military service, whereas 1500 marked at once the political and tributary line of separation between the fifth class and the taxable proletarians.[519] The limit of 375 asses, on the other hand, was far below the fifth class, and had nothing to do with it.[520] The relation of these numbers to one another may be summarized as follows: Those assessed at 4000 or more asses belonged to the fifth class, enjoyed the political rights of that class, and were subject to military service as well as to taxation (tributum); those rated at 1500-4000 asses also belonged to the fifth class, enjoyed the political rights of that class, and were subject to taxation but exempt from military service; those rated at 375-1500 asses were proletarians, below the fifth class but subject to taxation; those rated below 375 asses, the capite censi, were exempt from taxation.

As regards the rating of the highest class, the elder Pliny[521] states it at 110,000 asses, which may be a copyist’s error for 100,000 or for 120,000; the estimate of Paulus Diaconus[522] is 120,000 and of Gellius[523] 125,000. If the manuscripts have correctly preserved these numbers, they may represent computations based on a varying number of iugera, from twenty-two to twenty-five[524] at the rate of 5000 asses a iugerum—a valuation which may have been given in the original annalistic source (Fabius Pictor). From the fact that Pliny assigns this rating to Servius as author, and that Gellius speaks of it in the past, we must infer that it was not due to a relatively late change. Indeed the rating must have remained unaltered to the time of Polybius,[525] who states that those appraised at 10,000 drachmas wore the cuirass—according to Livy[526] and Dionysius,[527] the distinctive equipment of the first class.[528] In the same age the Voconian law, 169, provided that a man registered by the censors as worth 100,000 asses or more should not bequeath his property to a woman.[529] While speaking in favor of the measure the elder Cato expounded the distinction between the classici and those who were “infra classem.”[530] Strictly following Cato’s definition, Gellius[531] explains the classici as those of the first class in contrast with the members of the lower classes, who are infra classem. Evidently the classici are to be identified with those rated at 100,000 asses, as given by Gaius.[532] The sum of 100,000 sesterces, in place of asses, represented by later writers[533] as the one fixed by this law, is due either to a late interpretation or to an amendment.[534] The minimal qualification of the first class must therefore have continued unchanged from 269 to the passing of the Voconian law, 169, and the composition of the _History_ of Polybius.[535] From the latter event to the tribuneship of Tiberius Gracchus little time was left for an increase, which certainly the Gracchi and their successors would take no interest in bringing about. Further depreciation in the weight of the _as_, by the reduction to a half ounce through the Papirian law of 89,[536] had no effect on the valuation, as the standard was the silver sesterce, the _as_ having merely the fiduciary value of a quarter sesterce. Apart from the accounts of Livy and Dionysius already considered, no reference is made to the valuation of the intermediate classes, unless it be a passage in Livy[537] to the effect that freedmen possessing country estates worth at least 30,000 sesterces were enrolled in the rural tribes by the censors of 169, which is interpreted by Mommsen[538] to refer to the qualification of the second class. This is true if, as has been assumed above, the censors still reckoned two and a half asses to the sesterce.[539]

VII. _Belot’s Theory as to the Ratings_

Notice must be taken of a theory proposed by Belot,[540] that at the time of the First Punic War, owing to an economic revolution which enhanced prices, and to the decrease in the weight of the _as_, the five ratings as stated by Dionysius for the earlier period were multiplied by ten, giving for the future 1,000,000, 750,000, 500,000, 250,000, 125,000 asses for the five classes respectively.[541] The theory is supported with remarkable learning and skill. There can be no doubt as to the lowering of the weight of the _as_ or of the economic revolution which increased prices. Large valuations of estates such as he mentions are found in the sources. For example in 214 the government ordered[542] that—

Those rated at 50,000- 100,000 asses should furnish one sailor. Those rated at 100,000- 300,000 asses should furnish three sailors. Those rated at 300,000-1,000,000 asses should furnish five sailors. Those rated at above 1,000,000 asses should furnish seven sailors. Senators should furnish eight sailors.

Belot’s attempt to identify the highest of these appraisements with the rating of the first class is unsuccessful, as will immediately appear. The object of the order issued by the government in 214 was to provide crews for the fleet of that year. Although the hundred and fifty ships to be manned[543] seem to have been triremes, we may consider them quinqueremes so as not to underestimate the number of men necessary. Reckoning 375 men to the ship,[544] we should have 56,250 men for the entire fleet. But according to Belot[545] there were 22,000 knights at this time, whose census rating was 1,000,000 asses, and who accordingly would have to furnish seven men each for the navy, which would amount to 154,000, or more than enough to man three such fleets as that of the year under consideration. But as the knights constituted only a twelfth of the total number of registered citizens of that period,[546] most if not all of whom must according to Belot have been assessed at 50,000 or above, we shall be obliged at least to double the 154,000 sailors furnished by the knights to obtain the whole number demanded by the government. The absurdity of the result condemns the premises. The minimal census of the knight could not have been materially if at all above 100,000 asses,[547] and the great mass of citizens must have been rated below that sum. Other features of his theory need not be considered here. The truth is that the great accumulation of wealth benefited but few; and notwithstanding the advance in the money value of property, the mass of people remained so poor that the state could not disturb the census ratings, however out of harmony with the new conditions they seem to have become. No suspicion should be thrown on the continuance of these small valuations by the circumstance that occasionally the state compelled the wealthy to contribute to the burden of war according to their ability, as in 214, and increased the penalties for the crimes and misdemeanors which the rich and powerful were wont to commit.[548]

VIII. _The Post-Servian Equites_

The classes, as developed after Servius, have now been considered sufficiently for an appreciation of their relation to the comitia centuriata. It remains to discuss from the same point of view the post-Servian alterations in the equestrian organization.

In the earliest period when the warriors in general equipped themselves at their own expense,[549] the equites provided their own horses. But in time as the patricians ceased to be the only wealthy class in the community, and as they began to lose their political advantages, their duty of keeping one or two horses came to be felt as onerous, and some means of lightening it was sought for. The only private property which was free from the burden of supporting military service was that of widows and orphans. The government determined accordingly to levy a regular contribution on this class of estates in the interest of the equites. The eques was allowed ten thousand asses, or one thousand denarii (aes equestre), with which to purchase his horse or horses for the ten years of service and two thousand asses (aes hordearium) annually for maintenance.[550] He was not paid the money in advance, but was given security for the required sums,[551] which were gradually to be made good from the special kind of tax here described. When these equestrian funds were first granted cannot be absolutely determined. Cicero[552] assigns their institution to Tarquinius Priscus, Livy[553] to Servius, Plutarch[554] to Camillus in the year of his censorship, 377. For obvious reasons the earlier dates are suspicious, whereas the last has the advantage of connecting the institution of these funds with the general movement for the public support of military service. When in the war with Veii regular military pay was introduced, the eques on account of his more burdensome duty, perhaps too because of his higher rank, was allowed three times the pay of the legionary.[555] It was afterward decided to deduct the aes hordearium, probably also the aes equestre, from his pay.[556] Meanwhile as wars were waged on an ever increasing scale, the patricians, who were dwindling in number, could not furnish all the cavalry needed. This want was especially felt in the struggle with Veii, whereupon wealthy plebeian youths[557] came forward and offered to serve with their own horses.[558] This is the first known instance of voluntary equestrian duty, doubtless often repeated at crises during the remainder of the republican period. In the first case at least the state provided for the keep of the horses. The volunteers were of the same grade of wealth as the conscripts; they were held in equal honor,[559] and most probably their years of voluntary service were counted in with their regular duty in making up the required number.[560] Service equo privato could also be imposed as a punishment. The only known instance, however, was that required by the censors of 209 of the equites who had disgraced themselves at Cannae. Their horses were taken from them, their campaigns equo publico were not counted to their credit, but they were required to serve ten years equis privatis.[561] These are the only instances of service with private horses mentioned in history. In all ancient literature is no suggestion that the equites equo privato formed a rank by themselves or were an institution.[562] It should also be said that the injustice of furnishing some with horses and of compelling others to go to war at their own expense, unless by way of punishment, was contrary to the spirit of the constitution. This conclusion is supported by the elder Pliny’s[563] definition of the military equites, which makes the public horse an essential. From the time therefore when the state began to support the mounted service in the way described above, the equites equis publicis continued to be the only regular citizen horsemen.

The number of equites with public horses is approximately determined for any time by the number of legions then enrolled. The Servian phalanx, as has been noted,[564] consisted of two legions, which remained the normal number through the fifth century. But in the wars with Samnium and Pyrrhus Rome was able regularly to support four legions.[565] The military force could not have been doubled before the incorporation of the Veientan territory early in the fourth century;[566] most probably the enlargement belongs to still later time. The increase in the infantry required a corresponding enlargement of the mounted service. At least twelve hundred equites were henceforth required for active duty. Making allowance for reserves and ineffectives, the government raised the number of equites equo publico to eighteen hundred. The twelve new centuries were open alike to patricians and plebeians, whereas the old six remained for a time exclusively patrician. This seems to have been the condition at the opening of the first war with Carthage. During the Punic wars the number varied greatly, sometimes reaching a total of more than five thousand in the field, not counting reserves.[567] After the war with Hannibal the state, drained of men and money, allowed the cavalry to dwindle.[568] Viewing this condition with alarm, the elder Cato[569] urged that the number should be increased, and that a minimal limit be fixed at 2200. Probably at the same time he proposed that the legion should be strengthened. His measure must have been adopted, for after his censorship we find the legion regularly consisting of 5200 foot and 300 horse.[570] Under Augustus there were times when 5000 equites[571] equo publico took part in the parade which he revived.[572] As no reason can be found why Augustus should suddenly increase this class, we must conclude that there were probably about 5000 equites equo publico in the late republic.

As long as the cavalry remained exclusively patrician, a census qualification was precluded. Though Cicero and Livy refer the equestrian census to Servius Tullius, their vagueness on this point shows that they lacked definite information.[573] It must have been introduced at the time when the patriciate ceased to be an essential qualification, when the levy came to be made on the basis of wealth rather than of blood. This change should be assigned to the early part of the fourth century B.C.[574] For a time the census was that of the first class.[575] In 214 it was still 100,000 asses, or not much above, as has already been proved.[576] In the late republic and under the emperors the minimal rating was 400,000 sesterces.[577] When it was raised to this amount is unknown.

I. THE EARLY GRAECO-ITALIAN PHALANX: Busolt, _Griechische Geschichte_, i, ii (see Contents); Bauer, A., _Griechische Kriegsaltertümer_; Droysen, H., _Kriegsalterthümer der Griechen_, in Hermann’s _Lehrb. der griech. Antiquitäten_, ii. 1-74; Gilbert, _Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens_ (see Index and Contents); Lammert, E., _Geschichtliche Entwickelung der griech. Taktik_, in _N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt._ iii (1899). 1-29; _Die neuesten Forschungen auf antiken Schlachtfeldern im Griechenland_, in _N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Philol._ xiii (1904). 195-212, 252-79, contains some matters of interest for the present subject, though it treats mainly of the time after Alexander; Fröhlich, F., _Beiträge zur Kriegsführung und Kriegskunst der Römer zur Zeit der Republik_; Schiller, _Röm. Kriegsaltertümer_, in Müller’s _Hdb. d. kl. Altwiss._ iv. 707 ff.; on earlier literature, 714 f., 728 f., 733, 737, 741, 744; Leinveber, A., _Die Legion von Livius_, in _Philol._ lxi. N. F. xv (1902). 32-41, a specialist in military science; Nitzsch, K. W., _Das Verhältniss von Heer und Staat in der röm. Republik_, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ vii (1862). 133-58; Liers, H., _Kriegswesen der Alten_; Delbrück, _Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte_, bks. i, iv, best authority; _Die römische Manipulartaktik_, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ N. F. xv (1884). 239-64; Niese, B., _Ueber Wehrverfassung, Dienstpflicht, und Heerwesen Griechenlands_, ibid, xcviii (1907). 263-301, 473-506; Arnim, H., _Ineditum Vaticanum_, in _Hermes_, xxvii (1892). 118-30, the portion of Greek text used is on p. 121; Wendling, E., _Zu Posidonius und Varro_, in _Hermes_, xxviii (1893). 335-53, on the source of the _Ined Vat._; Bruncke, H., in _N. Philol. Rundschau_ (1888) 40-4; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 364-72; Müller, J. J., _Studien zur röm. Verfassungsgeschichte_, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 96-136; Helbig, _Sur les attributs des saliens_, in _Mémoires de l’académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres_, xxxvii² (1905). 205-76; on the same subject, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad._ etc. 1904. ii. 206-12.

II. THE MILITARY AND POLITICAL CENTURIES AND CLASSES: Niebuhr, B. G., _Röm. Geschichte_, i. 451-511, Eng. 197-236; Schwegler, _Röm. Geschichte_, I. bk. xvii; Huschke, Ph. E., _Verfassung des Königs Servius Tullius_, especially chs. iv, vii, viii; Peter, C., _Epochen der Verfassungsgeschichte der röm. Republik; Studien zur röm. Geschichte_, controverts Mommsen’s view as to the military character of the Servian institutions; Mommsen, _History of Rome_, bk. I. ch. vi; _De apparitoribus magistratuum romanorum_, in _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. vi (1846). 1-57, includes some account of the accensi; _Röm. Tribus_, 59-72, 121-143, 160 ff.; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 240 ff.; _Röm. Forschungen_, i. 134-40; Willems, P., _Droit public Rom._ 40, 43, 84-92; Mispoulet, J. B., _Institutions politiques des Romains_, i. 203-7; Lange, L., _Röm. Altertümer_, i. 522-66; _Cicero über die servianische Centurienverfassung_, in _Kleine Schriften_, i. 227-234; Herzog, _Geschichte und System der röm. Staatsverfassung_, i. 37-43, 1066 f.; Ihne, W., _History of Rome_, bk. I. ch. vii; _Early Rome_, 51-4, 79, 132-9; _Entstehung der servianischen Verfassung_, in _Symbola Philologorum Bonnensium_ (1864-1867). 629-44; Breda, _Die Centurienverfassung des Servius Tullius_; Genz, H., _Servianische Centurien-Verfassung_; Soltau, W., _Altröm. Volksversammlungen_, 229-96; Ullrich, J., _Centuriatcomitien_; Le Tellier, M., _L’Organisation centuriate et les comices par centuries_, ch. i; Hallays, A., _Les comices à Rome_; Morlot, É., _Les comices électoraux_, ch. iii; Moye, M., _Élections politiques sous la république Rom._ chs. iii, iv, vii; Müller, ibid.; Neumann, K. J., _Grundherrschaft der röm. Republik, die Bauernbefreiung, und die Entstehung der servianischen Verfassung_, speculative but very suggestive; Greenidge, A. H. J., _Roman Public Life_, 65-76; _Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time_, 307 ff.; Schott, P. O., _Röm. Geschichte im Lichte der neuesten Forschungen_; Smith, F., _Röm. Timokratie_; Pardon, _De aerariis_; Maue, H., _Der praefectus fabrum_; Bloch, A., _Le praefectus Fabrum_, pt. ii, in _Musée Belge_, ix (1905). 352-78; Babelon, E., _Monnaies de la république Rom._ I. pts. i, ii; _Traité des monnaies Grecq. et Rom._ i; _Origines de la monnaie_; Samwer-Bahrfeldt, _Geschichte des alten röm. Münzwesens_; Hill, G. F., _Greek and Roman Coins_, 45-9; Regling, _Zum älteren röm. und ital. Münzen_, in _Klio_, vi (1906). 489-524; Belot, É., _De la révolution économique et monétaire ... à Rome_; articles in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl.: Accensi_, i. 135-7 (Kubitschek); _Adscriptivi_, i. 422 (Cichorius); _Adsiduus_, i. 426 (Kubitschek); _Aerarius_, i. 674-6 (idem); _As_, ii. 1499-1513 (idem); _Capite censi_, iii. 1521-3 (Kübler); _Census_, iii. 1914-24 (Kubitschek); _Centuria_, iii. 1952-62 (Kübler, Domazewski, Kubitschek); _Classis_, iii. 2630-32 (Kübler); _Collegium_, iv. 380-480 (Kornemann); _Comitia_, iv. 679-715 (Liebenam); _Cornicines_, iv. 1602 f. (Fiebiger); _Denarius_, v. 202-15 (Hultsch); articles in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict.: Accensus_, i. 16 ff. (Humbert and others); _As_, i. 454-64 (Lenormant); _Census_, ii. 1003-17 (Humbert); _Centuria_, ii. 1017 (idem); _Classis_, i. 1224 f. (idem); _Comices centuriates_, s. _Comitia_, ii. 1378 ff. (idem); articles in Ruggiero, E., _Dizionario epigrafico: Accensus_, i. 18-21; _Aerarius_, i. 311-3; _Aes_, i. 313 f.; _Centuria_, ii. 183-9; _Censor_, ii. 157 ff.; _Census_, ii. 174-7; _Cornicines_, ii. 1213-6; _Fabri_, iii. 4-18 (Libenam); Olcott, _Thes. ling. lat. ep._ i. 51: Accensus; Pais, E., _Ancient Legends of Roman History_, ch. vii.

III. THE EQUITES: Niebuhr, ibid. i. 415-22, Eng. 197-200; Schwegler, ibid. i. 756-60; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 444-7, 523, 547-51; _Recension über K. Niemeyer, De equitibus romanis commentatio historica_, in _Kleine Schriften_, i. 113-37; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 397-400; iii. 106-9, 253-62; Madvig, J. N., _Verfassung und Verwaltung des röm. Staates_, i. 155-82; Mispoulet, J. B., _Études d’institutions Rom._ 151-226; Bloch, G., _Origines du sénat Rom._ 46-95; Marquardt, J., _Historiae equitum romanorum libri iv_; Gomont, M. H., _Chevaliers Rom. depuis Romulus jusqu’à Galba_; Niemeyer, K., _De equitibus romanis commentatio historica_; Rubino, J., _Ueber das Verhältniss der VI Suffragia zur röm. Ritterschaft_, in _Zeitschr. f. d. Altertumswiss._ iv (1846). 212-39; Bertolini, C. I., _I celeres ed il tribunus celerum_; Belot, É., _Histoire des chevaliers Rom._ 2 vols.; Gerathewohl, H., _Die Reiter und die Rittercenturien zur Zeit der röm. Republik_, valuable; Kubitschek, J. W., _Aes equestre_, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 682-4; Kübler, _Equites Romani_, ibid. vi. 272-312; Martin, A., _Equites_ (Greek), in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 752-71; Cagnat, R., _Equites_ (Roman), ibid. ii. 771-89; Helbig, W., _Observations sur les ἱππεῖς Athéniens_, in _Comptes rendus de l’académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres_, 1900. 516-22; _Les ἱππεῖς Athéniens_, in _Mémoires de l’acad._ etc. xxxvii¹ (1904). 157-264; _Die ἱππεῖς und ihre Knappen_, in _Jahreshefte des österr. archäol instituts_, viii. 2. 185-202; Peterson, E., _Zu Helbigs ἱππεῖς_, etc., ibid., 125 f.; Helbig, _Zur Geschichte des röm. Equitatus, A. Die Equites als berittene Hopliten_, in _Abhdl. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ xxiii (1905). 267-317; _Die Castores als Schutzgötter des röm. Equitatus_, in _Hermes_, xl (1905). 101-15; _Contribution à l’histoire de l’equitatus_, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscriptions et belles-lettres_, 1904. ii. 190-201; Pellegrini, G., _Fregi arcaici etruschi in terracotta_, etc., in Milani, L. A., _Studi e materiali archeol. e numis._ i. 87-118.

##