Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Seismech t1_j19y17a wrote

I'm not a historian.

Rome had standing armies. The very large number (the majority) of the participants in much of Medieval warfare were militia. It's much more economically feasible to buy expensive equipment for a recruit you expect to still be around 5, 10 or 20 years from now, versus a recruit you expect to go back to his farm in a few months.


ThoDanII t1_j1bheqh wrote

only after the republic endet


Seismech t1_j1bm23w wrote

Began during the mid-republic.

>After the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), the Romans acquired an overseas empire, which necessitated standing forces to fight lengthy wars of conquest and to garrison the newly gained provinces.

Prior to that

>The army consisted of 3,000 infantrymen and 300 cavalrymen, all of which were Equites. The Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans under the Roman state would each provide an extra 1,000 soldiers and 100 cavalrymen.

King Servius of Rome would institute the Servian reforms. These would divide the population into five classes. Each of which would have different roles in the military. The first class could afford to have a cuirass, greaves, a shield, a sword, and a spear. The second class had greaves, a shield, a sword, and a spear. The third class could only afford to have the shield, a sword, and a spear. The fourth class had a shield and a spear. The fifth class would only be a screening force. Any poorer citizen, called capite censi would have no weapons. They would not serve in the army unless it was an emergency

I interpret that as meaning that during the first few centuries the troops were required to provide their own equipment - that it was not supplied by the Roman state.


ThoDanII t1_j1bo0zs wrote

those "standing" forces were citicen called to the eagles with their own kit


Seismech t1_j1dfc02 wrote

>those "standing" forces were citicen called to the eagles with their own kit

Exactly why I hi-lighted "could afford to have."

Did you read anything OP wrote beyond the title sentence?

>Ok, I'm not a historian, just a history enthusiast, and not a pretty knowledgeable one at that, so correct me if I say anything wrong. Anyway, I always heard that one of the reasons why swords are so iconic in pop culture is the fact that they were really expensive to produce and tended to be more useful as backup weapons, specially in the middle ages. That's probably one of the reasons the weapon became so associated with the archetype of the noble knight, which helped it become so iconic.

I understand that, in the time of the Roman Empire, swords would be much more useful as a main weapon, because armor wasn't so advanced, but that doesn't explain how did they manage to outfit most of their soldiers with gladii. I mean, they're still swords, they still require a lot of material and a lot more work to be made than, say, a spear, which is already an amazing weapon.


ThoDanII t1_j1dgx4m wrote

Yes, i did but in context with medieval militia i wanted to make sure that was clear