Re: Roman analogies

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 15:35:01 +0300 (EET DST)


On Tue, 15 May 2001, Andrew Barton wrote:

> Peter Metcalfe said:
>
> > The Roman legions used to provide their own arms until Marius
> > started enlisting proles. Even after that time, the legionary
> > had more status and better equipment than the auxiliary (simply
> > because their gear was more expensive).
>
> Even in Imperial times, legionaries had fixed amounts stopped out of their
> pay to cover the cost of their armour.

Indeed, and the legionaire owned the armor (at least after the full cost had been deducted). This kept the economy going nicely too, since the state could afford to have a new panoply made for each legionaire (it came off their pay, afterall).

> The cost of their gear wasn't the only reason for their higher status - a
> cataphract cavalryman's armour cost a lot more. There were social reasons
> as well, because legionaries were all citizens and it was posts in the
> legions that formed part of the normal political career.

Which reminds me. In the new writeups of the war machine of the Empire, I saw no references to cataphracts in carmania. Instead there seemed to be heavy cavalry, charging with spears and stirrups.

Is this the offiscial line then? Too bad if it is, since I found (Nicks?) the idea of Persian style Cataphractoi for the Carmanians to be immensely nifty.

        -Adept

Powered by hypermail