The central position the army occupied in Imperial Rome is self-evident. This is reflected in the amount of research that has been devoted to the Roman army in the Imperial period. Far less is known about the army during the Republican period. Pearson seeks to remedy this imbalance in the unspectacular, though vitally important, sphere of military administration. It is currently generally believed that Roman military administration was virtually invented by Augustus. Pearson (2) points out ‘The record of Rome’s military achievements in the Republic, growing from an Italian polis into a dominant Mediterranean power, is implausible without some type of administrative backing’. The author concentrates on the ‘Middle Republic’, defined roughly as 338-146 BC.
Chapter I Dilectus deals with the annual process of selecting the personnel to man the four consular legions. The received opinion among scholars is that the description of the dilectus, described in Polybius Book 6.19, is ‘outdated and occasionally implausible, particularly in placing the levy on the Capitol’ (14). Pearson (24-27) demonstrates that there was sufficient space in the area Capitolina for the dilectus to operate. Elizabeth Rawson suggested that Polybius’ account is based on a military handbook written for the use of military tribunes, dating at the earliest to circa 210 BC. Pearson points out the implausibility of Polybius, who was resident in Rome and an eyewitness to events there, knowingly giving a false report of military procedures. Polybius prided himself in his military knowledge.
A major problem in Polybius’ description of the dilectus comes at 6.19.2, which provides us with the normal requirement for years of military service. The text is corrupt at this point, but it contains the word ‘six’. The normal way of treating this passage is to emend it to read ‘sixteen’. Pearson (18-24) assembles the evidence dispersed throughout the relevant sources to demonstrate that six years was the normal maximum term of continuous service on campaign, although longer terms of service are, of course, known.
Rome required a reliable record of its military manpower. In Chapter II ‘The census and centralized military bureaucracy’ Pearson deals with problems surrounding the census. The census, traditionally attributed to Servius Tullius, was compiled by the two censors and their staff from the declarations of the patres familias. It was probably carried out by tribe, and in alphabetical order, with the nomen listed first. The census was carried out every five years, but the resulting documents, above all the tabulae iuniorum, were used annually in the dilectus. It was vital that these latter were kept up to date. The inclusion of the ages of children in the census records enabled the compilation of tabulae iuniorum.
Some figures for the census are preserved in Livy, and these are applied to the Coale-Demeny life tables. Level 3 West Male and Level 6 West Male have been selected for ‘ordinary’ men, and ‘senatorial’ men respectively, given that senatorial males were likely to marry earlier. At the end of the book (191-7) tables are produced, using the 234 BC census figures, for men liable and available for military service (Appendix I), and men over 17 years old with a living paterfamilias (Appendix II).
The Polybian manpower figures for 225 BC are discussed (59-70). Pearson (70) justly remarks ‘Military action on anything but the smallest scale requires high organization, but evidence for this is usually scant, implicit or missing. The Polybian manpower figures open a small window into this military administration’.
One thing that is missing from Polybius’ description of the dilectus is the method in which the citizen cavalry attached to each legion was selected. This must have taken place prior to the allocation of infantrymen to the four consular legions as described by Polybius, and have entailed the removal of the names of those in receipt of an equs publicus from the tabulae iuniorum before the selection of the infantry had begun. We have some evidence that the equites with their horses paraded before the two censors after the main census (Plut. Pomp. 22.4-6; Livy 29.37.8). Presumably it was at this stage that the names of the cavalrymen were removed from the tabulae iuniorum and registered separately. We can compare the situation in Athens where, after the cavalry reforms of Pericles, it seems that at first a register of citizens eligible for military service, the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον, was compiled for each tribe from the lists of citizens held by the demarchoi, then after that, separate lists were compiled by the taxiarchoi for the infantry, and by the phylarchoi for the cavalry. The whole problem is most puzzling and requires more research.
Chapter III ‘Recording men on campaign’ deals with the relationship between the records held centrally in Rome, and those held by the armed forces on campaign. The latter had to be as accurate as possible, because on these numbers the money needed to pay the army was calculated. Originally military pay was regarded as compensation for service, but by the Middle Republic it was increasingly regarded as a reward. Polybius (6.39.12) divides stipendium into three categories: infantrymen; the taxioarchoi (who are perhaps the kenturiōnai of 6.24.4 and who were paid twice as much as infatry); and the cavalrymen, whose pay was even higher. The lustrum, which originated as a purification rite performed by the censors, was used to calculate numbers in the field. Its most important ceremonies, both connected with Mars, occurred in March at the beginning of the campaign season, and in October at its end.
In Chapter IV ‘Tributum and stipendium’ are further explored. The author follows the suggestion that the creation of the category of cives sine suffragio in 338 BC was aimed more at expanding the payers of tributum rather than the recruitment base (108). There follows an examination of those social groups excused from paying tributum. The senes (males over 60) were not liable for military service, but they were liable to pay tributum (109). Livy (33.42.4) mentions that priests had not paid the tributum, but in this case it is unclear whether priests were exempt by custom or had simply not paid, as Briscoe has remarked. The collection of tributum ceased in 167 BC.
So much for the methods used to raise tributum. The methods in which the soldiers were paid their stipendium is more problematic, especially for the earlier Middle Republican period. The role of the tribuni aerarii remains poorly understood from the sparse evidence available, and I found the interpretation offered by the author slightly unconvincing. With the latter half of the Middle Republic we are on firmer ground. The quaestor transported the stipendium to the consul with the army, and the centurions were responsible for distributing it. In 180 BC the military tribune M. Fulvius Nobilior dismissed the Ligurian legions early, and the centurions were ordered to hand over to the aerarium any funds they still held (Livy 40.41.8) which ‘demonstrates the treasury was operating as a central repository for all military finance’ (121).
Chapter V ‘Documents and archives’. In this chapter the physical materials used in the recording process are examined. The author believes that the tesserae mentioned by our sources are most likely to have been Mid-Republican wooden leaf-style tablets. She notes (133) that Polybius, in the course of his description of watchkeeping in the Roman camp, uses the term κάρφος (6.36.3), ‘a term which ordinarily means a small piece of wood or kindling’. These were written upon in ink and were intended for temporary use only. For more permanent records wax-covered tablets (tabulae) were used, such as are seen being used by the scribes on the census-scene on the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus. The tabulae iuniorum were also most probably written on wax tablets, as their name implies.
For more permanent records, such as the ‘final definitive list’ created at the end of the census Pearson (140) suggests that linen books (libri lintei) were used. This could well be the case. As a parallel she points to the Samnite Linen Legion, which ‘was formed using a religious linen book within a linen-covered compound, which gave the legion its name’ (138). I personally doubt this, as it is at least equally possible that the Legion was named after the white linen tunics they all wore.
Chapter VI ‘Record producers and record keepers’ deals with the personnel responsible for producing and maintaining the documentation. The level of literacy in Republican Rome is discussed (159-162). Pearson adopts a moderate stance. Passing the watchword implies at least semi-literacy, and the opinion expressed by Adams that complete illiteracy was ‘virtually inconceivable’ among centurions is endorsed.
The scribes are dealt with on pages 164-173. Cn. Flavius, who was scriba to Ap. Claudius Caecus, censor in 312 BC, is the earliest known scribe. He became curule aedile in 304 BC, and Pearson stresses the relatively high social status scribes enjoyed. By the end of the Republic scribae formed an ordo of their own, next in status to the ordo equester (165). Cicero (Verr. 2.3.182) states that a quaestor had two scribae each, but no numbers of scribes attached to the other magistracies are given by the sources. Another magistracy examined by the author was that of the iurator before whom oaths were taken during the census.
The question of the role public slaves played in military administration is also examined by Pearson (175-9). Livy states that during the disrupted census of 169 the censors closed the atrium Libertatis sending away the public slaves that were there. I suspect that the author underestimates the role of the slaves in conducting the census. During each census there would have been an enormous amount of physical clerical work to be done, and this was presumably done by public slaves, the scribae overseeing the task as a whole.
In ‘Conclusion: The Mid-Republican origins of Roman Military administration’, as well as capitulating what has gone before in the monograph, Pearson flags up possible new avenues for future research. The picture unfolded in this monograph is of a remarkably complex degree of documentation which was applied to the armed forces during the Middle Republican period. To some degree this broke down during the Late Republican period, especially in the first century BC. The census was not properly completed between 70 and 29 BC. Recruitment was carried out on a local level and in a manner different from the dilectus, more resembling the Republican tumultus—an emergency, forced mass levy. ‘Thus, Augustus’ association with military administration should be seen as a reinstatement, not a creation. As part of restoring the Republic, Augustus returned the census to its central position, regularized recruitment and established service terms’ (189).
The real virtue of this book is its attention to detailed argument. There is little in it that one could find fault with, but one quibble I have is the use of a double-title, which seems to have become de rigueur recently. What was wrong with Exploring the mid-Republican origins of Roman military administration as a title? Was it really necessary to add the gimmicky subtitle with stylus and spear? One wonders if this totally unnecessary change was recommended by the publishers, which is more often than not the case. After all they have to justify their stipendium and be ‘creative’ in some way.