Scanned text contains errors.
tween cavalry and infantry, being designed to fight on horseback or on foot, as circumstances required.
It is in the time of Alexander the Great, that we first meet with artillery in the train of a Grecian army. His lalistae and catapeltae were frequently employed with great effect, as, for in stance, at the passage of the Jaxartes (Arrian. iv. 4. § 7). After the invasion of Asia also ele phants began to be employed in connection with Grecian armies. (Miiller, Dorians, bookiii. c. 12 ; Wachsma.ih,ffettenische Alterthumskunde, book vi.; K. F. Hermann, Griech. Staatsalterih. §29, 30, 152 ; Haase in Ersch and Gruber's Enci/clop. art. Phalanx; Heeren's Reflections, &c. Ancient Greece, c. xii.; Bockh's Public Economy of Athens, c. xxi. xxii.) [C. P. M.]
2. roman. In the present article we shall attempt to present a view of the constitution of a Roman army at several remarkable epochs, and to point out in what respect the usages of one age differed most conspicuously from those of another, abstaining most carefully from those general statements which in many works upon antiquities are enunciated broadly, without reference to any specified time, as if they were applicable alike to the reign of Tarquin and to the reign of Valentinian, including the whole intermediate space within their wide sweep.
Our authorities will enable us to form a conception, more or less complete, of the organisation of a Roman army at five periods: —
1. At the establishment of the comitia centuriata by Servius.
2. About a century and a half after the expulsion of the kings.
3. During the wars of the younger Scipio, when the discipline of the troops was, perhaps, more perfect than at any previous or subsequent era ; and here, fortunately, our information is most complete.
4. In the times of Marius, Sulla, and Julius Caesar.
5. A hundred and fifty years later, when the empire had reached its culminating point under Trajan and Hadrian.
Beyond this, we shall not seek to advance. After the death of M. Aurelius, we discern nought save disorder, decay, and disgrace ; while an inquiry into the complicated arrangements introduced when every department in the state was remodelled by Diocletian and Constantine, would demand, lengthened and tedious investigation, and would prove of little or no service to the classical student.
Authorities. The number of ancient writers now extant, who treat professedly of the military affairs of the Romans, is not great, and their works are, with one or two exceptions, of little value. Incomparably the most important is PolyUus, who in a fragment preserved from his sixth book, presents us with a sketch of a Roman army at the time when its character stood highest, and its discipline was most perfect. This, so far as it reaches, yields the best information we could desire. The tract irepl ffTpaTyyiKutv ra£ew*> 'E\\7)viK&v of Aelianus who flourished under Nerva, belongs, as the title implies, to Greek tactics, but con-.tains also a brief, imperfect, and indistinct account of a Roman army. The rexwi toktmc^ of Arrian, governor of Cappadocia under Hadrian, is occupied in a great measure with the manoeuvres of the phalanx, to which is subjoined a
minute practical exposition of the preliminary exercises by which the Roman cavalry were trained ; to Arrian, likewise, we are indebted for a very interesting fragment entitled tKra^is /car* 'AAai/evj/, supposed to be a portion of his lost history, which bore the name 'AAcwiKci, consisting of instructions for the order of march to be adopted by the force despatched against the Scythians, and for the precautions to be observed in marshalling the line of battle. This piece taken in connection with the essay of Hyginus, of which we have spoken under castra, will assist us materially when we seek to form a distinct idea of the constitution of a Roman army in the early part of the second century. It remains for us to notice the Latin " Scriptores de Re Militari," Frontinus, Modestus, and Vegetius. The Stratc-gematica of the first, who lived under Vespasian, is merely a collection of anecdotes compiled without much care or nice discrimination, and presents very little that is available for our present purpose ; the Libellus de Vocabulis Rei Militaris of the second, addressed to the emperor Tacitus, affords a considerable number of technical terms, but is in such a confused state, and so loaded with interpolations, that we can employ it with little confidence ; the Rei Militaris Instituta of the third, dedicated to the younger Valentinian, is a formal treatise drawn up in an age when the ancient discipline of Rome was no longer known, or had, at least, fallen into desuetude ; but the materials, we are assured by the author himself, were derived from sources the most pure, such as Cato the Censor, Cornelius Celsus, and the official regulations of the earlier emperors. Misled by these specious professions, and by the regularity displayed in the distribution of the different sections, many scholars have been induced to adopt the statements here embodied without hesitation, without even asking to what period they applied. But when the book is subjected to critical scrutiny, it will be found to be full of inconsistencies and contradictions, to mix up into one confused and heterogeneous mass the systems pursued at epochs the most remote from each other, and to exhibit a state of things which never did and never could have existed. Hence, if we are to make any use at all of this farrago, we must proceed with the utmost caiition, and ought to accept the novelties which it offers, merely in illustration or confirmation of the testimony of others, without ever permitting them to weigh against more trustworthy witnesses.
But while the number of direct authorities is very limited, much knowledge may be obtained through a multitude of indirect channels. Not only do the narratives of the historians of Roman affairs abound in details relating to military operations, but there is scarcely a Latin writer upon any topic, whether in prose or verse, whose pages are not filled with allusions to the science of war. The writings of the jurists also, inscriptions, medals, and monuments of art communicate much that is curious and important; but even after we have brought together and classified all these scattered notices, we shall have to regret that there are many things left in total darkness, and many,upon which the assertions of different writers cannot by any dexterity be reconciled in a satisfactory manner. We shall endeavour to expound in each case those views which are supported by the greatest amount of credible evidence,