SoA Forums

I think that since the adoption of hoplite phalanx in Greek has been post dated to 7th century, in that same years we could see in Italy a coexistence of the old warfare style based more on individual combat and the new phalanx. The first legion of 3000 men of the so called Romulus was probably an army of aristocrats (maybe fighting in close order, but as individuals)  more than an ordered phalanx. The episode of Oriazi and Curiazi would show exactly this. I suppose that the servian reform of the 6th century introduced the first real phalanx. What I have not understood completely is if the 5 classes were represented by 5  simple rows (with first class in front row obviously) on the battlefield or by 5 "ordines" in the sense of early maniples. If this was the case, it would be a very deep deployment, considering that each rank would have more rows, and how could back "maniples" join the battle? in other words how can we put together the hoplitical phalanx with a very early, hypothetical manipular system?  I guess that if we solve this we will know how the late Polybian army used gaps and relief system (since I imagine that the basic idea behind of having more ranks fighting together was applied more or less in the same way: question is how)

My impression is that Servius Tullius changed the Roman army from its previous form, which would have been hoplite-like.  If we look at Greek armies of the period, we see a hoplite army armed similarly to Servius' First Class, but with a large component of light infantry.  Servius' army has only a small component of light infantry (the 5th class according to Dionysius; the 4th and 5th classes according to Livy - for what it is worth, I think Dionysius is correct here).

What Servius seems to have done is to rearm and re-equip men who in a Greek hoplite army would have been light infantry.  They are instead equipped with a different shield (a scutum instead of an aspis/clipeus) and use a close-combat spear (the hasta/doru).

There were 80 centuries of 1st class, 20 each of 2nd, 3rd and 4th class, and 30 centuries of 5th class.  If we assume from their equipment that the 5th class were skirmishers, this leaves 60 centuries of 2nd to 4th class and 80 of 1st class.  There is an obvious mismatch in numbers if one tries to line up the 2nd to 4th class behind the 1st class.  Furthermore, the 1st class is equipped in hoplite fashion but the 2nd to 4th classes are given a different, non-hoplite, shield.

Dionysius (IV.19) tells us how this system was used to raise troops and finance campaigns.  Unfortunately neither he nor Livy explains how the troops were deployed in battle: between them, the two leave us only a few hints:

"Thereupon Tullius, having completed the business of the census, commanded all the citizens to assemble in arms in the largest field before the city; and having drawn up the horse in their respective squadrons [taxas tous th' hippeis kata telē] and the foot in their massed ranks [kai tous pezous en phalaggi], and placed the light-armed troops each in their own centuries [kai tous estalmenous ton psilikon hoplismon en tois idiois hekastous lokhois], he performed an expiatory sacrifice for them with a bull, a ram and a boar." - Dionysius IV.22.1

'Psilikon hoplismon' is unusual: it seems to mean 'armoured psiloi' or 'psiloi equipped for fighting'.  It is unclear whether this refers to just the skirmishing 5th class or, as the designation suggests, the 2nd to 4th classes also.  If it were clear, then we could credit Servius Tullius with having invented thureophoroi and thorakitai centuries before they were adopted as a troop type in Greece, and see their battlefield role as protecting the flanks of the phalanx and exploiting opportunities for attacking the flanks of the enemy.

While this may be an attractive hypothesis, we have no battle descriptions involving Servius Tullius' army so we cannot confirm how the various troop types operated in battle.  The use of the 2nd to 4th classes as 'thureophoroi' must therefore remain hypothetical, although it is probably the most workable hypothesis.

It is possible that the 2nd to 4th classes were held back behind the battle line formed by the 1st class, and were used to plug parts of the line where gaps were appearing for any reason, although this does not really explain why they had a different type of shield.

In essence, we have two likely hypotheses (and there may be more):
1) The 2nd to 4th classes served as flank guards and exploiters of opportunities in a role similar to that of thorakitai, the armoured peltast types of the Hellenistic period.
2) The 2nd to 4th classes were reserves for pushing into gaps and weak points that appeared in the main (1st class) line of battle.

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus then made many changes to this army, as we shall see.

Following the establishment of the Republic in 509 BC, the first class split down the middle (a large number sided with King Tarquinius) and lost many of its younger members who favoured a return of the monarchy (see Dionysius V.7).  This weakening of the 1st class could presumably only be compensated for by increased recruitment from the lower classes, or rather from the citizenry who had previously been assigned to these, as Tarquinius seems to have abolished the classes, which would result in these lower-class recruits becoming the mainstay of the army.

Meanwhile, a battle was fought: Tarquin and his supporters against the army of the new Republic (509 BC).  Dionysius' description is brief, but interesting.

"Both armies, as it chanced, were nearly equal in numbers and advanced to the conflict with the same eagerness. The first engagement was a brief cavalry skirmish, as soon as they came in sight of one another, before the foot were encamped, in which they tested each other's strength and then, without either winning or losing, retired to their respective camps. Afterwards the heavy-armed troops and the horse of both armies engaged, both sides having drawn up their lines in the same manner, placing the solid ranks of foot in the centre [mesēn men tēn phalagga tōn pezōn poiēsantes] and stationing the horse on both wings ...

[I omit the duel between Arruns and Brutus]

... But the two armies, when they saw that their leaders had fallen, pressed forward with shouts and the clash of arms, and the most violent of all battles ensued on the part of both foot and horse, the fortune of which was alike to both sides. 4 For those of the Romans who were on the right wing, which was commanded by Valerius, the other consul, were victorious over the Veientes, and pursuing them to their camp, covered the plain with dead bodies; while those of the Tyrrhenians who were posted on the enemy's right wing and commanded by Titus and Sextus, the sons of King Tarquinius, put the left wing of the Romans the son of flight, and advancing close to their camp, did not fail to attempt to take it by storm; but after receiving many wounds, since those inside stood their ground, they desisted. These guards were the triarii, as they are called; they are veteran troops, experienced in many wars, and are always the last employed in the most critical fighting, when every other hope is lost.

16 1 The sun being now near setting, both armies retired to their camps, not so much elated by their victory as grieved at the numbers they had lost, and believing that, if it should be necessary for them to have another battle, those of them now left would be insufficient to carry on the struggle, the major part of them being wounded." - Dionysius V.14.2 to 16.1

We may observe the fact that each side's right was victorious and the battle as a whole was indecisive.  This is consistent with hoplite-type armies fighting a hoplite-type battle, although it is not definite proof that the armies were of hoplite pattern.

We also see the earliest mention of triarii  ("phulakes hoi triarioi legomenoi", 'guards called triarii') - as camp guards, not line-of-battle troops.

A further complication is that we are also told (Dionysius IV.43.1-2) that Tarquinius changed many of Servius Tullius' arrangements:

"For the laws drawn up by Tullius, by which they all received justice alike from each other and by which they were secured from being injured by the patricians, as before, in their contracts with them, were all abolished by Tarquinius, who did not leave even the tables on which the laws were written, but ordered these also to be removed from the Forum and destroyed. 2 After this he abolished the taxes based on the census and revived the original form of taxation; and whenever he required money, the poorest citizen contributed the same amount as the richest. This measure ruined a large part of the plebeians, since every man was obliged to pay ten drachmae as his individual share of the very first tax."

He also changed the military service obligations.

"Nor was he satisfied merely with these illegal vexations of the plebeians, but, after selecting from among them such as were loyal to himself and fit for war, he compelled the rest to labour on the public works in the city" - Dionysius IV.44.1

Tarquinius also established himself - partly through deceit - as a leader of the local Latin cities.  Having done this, he further changed his forces:

"When they had assembled, agreeably to the king's edict, from the different districts, Tarquinius was unwilling that they should have their own leaders, or a separate command, or their own standards; he therefore mingled Latins and Romans in the maniples, making one maniple of two and two of one, and over the maniples thus doubled he put centurions." - Livy I.52.6

Dionysius adds:

"... he resolved to lead an army against the Sabines, choosing such of the Romans as he least suspected of being apt to assert their liberty if they became possessed of arms, and adding to them the auxiliary forces that had come from his allies, which were much more numerous than those of the Romans." - Dionysius IV.50.1

What this tells us is that under Tarquinius the Roman army changed considerably from what it had been under Servius Tullius.  As seen in the battle of 509 BC it fought much as one might expect of a hoplite army, but this changed rapidly when the Republic went to war with the Sabines in 505 BC.  This war involved raids and ambushes, and the only pitched battle was the one right at the end, when, as Dionysius (V.46.2) mentions, the Romans were encouraged by a remarkable portent:

"It was as follows: From the javelins [hussos] that were fixed in the ground beside their tents (these javelins [hussos] are Roman weapons which they hurl and having pointed iron heads, not less than three feet in length, projecting straight forward from one end, and with the iron they are as long as spears of moderate length) — from these javelins [hussos] flames issued forth round the tips of the heads and the glare extended through the whole camp like that of torches and lasted a great part of the night."

So in 503 BC the Romans were using hussois, i.e. pila.

For those who have manfully struggled through this post, we can summarise:
1) Servius Tullius seems to have inherited a hoplite-style army
2) He seems to have modified many of what would have been light infantry to make them effective in melee (presumably he did this for a good reason).
3) We are not told how they were used in combat.
4) Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him, changed most of his arrangements.
5) When Tarquin was deposed, the battle in which he tried to regain Rome had typical characteristics of a hoplite battle.
6) By the end of the Sabine war of 505-503 BC, the Romans were using pila (hussois) and hence were not operating as a hoplite army.

We can try to build conjectures of how armies of the era were composed and functioned on this basic framework.

Patrick, the contribution above is an example of woolly thinking, unusual for your finely honed mind.

It appears to start with an assumption that the Romans of Servius time have a hoplite army... just an assumption, with no discernible evidence. You then have to try and fit the description of an army with different classes of troops, differently equipped into the model of a Greek hoplit army because the assumption of it being a spear armed hoplite force has trapped you in a cul de sac.

When you say that the 2nd to 4th classes are either reserves or operate on the flanks that gives the problem that either the majority of the army exists to provide a reserve to the minority, or that the 2nd to 4th are like thorakitai, armoured thureophoroi. However, this army is operating in 509BC.  I am unaware of any Greek army deploying Thorakitai until the 4th century and they are  a very rare troop type then. So you have to invent a troop type and a formation to create a hoplite army that is only there because you assumed it in the first place.

It fits the evidence much better to work on the basis that the primitive Roman army, like Etruscan armies, is an Italian army recruited via an Italian system and using Italian and imported kit.
The army classes have different shields and that betokens different tactical roles. Most likely all classes , but the light armed carry two heavy javelins, proto pila. the army operates in an Italian way, not a Greek way.  Your own citation of the description of the Triarii  operating as a reserve is Italian....it is not Greek. Greeks do not have separate reserves of elite heavy infanttry, Greeks fight in one line and play tactical tricks with its depth and length.  Italians operate in looser order and use missiles preparatory to a clash of swords.
One presumes that the variation of shield type shown on the situlae indicates that some classes are better armoured than others and maybe, as Andrew says, they form a front rank or a central core. It may be that some groups are spear armed, like the triarii, but if so, they operate in an Italian spear armed manner e.g. as a reserve not as a Greek hoplite phalanx.
we really have to get out of the Hellenocentric  nineteenth century view that somehow the Etruscans are just copying the Greeks. The Etruscans are Italians and operate  in an way that is Etrusco Italian.

Roy

Fair enough, Roy.

The essential point I had in mind is that whatever army Servius Tullius had underwent some significant changes in the following reign, so we should not expect the earliest Republican army to be what Servius Tullius had.

The equipment of the 1st to 4th classes is described as being helmet, greaves body armour, aspis/clipeus or scutum, spear (hasta or doru) and sword (gladius or xiphos).  The 2nd to 4th class, who have a different shield (scutum), progressively drop body armour, greaves and (apparently) helmets, which makes sense for different ranks of a faster-moving type of infantry lacking body armour.

None of these seem to have more than one spear, although Livy assigns the fourth class spear-and-javelins where Dionysius has spear-and-shield.

The equipment of the 1st class looks very hoplite-like, and Livy thinks they fought in a phalanx (in fact he thinks they fought in a Macedonian-style phalanx, but he may be confusing this with the earlier Greek hoplite phalanx).  Now this to my mind looked rather like evidence for a hoplite phalanx, but I stand to be corrected if the error in thinking can be pointed out to me.  :)

The 2nd to 4th classes are indeed not proper Hellenistic thureophoroi or thorakitai, but look intriguingly similar in concept and may have had a similar role as flank exploitation and/or difficult terrain troops.

The question of 'the majority existing to provide a reserve for the minority' is puzzling: the 1st class outnumbered the 2nd to 4th classes combined by about 4:3.  The concatenated scutum-bearing classes were in a distinct minority.

Quote from: aligern on August 01, 2014, 02:42:53 PM
It fits the evidence much better to work on the basis that the primitive Roman army, like Etruscan armies, is an Italian army recruited via an Italian system and using Italian and imported kit.

No ... it cannot be ... surely not WMWW!  :D  (That was a joke!)

Quote
The army classes have different shields and that betokens different tactical roles. Most likely all classes , but the light armed carry two heavy javelins, proto pila. the army operates in an Italian way, not a Greek way.

Well ... the problem here is that Dionysius and Livy both have the 2nd to 4th classes armed, like the 1st, with a spear, singular.  Livy does grant 'a spear and a javelin' to the 4th class but this may be a mistake: Dionysius' assignment of spear, sword and shield looks more logical in the context.

Quote
Your own citation of the description of the Triarii  operating as a reserve is Italian....it is not Greek. Greeks do not have separate reserves of elite heavy infantry, Greeks fight in one line and play tactical tricks with its depth and length.  Italians operate in looser order and use missiles preparatory to a clash of swords.

Oh my God, it is WMWW!  ;D

I would be a bit careful about generalising in this fashion because while Dionysius is quite clear about the missile-and-sword combination being practically the universal tactic in the 5th century BC in Italy, things are not quite so clear-cut regarding the 6th century, which is the period of Servius Tullius' reforms.  It would be nice to know what Rome's army was like before Servius Tullius, so we could see what he changed and then perhaps fathom why.

Quote
One presumes that the variation of shield type shown on the situlae indicates that some classes are better armoured than others and maybe, as Andrew says, they form a front rank or a central core.

I am less sure about this, because although classes 2-4 vary in protection while keeping the same shield type, class 1 has an altogether different type of shield.  Why change the type of shield?  Why not stick the poorly-protected classes 2-4 in the rear ranks with aspides?

Quote
It may be that some groups are spear armed, like the triarii, but if so, they operate in an Italian spear armed manner e.g. as a reserve not as a Greek hoplite phalanx.

When we first encounter triarii they are actually camp guards as opposed to reserves, and continue in this capacity to 437 BC.  They are not seen on the battlefield until 394 BC. 

Quote
we really have to get out of the Hellenocentric  nineteenth century view that somehow the Etruscans are just copying the Greeks. The Etruscans are Italians and operate  in an way that is Etrusco Italian.

Which is a fair observation, but how does it explain the single spear of the infantry in Servius Tullius' army?

to pick on one point from your massive hydra of an argument, Patrick.

You have three conflicting positions on the triarii at once.

You have them as hoplites, you have them as the army reserve and you have them as camp guards

These are contradictory positions.

To take the camp guards and army reserve point - the quote is

" the sons of King Tarquinius, put the left wing of the Romans the son of flight, and advancing close to their camp, did not fail to attempt to take it by storm; but after receiving many wounds, since those inside stood their ground, they desisted. These guards were the triarii, as they are called; they are veteran troops, experienced in many wars, and are always the last employed in the most critical fighting, when every other hope is lost."

Which is to say, they are in this instance guarding the camp, but equally, they are guarding it after the battleline has been defeated and chased back to camp - which is to say, they are acting as the reserve first, and not waiting around in camp for disaster to strike.

It is incredibly un-roman or the best troops to be waiting in camp, just in case. and it is also incredibly poor judgement to keep the reserve that far back from the battle.  it seems to me far more likely that Dionysus is saying that the triarii are the veterans, used as a reserve - who on this occasion, raced back to defend the camp when the breech was too great to defend in the battle line.

that entirely fits with every other description of them (save perhaps magnesia when the actual camp guards - broadly speaking rabble and wounded - do also defend the camp from a breakthrough - and guess what - the rest of the army in that battle had not been defeated, the main line still held, and the triarii are still in position)


you then use Livy to report the triarii as hoplites.

"The equipment of the 1st class looks very hoplite-like, and Livy thinks they fought in a phalanx (in fact he thinks they fought in a Macedonian-style phalanx, but he may be confusing this with the earlier Greek hoplite phalanx)."

This is despite good early art and archaeological evidence which suggests, as Roy says that as with most cultures of the time and earlier (including the Greeks), the first proper formed infantry do seem to have used a pair of spears of some description (shield shape irrelevant). 
but forget all that, we have a livy quote saying they fought in a phalanx, a quote which is demonstrably incorrect by a good few hundred years in what he meant by a phalanx - macedonian and all. 
this is the same livy who invented a macedonian contingent in Hannibals army to justify the subsequent Roman expansion into Macedonia.
if you accept - as he frequently is - that Livy is wrong, and follow Roys line of thinking, you instead get a much more continuous Italian experience of battle.

layers of troops of increasing ability and experience, typically with a high javelin contingent, which have internal cultural variations (the Roman hasta you describe), and which fight in a way which reflects the two big differences between Greece and Italy - hills and forests vs mountains and plains; and a highly specialised city culture which produced the hoplite vs the much more layers class structures of italy which we see reported in sources and sculpted in the situla etc.

It also leads into the big unreported elephant in all discussion on greek vs roman battle - that greeks sought a very short very high impact battle  which was why they didn't want reserves - and fought in quite a stylised tactical doctrine, where one side would acknowledge defeat on key points - a flank turning, a front line breaking - and had mutual ceremonies to support this (recovering bodies, erecting monuments).

  the romans (italians) used layers of fighting men, which mandates longer battles and the need for reserves and rotations (and perhaps also enables a side to break off early if its first line sense its not worth sticking around for).  greeks agree to battle and go all out to finish it quickly - best men in the front (and rear to keep the numbers needed to make it equal in place, or perhaps let them know when its time to run) but really, its only the front line who are going to be needed once the hit comes.
Italians seem to want to actually do a lot more than be acknowledged victors, they want subjugation not hegemony, ad they will take all day to ensure they can get it.  I suspect that this slower more determined pace may explain some of their shock at encountering the all out celtic attitude on the first occasions too.

there is nothing utterly conclusive either way on this - its over 2500 years old - but I do think Roy is much closer on this, and TBH, it lends much greater support to you and Rodge's work on when the mainpula system began (for which I am reluctant to completely agree with, but an quite taken with none the less). 

rather than an equipment based change, I think the samnite wars saw the same equipment and layered structure become a bit more based around smaller bands of men to cope with the even more broken terrain - a small tactical practical change, rather than a large equipment and tactical change, but a change none the less which leads much more easily to the manipular system we finally do get reported in enough detail to start taking seriously.

so looking for 'every' portrayal of an Italian to have multiple javelins is as pointless as looking for evidence of any Italians using overlapping round shields - of which I do not believe there is any, contra greek art.

I know this is going to sound a bit pedantic, but if we are going to have an interesting discussion on Early Italian warfare (which suits me as a learner), shouldn't we do it by having a separate thread, so it will be more obvious to those searching for what will be an interesting debate later?  Or for others to take part who had lost interest in line relief?  If we could move messages #280 onward into said thread, so much the better.

As usual, a good idea!
Roy

All we need then is someone with Administrator priviledges to come along :)

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/319848-etruscan-military-organisation.html

The Steven James contri on RAT has some good points. It would be worth going through it to add to some of the points that we have made to build a better picture. It reinforced the opinion that I take Mark to be expressing, that actually there is a lot of confused information mixed up in written sources that are all well after the event. James does not sirt his information into a clear view, but I liked the idea that what we see of the Etruscans is a rich Hellenised elite, whereas the armies contained  a large majority of troops armed in Italian style.

Patrick can administrate a thread change. :-))

Roy

is it possible that the classes beyond the first/second were used to do where needed and ordered the back othysmos typical of hoplite armies, more than cover the gaps or stay in the wings as Thora kitai, since this is a role covered in Greek armies later than 6th century? 6th century is the age of hoplite armies in their typical form, with few or no peltasts, for what I know. Peltasts and light infantry will gain main importance in Greek in 4th century.  Light infantry role was covered only by 5th class. We know that Othysmos moment was decisive in many hoplite battles and having more ranks helped a lot, as battle of Leuctra showed.

Hmm, mow I thought that the aspis was designed to transmit the push of othismos through the ranks, not its only use, if course. Having classes two to four equipped with scuta and expecting them to perform othismos  is very unlikely. The scuta armed troops are there to throw javelins and use their body shields as protection against missiles.
Roy

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A2KLj9PNON1Tk04A2gdNBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTIyam41bnZwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMxMzJjOTQxYzM0OTJhMGYyMmEwMWM5ZDY0YzQ3ZjJiZgRncG9zAzEEaXQDYmluZw--?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dgiglioli%2Btomb%26fr%3Dipad%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D1&w=600&h=465&imgurl=media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F03%2F37%2F2b%2F03372b30b2b42842d4a9ce6049039350.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpinterest.com%2Fpin%2F455778424761703812%2F&size=69.3KB&name=Fresco+from+the+%3Cb%3EGiglioli+tomb%3C%2Fb%3E%2C+Tarquinia+%28Lazio%29.+Etruscan+...&p=giglioli+tomb&oid=132c941c3492a0f22a01c9d64c47f2bf&fr2=piv-web&fr=ipad&tt=Fresco+from+the+%3Cb%3EGiglioli+tomb%3C%2Fb%3E%2C+Tarquinia+%28Lazio%29.+Etruscan+...&b=0&ni=21&no=1&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11ca5fiph&sigb=134gpaf4b&sigi=12dshrm77&sigt=125t9481k&sign=125t9481k&.crumb=jTgb/Z24i3i&fr=ipad&fr2=piv-web


The Giglioli tomb, apparently showing Etruscan ais. shields, Greek style armour and possibly pika.
Roy

A little about early pila that is supportive of early Etruscan useage HERE:  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D-0XEWLhzxsC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=giglioli+tomb+tarquinia+pilum&source=bl&ots=ftHZ8ctS7K&sig=OVXXSiRBcbb1jwv1zeSx0Ncm5_A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CJfSUreKKsKisAT88IGwDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=giglioli%20tomb%20tarquinia%20pilum&f=false

Roy

Quote from: Mark G on August 02, 2014, 07:57:10 AM

You have three conflicting positions on the triarii at once.

You have them as hoplites, you have them as the army reserve and you have them as camp guards

...

To take the camp guards and army reserve point - the quote is

" the sons of King Tarquinius, put the left wing of the Romans the son of flight, and advancing close to their camp, did not fail to attempt to take it by storm; but after receiving many wounds, since those inside stood their ground, they desisted. These guards were the triarii, as they are called; they are veteran troops, experienced in many wars, and are always the last employed in the most critical fighting, when every other hope is lost."

Please note the tenses: the triarii 'were' camp guards in 509 BC but at the time Dionysius' source was writing (a rather later period) they 'are' those last into critical fighting.  There is nothing contradictory in this, surely?

Quote
you then use Livy to report the triarii as hoplites.

"The equipment of the 1st class looks very hoplite-like, and Livy thinks they fought in a phalanx (in fact he thinks they fought in a Macedonian-style phalanx, but he may be confusing this with the earlier Greek hoplite phalanx)."

Dionysius also records them as having similar equipment, and minor differences between his and Livy's descriptions suggest they were working from different sources, which gives us a situation where all our surviving sources ascribe just one spear to Servius Tullius' melee troops.

Quote
there is nothing utterly conclusive either way on this - its over 2500 years old - but I do think Roy is much closer on this, and TBH, it lends much greater support to you and Rodge's work on when the mainpula system began (for which I am reluctant to completely agree with, but an quite taken with none the less).

The throwing-weapon(s)-and-sword system is evident from 5th century BC battle descriptions.  These however describe a system which came into use more than half a century and two attested changes after Servius Tullius' system, which suggests that assigning 5th century BC equipment and techniques to the 6th century BC might not be particularly helpful.

Quote
rather than an equipment based change, I think the samnite wars saw the same equipment and layered structure become a bit more based around smaller bands of men to cope with the even more broken terrain - a small tactical practical change, rather than a large equipment and tactical change, but a change none the less which leads much more easily to the manipular system we finally do get reported in enough detail to start taking seriously.

Probably true in part, as the Samnite wars seem to have resulted in the transition from the Livian to the Polybian legion, with the 300 leves replaced by 1,200 velites, allowing more activity in unforgiving terrain.  The manipular system we see in Livy seems to have been around since 394 BC, and Rodger and I trace the Polybian beginnings to the period following Poetilius' success at Terracina resulting from immediate aggressive commitment of his 'reserve maniples' (rorarii), which may have prompted reflection that as the rorarii always ended up with the hastati and principes maybe it was a better idea to start them off there.

The consuls for this probable period of change were:

314    M. Poetelius Libo    C. Sulpicius Longus III
313    L. Papirius Cursor V    C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus II
312    M. Valerius Maximus Corvus    P. Decius Mus
311    C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus III    Q. Aemilius Barbula II
310    Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus II    C. Marcius Rutilus Censorinus
309    Dictator: L. Papirius Cursor    

Terracina took place in 314 BC.  My personal favourite for getting the change to the Polybian legion implemented and adopted would be Lucius Papirius Cursor, the hugely prestigious fifth-time consul in 313 BC who was also dictator in 309 BC.  The next most likely candidate seems to be Caius Junius Bubulcus Brutus, on the strength of his having two consulships during this period.

Slightly off the beaten track, a paper (https://archive.org/stream/UrartianBronzesInEtruscanTombs/Maxwell-hyslop1956UrartianBronzesInEtruscanTombs_djvu.txt) on Urartian imports in Etruscan tombs.

The original plates are not reproduced, but anyone interested in cultural influences may find elements of this paper interesting.

Quote from: aligern on August 02, 2014, 07:05:05 PM
Hmm, mow I thought that the aspis was designed to transmit the push of othismos through the ranks, not its only use, if course. Having classes two to four equipped with scuta and expecting them to perform othismos  is very unlikely. The scuta armed troops are there to throw javelins and use their body shields as protection against missiles.
Roy

again, we are talking of typical hoplite armies, when skirmishers had a secondary role and were in battle in very small numbers, not in almost same number as hoplite class (counting the number of centuriae you would get this). An army half hoplites half skirmishers in 6th century?
and which kind of scuta they used? which are sources? Roman scuta were with central grip were invented later. Do you know for sure that they could not make othysmos with them?
Anyway from sources I get that only 5th class were skirmishers, eventually. My idea is that they were something to be used eventually with a secondary role, not with an active role as Greek peltasts.  Something like a reserve of main hoplite force. I would not doubt that at least in 6th century it was a hoplite style of fighting.

Pat, can you try to offer some more to support your dismissal of my thought please.

1. please provide the other evidence you have that triarii were camp guards.  i have only seen that quote which has them guarding a camp during a rout - a reserve force role.  exactly what and when is there to show them staying in camp during a battle to guard it?

2. just because they have large shields and a spear does not make them hoplites, asy Roy has also said, is there any evidence of actual hoplite usage, or are you just reverting to the same old stereotype which this thread is challenging, that everyone early enough must have a hoplite model, if they ever had a large shield and a spear infantryman.

It is the usage which matters not the similarity of equipment - and hoplites do not act as reserves or deploy in multiple batle lines of fighting men, hoplite fighting was never based around prolonged battle, and hoplite troops thus do not seem to be at all applicale to the italian examples of fighting men which do have a spear and shield. 
there is however, a unique italian model which uses a spear and large shield - that of the roman triarii who are reported as acting as a local army reserveas part of a multi players battle model. 

the diffrences between dionysus and livy are clear - D reports the triarii acting as an army reserve - exactly as they act in the republic.  livy just assets they are a phananx (and he means a macedonian one, as you said yourself).  if you step back and look critically at the notoriously unreliable livy, it makes a lot moresense if you just accept livy is wrong on this.

so other than a 'game of snap' mentality over equipment exactly what is there to support the received wisdom of the 19th century historians that etruscans were hoplites?

etruscans fought as hoplites, are you really arguing about this? I have never heard a debate on this, while I have heard debates about how Romans deployed in battle. I think that they are pretty confident about how etruscans fought. And remember that in southern Italy there were Greek city States to copy uses and traditions.

Can I atempt a summary to ensure I've got the basics right?

Patrick proposes that the 1st class are hoplites and form the main battleline.  They are supported by classes 2-4 either on the flanks or in a reserve line - these classes are melee troops but a different style of combat.  Class 5 are psiloi and fairly loosely throw things at the enemy but don't get stuck in.

Roy and Mark hold that the Romans from the beginning followed the Italian Way of War (sorry, couldn't resist) - multiple lines, a pair of heavy throwing or multi-purpose spears.  They may have imported or even made hoplite-style kit but they didn't fight in a hoplite phalanx.  Classes 1-4 are melee troops, the 5th class act as psiloi.  I am not clear if the 2-4th classes form behind or in front of 1st class.

Andrew is supportive of the traditional notion that the Etruscans (and hence the early Romans) adopted not just hoplite kit but phalanx fighting, perhaps from contact with Greek colonies.  Andrew has not, I think, given an opinion on how the army draws up.

http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/genesi_manipolo.html
it is in Italian but I find this article really informative about etruscans warfare and birth of manipular tactic. A lot of primary sources are mentioned.
I don't know if you can translate well with Google translator but you could try.

In brief synthesis, the author explains why adoption of scutum and pilum are a different event from manipular tactic, which was adopted, according to the author, in the period between defeat of Allia against gauls and humiliation in  battle at Claudine Forks (sorry I have no idea how is the English word for it) . Scutum and pilum were used even During the period of hoplites by many people in Italy (he does not talk of etruscans but probably even them) who used hoplite tactic.
Probably etruscans used some ancient type of Pila too. For the Roman use of pilum, Plutarco. Cam. 40.4 talk about consul appius ordering to use the "heavy javelins" as Spears in a battle of 367 BC. And surely in 295 during the third war against samnites Pila were used to "Pierce the colorful Shields" (livius). Finally some decades later Pirrus was told to have been injured by a pilum.
So probably the key is the 4th century, when both the switch to pilum and scutum AND the switch to manipular tactic (an evolution of the fighting in a phalanx on more lines as in servian reform, so not a total change) happened.
Finally the author explains the error (you have already talked about before) of considering the samnites the population where Roman took scutum pilum and manipular tactic from. It was an error kept inside a Greek text. But, exactly as you pointed out before (not all academics are stupid) the samnites chosed always flat places for battle and used scutum, yes, but even round Shields indifferently, giving the idea of a "italic way" of doing hoplitic battle, which could be true for etruscans too. Something like absorbing the idea of close compact phalanx but with not exactly the typical Greek hoplite equipment (etruscans used open Nagau helms and small bronze plates not complete chest armor, and used particular types of warriors like the ones with double hand axe to cut enemy spears), and more classes of warriors, on more lines probably, since the etruscan society, as the Roman one, had a system of social classes very distinct one from the other. While Greek city States were democracies with this idea of "equality" totally unexistent in Italic populations (though the idea of "duty according your privilege" is inside the servian/etruscan reform of Roman society and military).
Finally the author points out that the key for adoption of manipular tactic was more than the pilum, the use of scutum shield, since that was more suited to fighting with sword since it was much more mobile than a Hoplon.
Manipular tactic, with the gaps between the small columns of men, as the author says, was invented first of all to deploy quicker and faster in any battlefield, since small columns could avoid obstacles in their path. And gaps could be used for the relief system too (maybe at first relief system, of one row to the other, was reacher making first row retreat and melting for a while with back row, as Patrick showed).
So in extreme synthesis I see 3 different models in Roman military until the adoption of manipular system: the first "heroic" one, used probably with the first 4 Latin kings, with a military system where the Chiefs of the gentes lead their clientes and relatives, the etruscan hoplite one, with the problems linked to make a uniform army from a differentiated society, and finally the slow swift to the use of swords as main weapons, to scuta, to Pila, and manipular system. A slow change which occurred in about a century and had many goes back, shown by the use of the same word "hastati" for first line of infantry and by the episode I told before, of the consul ordering to use Pila as Spears rather than javelins.

Quote from: Mark G on August 03, 2014, 07:28:10 AM

Pat, can you try to offer some more to support your dismissal of my thought please.

1. please provide the other evidence you have that triarii were camp guards.  i have only seen that quote which has them guarding a camp during a rout - a reserve force role.  exactly what and when is there to show them staying in camp during a battle to guard it?

See Dionysius V.15.4; VIII.86.4 and IX.12.1.  See also Livy II.47.5 (480 BC) and IV.19.8 (437 BC).

Quote
2. just because they have large shields and a spear does not make them hoplites, asy Roy has also said, is there any evidence of actual hoplite usage, or are you just reverting to the same old stereotype which this thread is challenging, that everyone early enough must have a hoplite model, if they ever had a large shield and a spear infantryman.

Actually the picture we see in Greece is of two-spear shieldsmen becoming one-spear hoplites (with the Spartans leading the way) during the 7th-6th centuries BC, and then drifting away from hoplites towards peltasts and thureophoroi in the 4th century BC.

Given that Italy did not develop in isolation (see the paper quoted in 'Reply 14' in this thread), is there good reason to believe that the Etruscans did not follow a similar pattern of developing from warriors into hoplites and thereafter perhaps developing out of them again?

Quote
It is the usage which matters not the similarity of equipment - and hoplites do not act as reserves or deploy in multiple batle lines of fighting men,

Nor do Etruscans in Livy IX.32.

Quote
there is however, a unique italian model which uses a spear and large shield - that of the roman triarii who are reported as acting as a local army reserveas part of a multi players battle model.

Can we avoid this 'army reserve' terminology in connection with triarii?  They are nothing of the sort.  From 509 BC (or before) to 437  BC (or later) they are camp guards.  From 394 BC (or earlier) to 107 BC they are the final line of Roman deployment.  They are never used as 'army reserves', i.e. to commit where needed; this is the preserve of the rorarii (until c.314-309 BC).

Quote
the diffrences between dionysus and livy are clear - D reports the triarii acting as an army reserve - exactly as they act in the republic.  livy just assets they are a phananx (and he means a macedonian one, as you said yourself).  if you step back and look critically at the notoriously unreliable livy, it makes a lot moresense if you just accept livy is wrong on this.

If this refers to Livy I.43 (it is hard to tell without reference being made; please, please reference any such assertions in future) then he is not describing triarii; he is describing the Servian 1st class.  As noted earlier, Dionysius does not describe triarii 'acting as an army reserve'.  They are camp guards prior to 437 BC.

Quote
so other than a 'game of snap' mentality over equipment exactly what is there to support the received wisdom of the 19th century historians that etruscans were hoplites?

Battlefield behaviour.  However rather than adopt a simplistic view that the Etruscans either were hoplites or were not hoplites, it may be better to take a look at Etruscan actions in some detail and see how much hoplite-ness is involved.

As a further observation, although 6th century Rome owes much to Etruscan influence, would it not be wise to distinguish between Etruscan armies and the army of Servius Tullius and not confuse the two?

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 03, 2014, 01:44:09 PM

Probably etruscans used some ancient type of Pila too. For the Roman use of pilum, Plutarco. Cam. 40.4 talk about consul appius ordering to use the "heavy javelins" as Spears in a battle of 367 BC.

For those who do might not recognise this reference, Camillus introduces revised equipment and tactics to deal with the Gauls:

"He had helmets forged for most of his men which were all iron and smooth of surface, that the enemy's swords might slip off from them or be shattered by them. He also had the long shields of his men rimmed round with bronze, since their wood could not of itself ward off the enemy's blows. The soldiers themselves he trained to use their long javelins [hussois makrois] like spears,—to thrust them under the enemy's swords and catch the downward strokes upon them."

We note that the 'long javelins' are 'hussois makrois' - long pila (the 6' - 2 metre - pilum) and that the technique is similar to that used in the battle against the Insubres described in Polybius II.33:

"The Romans are thought to have shown uncommon skill in this battle; the Tribunes instructing the troops how they were to conduct themselves both collectively and individually. They had learned from former engagements that Gallic tribes were always most formidable at the first onslaught, before their courage was at all damped by a check; and that the swords with which they were furnished, as I have mentioned before, could only give one downward cut with any effect, but that after this the edges got so turned and the blade so bent, that unless they had time to straighten them with their foot against the ground, they could not deliver a second blow. The Tribunes accordingly gave out the spears of the Triarii, who are the last of the three ranks, to the first ranks, or Hastati: and ordering the men to use their swords only, after their spears were done with, they charged the Celts full in front. When the Celts had rendered their swords useless by the first blows delivered on the spears, the Romans close with them, and rendered them quite helpless, by preventing them from raising their hands to strike with their swords, which is their peculiar and only stroke, because their blade has no point. The Romans, on the contrary, having excellent points to their swords, used them not to cut but to thrust: and by thus repeatedly hitting the breasts and faces of the enemy, they eventually killed the greater number of them. And this was due to the foresight of the Tribunes: for the Consul Flaminius is thought to have made a strategic mistake in his arrangements for this battle. By drawing up his men along the very brink of the river, he rendered impossible a manœuvre characteristic of Roman tactics, because he left the lines no room for their deliberate retrograde movements; for if, in the course of the battle, the men had been forced ever so little from their ground, they would have been obliged by this blunder of their leader to throw themselves into the river."

Here we see the hastati using triarii spears to receive the first blows of Gallic swords.  When the Gauls have used their swords to strike the spears, but before they can get their sword arms up again, the Romans have drawn their gladii and pushed up against the Gauls, preventing them from using their swords.  This may have been the same kind of tactic Camillus taught his troops.

Really the passage in which Camillus has smooth helmets made for his men and that where the spears of the triarii are used t blunt Gallic swords look more nonsensical every time. Are we to believe that the Romans did not have helmets that could take a downward blow? Well Etruscan tombs contain machaira swords that would deliver as good a downward force as any Celtic sword. Are we to believe that the Celtic sword could not lop the head off a thrusting spear...no, I think not.  If one wanted to blunt or bend a sword a pilum head of metal would be the best tool for the job.
These passages are stories handed down in aristocratic families to glorify some ancestor from 500 years before Livy wrote! They are unbelievable.

What I do believe is that the earliest pila are found in Vulci, an Etruscan town and that no one here, despite Andrew's assertions and Patrick's tergiversations, has yet produced good evidence that Etruscans are spear armed , though some may be.
As to Southern Italian Greeks, the pictures of them that I remember show them with a combination of Greek and Samnite/Lucanian kit  which could well be javelins or dual purpose throwing/ thrusting spears.
Yes its possible that Etruscans had pila,then spears, then changed back to pila again, but much more likely that they stayed with the pilum(though there may have been some pure spear) whichever the combination it looks much more likely that they are an Italian military system than a Greek imitating hoplite phalanx....

Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 03, 2014, 04:26:07 PM
Really the passage in which Camillus has smooth helmets made for his men and that where the spears of the triarii are used t blunt Gallic swords look more nonsensical every time. Are we to believe that the Romans did not have helmets that could take a downward blow? Well Etruscan tombs contain machaira swords that would deliver as good a downward force as any Celtic sword. Are we to believe that the Celtic sword could not lop the head off a thrusting spear...no, I think not.  If one wanted to blunt or bend a sword a pilum head of metal would be the best tool for the job.
These passages are stories handed down in aristocratic families to glorify some ancestor from 500 years before Livy wrote! They are unbelievable.

What I do believe is that the earliest pila are found in Vulci, an Etruscan town and that no one here, despite Andrew's assertions and Patrick's tergiversations, has yet produced good evidence that Etruscans are spear armed , though some may be.
As to Southern Italian Greeks, the pictures of them that I remember show them with a combination of Greek and Samnite/Lucanian kit  which could well be javelins or dual purpose throwing/ thrusting spears.
Yes its possible that Etruscans had pila,then spears, then changed back to pila again, but much more likely that they stayed with the pilum(though there may have been some pure spear) whichever the combination it looks much more likely that they are an Italian military system than a Greek imitating hoplite phalanx....

Roy

Roy "despite Andrew's assertions"? well if you have read my last post I have said exactly this, that  the pilum was used by etruscans together with a phalanx system, inspired to Greek one but adapted to peculiar ancient italic tradition. We should make a distinction between adoption of pilum and manipular system, that was my point. Even samnites used javelins and some scuta Shields but they fought in phalanx.
Etruscans first of all show a very complex melting pot of cultures and traditions from Egyptian, Phoenician, to Greek one, don't forget that they were traders and travellers of the sea. Even their ethnic origin is way discussed as their language is, but most recent theories concern that they were not eastern immigrants, as Erodotus told and people thought watching the "eastern type" in some painting. Probably there were many contacts with East in that time and many melting as today happens. If you go into Volterra or other etruscan born towns (I did many times) you will see western looking people with some black hair minority and many of the blonde type/ blue eyes, more than in other places, whom I suppose are the real etruscan descendents, since there has not been any celtic presence in Tuscany or long term German invasion (Longboards were few) to explain this. Bones of etruscans 2 mt tall have been found. And in a picture I have seen time ago there was an etruscan noble woman with blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin. So I suspect that there was an upper class of Northern origin and a lower class of pre italic origin with maybe some eastern melting.
Going back to topic, There was not one "italic warfare" but many types of it, many populations each with its own peculiarity, until Roman one prevailed and took the best of each one.

I have been to Volterra, it has a lovely square and a wonderful view from the ramparts. There is also a good museum with a lot of aetruscan artifacts. i wonder if the make up of the present daybpopulation really reflects the physiognomy of the Etruscans from 2,500 years ago. We would need a DNA analysis for that.

As to the Etruscan phalanx and the Samnite phalanx that you mention , if you want to call any formation of men that is say eight deep and 1000 men wide a phalanx then I suppose that the Etruscans can be that, though the most likely logic is. that they may have a continuous front line, but being aitalian, are divided nto smaller, more flexible units. I thoght the consensus on Samnites was that they operated in cohorts? 
what would be unteresting would be to see any evidence that indicates the fighting style of either.
Someone mentioned that the Etruscans put their best men on the left. That, if true, would be different from the Greek pratctice where the best are on the right o prevent rightward drift as each man tries to get cover from his neighbour. on the right. Ofcourse, if you are using two throwing spears then fighting with the sword then the formation is looser. Do we have any evidence of Etruscans or. Samnites close packed?
Roy

Many of the Etruscan vases and artefacts, from the 6th to the 4th century BC, show armoured warriors with the "Argive" shield, the concave shape reducing the danger of asphyxiation when close ranks push forward.  The shield lends itself to dense formations with the soldier raising his spear to strike at the vulnerable throat of his opponent.  I would presume the use of this aspis by some Etruscan warriors would imply the use of the long spear, and therefore hoplite tactics on the battlefield – albeit one part of the battle line – by a Hellenised elite.
Robert

for samnites I have found this. Differently than usual way of showing samnites with scuta, they are using oplon. https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/ahala_rome/5096771638/
Other good pictures of samnites and etruscan warriors and their Villanova ancestors. http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?130804-Ancient-armies-of-Italy/page2
Notice how etruscans of 6th and that century used mainly oplon and Greek style equipment, while first etruscans used more typical Villanova helmets and chest armors. Some etruscans use scutum while others oplon. Since single warrior could chose his equipment, probably we could have seen big variety between different town and between soldiers of same town, according wealth, social status, role in battle and personal preference, with "fashion" going anyway towards the Greek style (I can imagine some rich aristocrat buying a new fashion armor and equipment while some other more common guy using his grandfather's armor with negau helmet to save money). In Italy there has never been the idea of uniformity and equality which came from Greece and gave birth to those standardised phalanxes (brought to the extreme among omoioi spartans).

Thanks for the link Andrew. I am pleased to see that it shows 'Dorian Hoplites duelling' ...with throwing spears.
Robert, what younsay about the aspis is true. It is well designed for othismos pushing. However, that does not mean that it has to be used in a phalanx armed with thrusting spears. Early Carthaginians may well have had aspis shields, but were probably using longche throwing sprars. Greeks with a pair of javelins are shown with an aspis as are Etruscans that I provided a link to earlier. The aspis is not a guide to the useage of Greek tactics!
Roy

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 03, 2014, 01:44:09 PM
http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/genesi_manipolo.html
it is in Italian but I find this article really informative about etruscans warfare and birth of manipular tactic. A lot of primary sources are mentioned.
I don't know if you can translate well with Google translator but you could try.

Here is a link to a Google Translate (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warfare.it%2Ftattiche%2Fgenesi_manipolo.html&edit-text=) page.

I give the text below, as translated by Google.  The result seems sufficient to give English speakers an idea of Nicola Zotti's thoughts and conclusions.  I have adjusted Google's 'manipulate' to read 'manipular' and 'handpieces' to read 'maniples'.

Quote
The genesis of manipular tactics

Nicola Zotti


I do not ever take the "crisis blank sheet of paper" when I write about Roman military history. If anything, on the contrary, it is the anxiety of where to start.

This is the case now, when I am going to talk about the genesis of manipular tactics , tactics on which for centuries Rome has built its success: in particular the first, the most critical to its dominance of the Italic peoples and the basin of the Mediterranean.

Start of principle, which is always the best thing - as well as the most natural - means remembering that Rome was a small village, created by the merger of two independent Latin settlements on the Palatine Hill and Capitoline hills.

Rome was thus born from the very beginning as open and inclusive community, capable of aggregating naturally elite from the surrounding areas: first, Etruria and Sabina, and of course the other tribes Latinas.

In its first two and a half centuries of Roman military life, the system evolves from the heroic to the hoplite that the Etruscans had first assimilated probably in 600. C. by the Greeks of southern Italy, which had introduced a few decades in their military use.

We can imagine an initial acquisition of new weapons, especially the hoplite shield, from the more affluent elements of society, followed by an equally slow and problematic introduction of Greek tactics themselves.

It thus comes as an armed force in which a tribal chief in war driving their family and clients, expression of a society where we can distinguish layers, a pattern typical of a society opposed to the much more homogeneous, if not equal, as was that "democratic" Greek.

It is a transition somehow unnatural, because the Etruscan was highly stratified social structure, as was also the Roman one.

Livy describes this step to combat falangitico as a complex reform initiative introduced by conceived by King Servius Tullius (578-534), although it is probably earlier.

Servius Tullius first census of the incomes of their subjects and then based on this to the organization of its military strength, as the institutional structure of the kingdom.

To him we owe then a radical revolution in the conception of citizenship, under which corresponded to more rights and more responsibilities, which will become the heritage of the Roman Republic with the equality of all citizens, regardless of wealth, frronte of the laws of the Republic.

The Roman legion takes the field in three tribal formations commanded by a tribune, each of 1,000 men taken from three tribes: Tities, Ramnes, Luceres. Each tribe gives 10 curies of infantry and one of cavalry, whose men are selected according to the census and assigned to the Cavalry and 5 main classes for the phalanx (with roles and armaments spending decreasing depending on income), and some other less sensitive to support activities or exempt from service because nots.

At this point the legion "falangitica" Roman formed by successive lines of men of different census is already structurally poised to become legion "manipular": how, why and when this happened is a matter of conjecture.

It's worth repeating: all of these are conjectures : when you read format Roman tactics, including maniples, know that it is a hypothesis, some shared by most scholars and most motivated, but no less "hypothetical" than others who benefit from lower consents or less compelling arguments.

An initial screening of the assumptions must be made stating that the causal reasoning are deceptive: in this case there is no necessary causal links between the introduction of pilum and scutum and tactics to manipulate. So many people were warriors armed with missile weapons, including heavy javelins, and did not fight in maniples, but in unit formation and even falangitiche. In turn, the scutum is widespread in Italy during the period "hoplite" and numerous archaeological evidence that there was much greater differentiation of weapons between the hoplites Italic than among the Greeks.

The reasoning "by analogy" are as hazardous as "causal" analogies to the danger of anachronism, those cause / effect because the same causes often result in different effects.

That being said what we "know"?

a) The handles have been introduced in the Roman army between the fourth and third centuries: squeezing a little this time limit we are talking about a period that goes from the period after the defeat sull'Allia (390 or 388) to the next Caudine Forks (321). We can be reasonably certain that when we hear from Livy that in 311 the Romans were able to field two armies consular legions 4 (2 + 2 Roman Latin), they were a fairly recent invention, and were probably already focused on maniples.

b) In the same period the Roman army went from being constituted by a legion of 6,000 men, to (maybe) 2 from 366 in 3000, when you return to the system of two consuls, to, as mentioned above, in 311 4.

c) In 338, in fact, Rome, having defeated the Latins, inextricably bound them to himself by introducing citizenship without sufffragio and doubling from one day to the other based on their enrollment.

d) Also in this long and intense period, the Romans adopt the scutum and the pilum, a partial replacement dell'hasta, but do not know how this happened.

e) The major change in the methods of fighting the Romans, not the adoption of the pilum, but rather that of scutum because its mobility (greater than dell'oplon) is preferred for those who wish to entrust the fate of a battle to fight with swords.

f) And this is the final focus of the whole process: the Romans decided to adopt the tactic to manipulate, because the most suited to close combat with the sword, bloodiest and, therefore, more decisive than the hoplite spear.

What are the advantages of tactics to manipulate? the first and most significant (and here we are tempted into a dangerous reasoning by analogy with the French revolutionaries battalions) which is advancing in small columns spaced allows you to side with more speed than a phalanx.

The small nuclei can support each other, they can move left and right to avoid natural obstacles, they can expand and shrink. The depth of the grid allows you to keep a tighter front and acquire reserves.

The concepts of "reserve" and gradual effort correct the other weaknesses of the phalanx and can be designed by the Romans because of their social segmentation (which eventually becomes generational segmentation), supported by the principle of citizenship: young people Hastati (which also tend to have an income less) before the fight Principes (older) and triarii (even older) because they have already fought in previous years.

In the years of the Republic, the introduction of the salary for the milites and "public horse", for riders, institutionalized collective responsibility in the defense of the state.

From the military point of view, the equilibrium between the lines is guaranteed by the compensation effect between youth and experience, where a less experienced, the greater the force.

In relation to the width of the front, it should be noted that the armies in this era, and generally in ancient warfare, they tended to side not only parallel, but also on the same extension: the attacks on the flanks were difficult to achieve (intentionally) to the objective difficulties in maneuvering troops.

More important is to devise programmatic use of reserves and the graduation of the effort on multiple lines, which, as we have seen, the Romans already could conceive and consider natural since the Servian reform.

The hoplite spears break against the rugged scutum, leaving the hoplite in serious trouble: his opponent has not only a shield most of his cabinet, but is trained to use it effectively in combination with the sword.

Necessary at this point to clear the field from the assumption of cause / effect made by some on the basis of which the Romans have borrowed scutum, pilum and tactics to manipulate by the Samnites.

This hypothesis is supported by '"Ineditum Vaticanum" a greek text of the fourth century, which states explicitly that the Romans had learned the use of the rectangular scutum and the pilum by the Samnites.

In fact, the text is not reliable: the Samnites used the scutum but also shields round either, and it seems that they used the pilum nor that manipulate the tactics to adopt, especially as the battles they fought against the Romans took place in locations all flat, perfect for hoplite battles.

More likely the Etruscan origin of the pilum. Some archaeological evidence of Etruscan stack, for example, or famous frescoes of the "Tomb Giglioli" in Tarquinia, suggest that these people knew the use of a weapon and heavy draft, at least to consider the inventors of the maniples , we can assume used these weapons in a formation substantially falangitica.

The first reference to a Roman pilum dates back to 295, during the Third Samnite War, when Livy (X, 39,12) reported the words of the consul Lucius Papirius recalling that "for picta atque aurata scuta transire Romanum pilum," or that the Roman pilum passes shields colored and gilded. In 279, during the Battle of Ascoli, Plutarch tells us that Pirro was wounded by a pilum, and if one swallow does not make a summer, maybe two, yes.

But even before these dates, we know that Camillus dictator in 367, ordered his men to use their "heavy javelins" like spears from impact to counter the attacks of the Gauls (Plutarco. Cam. 40.4). A statement that, apart from the reliability, it is puzzling, why use the pilum as if it were a spear Hoplite seems a step back to tactics that should have esserestate abandoned. Unless it is a concession in respect of little aduse troops in new tactics.

The introduction of new combat tactics, tactics before battle, would lead, at least theoretically, an adaptation of the materials. Some are obvious, others less so if you enter combat a greater emphasis in the use of the sword, it is obvious that new types will be found useful by the sword. But the "Swordsmen" they also need other types of shields, other types of armor, other types of helmets.

In practice, however, this is only partially true, because the adaptations of tactics can not always be followed by adjustments of materials: for conservatism, for ascertainable economic and productive for personal preferences.

Another question is what we might call the "good enough" if we say that a swordsman benefits from a Maggire visibility with respect to a hoplite, and then an open helmet, say something that seems logical. Yet there are hoplites with open helmets and helmets with swordsmen substantially closed.

What conclusions can we get there?

We can conclude that there is no necessary connection between the adoption of the scutum and the pilum and the transition to manipular tactics by the Romans. And we may add that it was their peculiar invention.

Most likely it was two concurrent transitions that took place over a period of decades and perhaps more than a century of trial, error, second thoughts, of which we can read the names of contradictory signals in Hastati and Principes, and the persistence of "Haste "in the hands of triarii.

The increase in the size of the army formed a pattern of acceleration of this process: having to train twice as many recruits from almost a year to the next, it was probably easier to teach them how to fight with swords in a formation other than hoplite.

Quote from: aligern on August 03, 2014, 10:57:04 PM
Thanks for the link Andrew. I am pleased to see that it shows 'Dorian Hoplites duelling' ...with throwing spears.
Robert, what younsay about the aspis is true. It is well designed for othismos pushing. However, that does not mean that it has to be used in a phalanx armed with thrusting spears. Early Carthaginians may well have had aspis shields, but were probably using longche throwing sprars. Greeks with a pair of javelins are shown with an aspis as are Etruscans that I provided a link to earlier. The aspis is not a guide to the useage of Greek tactics!
Roy

We should perhaps remember that Psammetichus of Egypt secured the services of Carians and Ionians to help him gain the Double Crown (Herodotus II.152), and that subsequent pharaohs kept such troops on permanent establishment.  The reason seems to be their superior melee capability, even though this was still the two-spear era.  Would it be fair to call them hoplites?  Would there be a reason for not considering them to be hoplites?  At what point do 'Greek tactics' become non-Greek tactics?

To bring matters back into perspective, is the question we are trying to resolve 1) did Servius Tullius' army, and particularly the 1st class, use hoplite techniques or 2) did Etruscans generally use hoplite techniques for at least part of their history?  My impression was that we started off with 1) but it would be nice to be sure. 

Quote from: aligern on August 03, 2014, 10:57:04 PM
Thanks for the link Andrew. I am pleased to see that it shows 'Dorian Hoplites duelling' ...with throwing spears.
Robert, what younsay about the aspis is true. It is well designed for othismos pushing. However, that does not mean that it has to be used in a phalanx armed with thrusting spears. Early Carthaginians may well have had aspis shields, but were probably using longche throwing sprars. Greeks with a pair of javelins are shown with an aspis as are Etruscans that I provided a link to earlier. The aspis is not a guide to the useage of Greek tactics!
Roy

yes I have always agreed on that point. Maybe not all, but some hoplites surely threw their spear. For a only reason: why not? I mean, a spear is not so expensive.

I think that we were looking at the tactics of the Romans pre the supposed Servian reform.  The involvement of the Etruscans in this was because there were two linked assumptions in play: That the Etruscans fought in a Greek style hoplite spear phalanx and that the Romans copied this system which was then reformed.
I thank Andrew for the provision of the Italian site and Patrick for the translation. However, the author still starts from an assumption that the Etruscans are following a Greek model and that the Romans are reforming that inheritance. So far it is an assumption without much evidence.

The author cited states, without realising it, the conundrum at the heart of the argument, the Etruscans and Romans are described as operating in ranks based upon social grades that are used for recruitment and different in equipment. In the Greek system the phalanx is organised by files and the kit is homogenous.. In the Greek system the first and last man in the file are the best, is this true for an Etruscan or Early Roman system? the Greek ranks are very likely by age, all citizens in the phalanx are equal, whereas in the Etruscan it appears to be a matter of social difference.
In the Greek phalanx the soldiers all have the same equipment, this is not just about social equality, but because the kit is designed to facilitate a massed push against the opposition. The Etruscans and Early Romans have different styles of kit by social class. At the very least this varied kit is not well suited to transmitting a push. It makes much more sense if the different classes are operating separately.
You cannot have a little bit of the Greek system, because the social organisation, the armour and shield and use of the spear are all part of an integral whole.
With regard to hoplites and Carians using two javelins, I suggest that this is a different style of warfare where the formation is looser, the javelins are thrown, then it falls to sword strokes and we have plenty of depictions of hoplites in individual combat to show that this is possible, but I doubt that is the developed pushing phalanx that occurs with the thrusting spear.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 04, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
I think that we were looking at the tactics of the Romans pre the supposed Servian reform.  The involvement of the Etruscans in this was because there were two linked assumptions in play: That the Etruscans fought in a Greek style hoplite spear phalanx and that the Romans copied this system which was then reformed.
I thank Andrew for the provision of the Italian site and Patrick for the translation. However, the author still starts from an assumption that the Etruscans are following a Greek model and that the Romans are reforming that inheritance. So far it is an assumption without much evidence.

The author cited states, without realising it, the conundrum at the heart of the argument, the Etruscans and Romans are described as operating in ranks based upon social grades that are used for recruitment and different in equipment. In the Greek system the phalanx is organised by files and the kit is homogenous.. In the Greek system the first and last man in the file are the best, is this true for an Etruscan or Early Roman system? the Greek ranks are very likely by age, all citizens in the phalanx are equal, whereas in the Etruscan it appears to be a matter of social difference.
In the Greek phalanx the soldiers all have the same equipment, this is not just about social equality, but because the kit is designed to facilitate a massed push against the opposition. The Etruscans and Early Romans have different styles of kit by social class. At the very least this varied kit is not well suited to transmitting a push. It makes much more sense if the different classes are operating separately.
You cannot have a little bit of the Greek system, because the social organisation, the armour and shield and use of the spear are all part of an integral whole.
With regard to hoplites and Carians using two javelins, I suggest that this is a different style of warfare where the formation is looser, the javelins are thrown, then it falls to sword strokes and we have plenty of depictions of hoplites in individual combat to show that this is possible, but I doubt that is the developed pushing phalanx that occurs with the thrusting spear.
Roy

aligern I showed you several etruscan paintings representing basically the typical hoplite with Hoplon, linothorax and Corinthian helm,  and with spear. Everyone agrees that etruscans used phalanx. I have no idea why you don't. I think that debating can be useful but debating about things we already know very well is less useful.  Main point of interest, because it is not clear in sources and archeology is not enough, is the Roman system and its evolution, especially when it evolved.

 Sorry Andrew, I looked at your references and agree that they show hoplon and Greek inspired armour, but I could not find those with the spear.

By the way I do not doubt that sme Etruscans carried spears. They are found in the Bologna museum. . However, I do not see their class based army as a one line, no reserve Greek army, but as an Italic army with different divisions differently equipped and operating in lines of units.

There was a wonderful quote that I remember Patrick deploying on ancmed a couple of years back with the Romans fighting the Hernici  both sides sending in reserves to the fighting. Most Italian, most un Greek!
Roy

I think it would be a good idea to be clear about the dates under discussion.  If the Etruscans adopted a hoplite-style system from Greek or other influences, they would have done so around a certain date, and before that approximate date they would have used a non-hoplite style.  Finding that date (to within a half-century or better) may be important.

The next question is how we would find this date.  The obvious answer in the absence of Etruscan literature would be by looking at depictions of equipment, though here we have a complication: I have the impression that Roy (Aligern) is arguing that hoplite equipment (especially the aspis shield) does not signify hoplite tactics, but a non-hoplite shield most definitely signifies non-hoplite tactics.  A more dispassionate approach would be preferable for evaluating such evidence as we have.

Another way of attempting to judge when and for how long the Etruscans would have used hoplite tactics is from battle descriptions in Livy and Dionysius, our main sources for the period, together with any hints provided by other authors.

In this connection Livy IX.32 is interesting.

First, context.

"While these events were taking place in Samnium, all the peoples of Etruria, except the Arretini, had already armed, and beginning with the siege of Sutrium, a city in alliance with the Romans, and forming as it were the key to Etruria, had set on foot a tremendous war. [2] thither the other consul, Aemilius, came with an army, to relieve the blockade of the allies. as the Romans came up, the Sutrini obligingly brought provisions to their camp, which was formed before the city. [3] The Etruscans spent the first day in deliberating whether to accelerate the war or to draw it out. [4] on the following day, their generals having decided on the swifter plan in preference to the safer, the signal for battle was displayed at sunrise and their men in fighting array marched out upon the field [armatique in aciem procedunt]."

Next, the preliminaries.

"When this was reported to the consul, he at once commanded the word to be passed round that the men should breakfast, and having recruited their strength with food, should then arm. The order was obeyed; and the consul, seeing them equipped and ready, bade advance the standards beyond the rampart, and drew up his troops a little way off from the enemy. [6] for some time both sides stood fast, observing one another closely, each waiting for the other to give a cheer and begin to fight, and the sun had begun his downward course in the heavens ere a missile was hurled on either side [quam telum hinc aut illinc emissum est]. [7] then the Etruscans, that they might not withdraw without accomplishing their purpose, set up a shout, and with sound of trumpets advanced their ensigns. [8] The Romans were equally prompt to begin the battle."

We note 'ere a missile was hurled on either side' - this presumably refers to the skirmishers.

Finally, the battle.

"The two armies rushed together with great fury, the enemy having a superiority in numbers, the Romans in bravery. [9] Victory hung in the balance and many perished on both sides, including all the bravest, and the event was not decided until the Roman second line [secunda acies Romana] came up with undiminished vigour to relieve their exhausted comrades in the first; and the Etruscans, whose fighting line was supported by no fresh reserves, all fell in front of their standards and around them. [10] there would never in any battle have been more bloodshed or less running away, but when the Etruscans were resolved to die, the darkness shielded them, so that the victors gave over fighting before the vanquished. [11] The sun had set when the recall was sounded, and in the night both armies retired to their camps."

This battle took place in 311 BC.

The significant point here seems to be that the Etruscans fought in a single line 'without reserves' [nulla subsidiis].  This feature, while not exclusive to a hoplite army, is consistent with one.  It also suggests that the Etruscans were still following their own way rather than using the main-and-reserve line approach of Latin and Oscan cultures.

Quote from: aligern on August 04, 2014, 10:19:34 AM
There was a wonderful quote that I remember Patrick deploying on ancmed a couple of years back with the Romans fighting the Hernici  both sides sending in reserves to the fighting. Most Italian, most un Greek!

The quote follows:

"Then there was a glorious struggle as both armies fought stubbornly; and for a long time they stood firm, neither side yielding to the other the ground where they were posted. At length the Romans' line began to be in distress, this being the first occasion in a long time that they had been forced to engage in war. 3 Aquilius, observing this, ordered that the troops which were still fresh and were being reserved for this very purpose should come up to reinforce the parts of the line that were in distress and that the men who were wounded and exhausted should retire to the rear. The Hernicans, learning that their troops were being shifted, imagined that the Romans were beginning flight; and encouraging one another and closing their ranks, they fell upon those parts of the enemy's army that were in motion, and the fresh troops of the Romans received their onset. Thus once more, as both sides fought stubbornly, there was a strenuous battle all over again; for the ranks of the Hernicans were also continually reinforced with fresh troops sent up by their generals to the parts of the line that were in distress." (Dionysius VIII.65.2-3)

This battle occurred in 486 BC.  The piecemeal reinforcement of the leading line from a reserve line by both sides tells us that neither side was fighting a hoplite battle; both were using a two-line system in which not lines but individual small units were relieving and being relieved over time.  This is what Rodger and I refer to as the 'proto-manipular legion'.  It contrasts with the single line the Etruscans were apparently still using in 311 BC.

Quote
I do not see [the Etruscan] class based army as a one line, no reserve Greek army, but as an Italic army with different divisions differently equipped and operating in lines of units.

This depends upon what uses one makes of 'classes' and for that matter how one assigns them: I imagine this comment is extrapolated from Servius Tullius' system, which itself appears to be a deviation from the norm prevailing at the time.  If one wishes to field a hoplite army, one fields only those troops who can afford the equipment and/or can be equipped by the state as hoplites.  Everyone else (apart from the cavalry, who are even more expensive to equip than hoplites) can be taken to the battlefield with a sling and pouch of stones or a handful of javelins and fight as skirmishers.

Thank you for that Patrick. Any chance that you can find the passage where both Romans and Etruscans throw down their (missile ) weapons so as to get at each other more quickly?

Roy

I was taken by the passage "all fell in front of their standards and around them"

Did a hoplite phalanx use standards? Maniples and Cohorts did, because they needed them as the unit maneuvered.
Similarly I don't remember many cases of hoplite phalanxes clustering round the standards, because that speaks of bunching up. With a Phalanx you kept the line and held the front and a break through was the death of the unit.

Jim

Did the Theban phalanx use a standard? - albeit ribbons on a pole.  I'm not sure why an Etruscan phalanx should not sport a standard near the general for signalling and cultural reasons.  I haven't done the research but did Alexander's or successor phalangites have standards?
I also suspect the hoplite shield would be a hindrance to warriors who consistently fight in a loose formation.  A round shield without a rim or a thureos would give better service.  The hoplite shield probably indicates fighting in a phalanx at some point!
Robert

But it's not 'a' standard Robert, it's 'standards', multiple standards.

That's what flagged it up to me.
What does a hoplite phalanx need multiple standards for? The leader is in the front rank, nobody leaves their place, (save for Spartans) and one standard will pretty well do for that.

I wouldn't call it definitive, I'd just say that it's a possible pointer

Jim

Jim,
Oh yes -standards, plural!  I stand corrected.  I still think the hoplite shield is a cumbersome accompaniment for warriors fighting in a loose formation.
Robert

even samnites used standards (representing animals, each "district"  had its animal, like Bow for the main city of Bovianum, today called Benevento) and they probably fought in phalanx since there are several oplons (together with scuta) represented in paintings and oplon is useful only in close phalanx... but even in "cohorts" of 400 men according to sources. And their armies were called legions, exactly as Roman once.
From this I begin to think that you can have several small hoplites units, differently from the idea of a single long line we got used. The same could happen for etruscans.
So there would not be only either a manipular order based on small units on more lines and a phalanx with a single line of hoplites, but phalanxes with more lines and small units could be possible.
I suppose that what etruscans and other italic tribes did was melting together different traditions, the Greek phalanx, the etruscan idea of different units for different social classes, and finally the Roman/samnites invention of relief system. As equipment both Hoplon and linothorax, typical of hoplites, and more traditional bronze decorated plates for chest together with scutum. And both Spears and javelins.
So there could be not one truth but many.
If you simply watch the position of Italy, exactly in the middle of Mediterranean Sea, you can imagine its ancient role of melting pot of different cultures and traditions.
But I strongly believe that in 6th century, the Golden etruscan age, main culture considered as source of inspiration was the Greek one.

Quote from: RobertGargan on August 04, 2014, 09:55:12 PM
Jim,
Oh yes -standards, plural!  I stand corrected.  I still think the hoplite shield is a cumbersome accompaniment for warriors fighting in a loose formation.
Robert

I agree, a centre-grip shield would probably be better than a double grip shield.
Which is another interesting issue, I know some of the round shields are hoplons, but how many of these round shields are double grip and how many centre grip. If the latter they may not be hoplites

Jim

Quote from: aligern on August 04, 2014, 12:43:11 PM
Thank you for that Patrick. Any chance that you can find the passage where both Romans and Etruscans throw down their (missile ) weapons so as to get at each other more quickly?

Roy

That depends upon which passage is meant.

Livy II.46.3 has an action in 480 BC:

"The Etruscans had barely had time to deploy when their enemies, who in the first excitement had rather cast their javelins [pila] at random than fairly aimed them, were already come to sword-strokes at close quarters [ad gladios], where fighting is the fiercest."

This gives the impression that as of 480 BC only the Romans had pila to hurl, at least in this action.

If this is does not look like the right passage, please say.  :)

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 04, 2014, 09:28:26 PM
But it's not 'a' standard Robert, it's 'standards', multiple standards.

That's what flagged it up to me.
What does a hoplite phalanx need multiple standards for? The leader is in the front rank, nobody leaves their place, (save for Spartans) and one standard will pretty well do for that.

I wouldn't call it definitive, I'd just say that it's a possible pointer.

One reason why it might have multiple standards is that the Etruscans were a federation rather than a unitary kingdom.  Livy refers to them as the 'twelve cities' in Book VII, which deals with the 4th century BC.  They do not seem to have integrated into a unitary state during the time they were fighting the Romans.

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 04, 2014, 10:08:31 PM

So there could be not one truth but many.

A good observation, Andrew: forcing Italian armies into stereotypes might be more harmful than insightful.

With regard to whether a round shield is a hoplite shield all not I shall study some vases and frescoes, because the way the shield lies on the arm is an indication of grip - although a lot must depend on the artist's awareness of military practice.
Robert

      Well the round shields on the Certosa Situla look very like a rimmed aspis. They have the sort of rounded depth, rim and are the right size. Hoplites in Greek representations and Italian representations , that are carrying javelins are using the aspis. So I do not by the idea that porting an aspis means that you have to operate in a very close order, carrying out othismos  and wedging up to the man to your right.In fact the whole line of argument that function follows form is highly suspect. It relies upon the concept that is already in our heads , put there by years of seeing a certain equipment set and associating it with Greek hoplites.
Patrick made a good point earlier, that the Etruscans have trade relationships with Anatolia as well as Greece. That does make me wonder if the armour that we think of as Greek might not have an Anatolian or Egyptian origin. We leap to the conclusion that  such armour is Greek in inspiration, but the aspides that are on the situla and the later 'linothorax' armour that is seen on statuettes found in Etruria may not reflect Greek influence.....and even if it does it could simply indicate the import of items of armour, not fighting style.

I like Andrew's post. That is good flexible thinking. It is entirely possible that small units in the Etruscan army were spear equipped and other small units had javelins or proto pila.  That would have them operating in a flexible Italian manner, with the other classes in the army using paired javelins?
Roy

Remember that the Athenian phalanx was composed of tribal units, the Boeotian was provided by a federation, and I'm not sure we hear of each contingent bringing their own standard. That's why it interested me

In many cases the artist may well have carried a shield, in some Greek cities artists were wealthy enough to be hoplites or at least could serve, so I think he can be expected to know the details.
If you can see the left elbow, I think we can assume centre grip  :)

Jim

Sorry Patrick, at the battle I am thinking of both Romans and Etruscans jettison their throwing weapons.I recall that the Romans are taken aback by the Etruscans' unwonted aggression.
Roy


Robert, Look at the Giglioli tomb. If the weapons shown are indeed pila  then they are presumably a set with the aspides on the walls.

Just on standards... David Karunanithy (who I'm reading at present) comes down in favour of the Macedonian phalanx units getting standards only post Alexander.  This might mean they where not much used in Greek phalanx warfare for unit location/cohesion purposes ...

Robert, you might like to look at the other two situlae that were cited earlier when the thread was titled Roman line relief. they are the arnoaldi and Benvenuti situlae. Both show men in Italic style plumed helmets with two spears and something very like an aspis.

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/illustration/benvenuti-situla-detail-showing-a-prisoner-being-led-stock-graphic/148357965

Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 04, 2014, 10:44:21 PM
Sorry Patrick, at the battle I am thinking of both Romans and Etruscans jettison their throwing weapons.I recall that the Romans are taken aback by the Etruscans' unwonted aggression.

Is it this one (Livy IX.35) from 310 BC?  The Etruscans discard their 'missiles' and 'draw swords'.

"During the progress of this affair in Rome, the Etruscans were already laying siege to Sutrium; and the consul Fabius, leading his army along the foot of the mountains to relieve the allies, and, if in any way practicable, to attack the works of the besiegers, encountered the enemy drawn up in line of battle. [2] The plain spreading out below him revealed to the consul their exceeding strength; and in order to make up for his own deficiency in numbers by the advantage of position, he altered slightly his line of march, so as to mount the hills —which were rough and covered with stones —and there turned and faced the enemy. [3] The Etruscans, forgetting everything but their numbers, in which alone they trusted, entered the combat with such haste and eagerness that they cast away their missiles [ut abiectis missilibus] in order to come the sooner to close quarters, and drawing their swords [stringerent gladios] rushed at the enemy. [4] The Romans, on the contrary, fell to pelting them, now with javelins [tela = missiles] and now with stones, of which latter the ground itself provided a good supply; [5] and even such of the Etruscans as were not wounded were confused by the blows that rattled down on their helms and shields. [6] it was no easy matter to get close enough for fighting hand to hand, and they had no missiles for long-range work [neque missilia habebant]. there they stood, exposed to missiles, with no adequate cover of any sort, and as some of them gave ground and the line began to waver and be unsteady, the Roman first and second lines, giving a fresh cheer, charged them, sword in hand. [7] their onset was too much for the Etruscans, who faced about and fled headlong towards their camp. [8] but the Roman cavalry, riding obliquely across the plain, presented themselves in front of the fugitives, who then abandoned the attempt to reach their camp and sought the mountains; from which they made their way in a body, unarmed and suffering from their wounds, to the Ciminian Forest. The Romans, having slain many thousand Etruscans and captured eight-and-thirty standards, took possession also of the enemy's camp, with a very large booty."

Livy adds:

"They then began to consider the feasibility of a pursuit."

38 standards means that units aren't going to be very large, cohort sized perhaps  ;)

Thinking back to the other account where the Etruscans formed up in one line with no reinforcements was this perhaps because they were outnumbered and had to either match the Roman frontage or get outflanked and surrounded

Jim

YEs Patrick, thank you for that. Interesting that Livy has the Etruscans casting away their pill in their eagerness to get to grips, but no where can I remember Livy telling us that the Etruscans reformed their army or moved from spears to tela. Clearly missile armed Etruscan armies are not oddities or novelties.

Thirty eight standards is the minimum amount. It does suggest that the units are cohort sized and it does lend an air of accuracy to the report because the standards become trophies in a temple and are then a matter of enduring record.

Roy

Re : Argive shields. 

Having been searching through images in connection to this thread, can I commend this category on wikipedia commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Lucanian_frescos_in_the_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_%28Paestum%29

You will see most of the combatants have what is clearly an argive shield.  Most are shown dueling with short spears or javelins .  Some have a different type of round shield, with a narrow rim and a pronounced pointedness at the centre e.g.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Lucanian_frescos_in_the_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_%28Paestum%29#mediaviewer/File:Paestum_Kampfszene_2.jpg

So we can suggest that the Argive aspis was not the only round shield, but it does seem to take its place alongside this other type in spear & javelin fights.

Brilliant find Anthony. Of course these are South Italian, but I love the one where two chaps are duelling, clearly with shields with an asps like grip and are using a pair of small javelins and a spear held a bit like a Zulu assegai for thrusting.
One interesting point reference the asps is that the hand that is on the rim is holding a rope loop and is not taking the main weight of the shield and can thus be used to hold extra javelins rather more easily than the hand on a central grip.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Lucanian_frescos_in_the_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_%28Paestum%29#mediaviewer/File:Paestum_Kampfszene_2.jpg

Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 05, 2014, 07:20:21 AM
YEs Patrick, thank you for that. Interesting that Livy has the Etruscans casting away their pill in their eagerness to get to grips, but no where can I remember Livy telling us that the Etruscans reformed their army or moved from spears to tela. Clearly missile armed Etruscan armies are not oddities or novelties.

Livy does not ascribe pila to the Etruscans, but says: 'abjectis missilibus', having cast away their missiles.  Later in the passage he notes they are lacking missiles 'neque missilia habebant', whereas the Romans are using 'tela', a more generic missile word perhaps denoting pila and hastae.  Perhaps more indicative is that the Etruscans 'stringerent gladios', which seems to preclude an attack using spears for melee.

We may note that this 'new army' was raised between the two battles ("Fabius brought up replacements from Rome, and a new army came from Etruria to reinforce the enemy." - Livy IX.33.1)  Whether the 'new army' (novus exercitus) was new in organisation and tactics is not stated.

Quote
Thirty eight standards is the minimum amount. It does suggest that the units are cohort sized and it does lend an air of accuracy to the report because the standards become trophies in a temple and are then a matter of enduring record.

Yes, and we may note that this is also the year after the Romans themselves may have shifted from the 'Livian' legion to the 'Polybian' one.  It would be ironic if the Etruscans had shifted from a hoplite configuration to a legion-like configuration only to be out-shifted by the new style Roman legion, but that is conjecture.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 05, 2014, 06:14:21 AM

Thinking back to the other account where the Etruscans formed up in one line with no reinforcements was this perhaps because they were outnumbered and had to either match the Roman frontage or get outflanked and surrounded

Livy actually reckons the Romans were outnumbered: "numero hostis, virtute Romanus superat" (the enemy were superior in numbers, the Romans in soldierliness).  In each of these actions he indicates the Etruscans were relying on their numbers.

Quote from: aligern on August 05, 2014, 10:11:58 AM
Brilliant find Anthony. Of course these are South Italian, but I love the one where two chaps are duelling, clearly with shields with an asps like grip and are using a pair of small javelins and a spear held a bit like a Zulu assegai for thrusting.

Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade, such duelling duets are also a familiar feature of artwork from distinctly hoplite cultures.  Still, the more material we have to work with, the better.

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17017
I have found pictures here very informative. Especially the picture with a lot of explanations about etruscan equipment. It says that etruscans used mainly the Greek panoply but even some typical Italian central grip Shields were found. Probably they were the Shields of some Italian towns submitted to etruscans. Then you see representations of first class/third class etruscan warriors. The hoplites were the ones in first class, while third class have a scutum shield a typical helmet and Wear only a bronze plate on chest, exactly as Villanova ancestors of etruscans. This was an adaptations of Greek military into proper etruscan society, divided into different social classes.
You can see the remaining of an etruscan pilum too.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 05, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade, such duelling duets are also a familiar feature of artwork from distinctly hoplite cultures.  Still, the more material we have to work with, the better.

The purposes of drawing attention to this were two fold.  Firstly, to satisfy Jim's query about whether all round shields were the argive type.  Second, to contribute to the technological-determinism question of whether, if you owned an argive shield, you were fated to fight in close formation with a long spear.

What these duelists are doing is another question.  Is this weapon practice?  Is this a specific sporting contest, where the idea is to wound your opponent rather than kill?  Is this fight part of the funeral games, governed by special rules, different to war fighting? 

Personally, I edge towards some kind of funeral games explanation but I'd expect the panoply and weaponry to reflect warrior kit, rather than be some special funeral set.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 05, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 05, 2014, 06:14:21 AM

Thinking back to the other account where the Etruscans formed up in one line with no reinforcements was this perhaps because they were outnumbered and had to either match the Roman frontage or get outflanked and surrounded

Livy actually reckons the Romans were outnumbered: "numero hostis, virtute Romanus superat" (the enemy were superior in numbers, the Romans in soldierliness).  In each of these actions he indicates the Etruscans were relying on their numbers.

When discussing Livy and the Romans being outnumbered, I feel the Mandy Rice-Davies reply is called for, "well he would say that, wouldn't he"?  :-[

I'd love to have the time to do an analysis of Livy's battle accounts and work out what proportion the Romans outnumber their opponents and in what proportion Livy reckons they're outnumbered

Jim

Thanks Anthony, I've seen those round shields in an Italian context before, and is one reason why I wonder whether the presence of a round shield has to indicate hoplite tactics.

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 05, 2014, 12:38:50 PM
When discussing Livy and the Romans being outnumbered, I feel the Mandy Rice-Davies reply is called for, "well he would say that, wouldn't he"?  :-[

I have to say, from my non-classical perspective, I had a similar thought.  The Etruscans always seem to lack military skill but rely on numbers, against the plucky Romans' virtus.  Or does Livy rise above the constraints of only having one side of the story?

The duellists might be involved in games, but the kit, asps shields , bronze belts and Italo Greek helmets is what is found archaeologically.  So I am with Anthony, this is martial equipment that could be used on the battlefield or for display.

I would say based upon the archaeology and the art that linking an aspis or argive shield to spear use in a dense phalanx only is disproved, but we still await Robert's survey to confirm it.

Once confirmed then their use of the aspis shield and Greek style greaves and breastplate is no barrier to the Etruscans using throwing weapons in their small, flexible, Italic units that we have just discovered.

Roy

As to the Etruscans and numbers, I suggest that there are a lot of Etruscans if they all turn up, but very often Rome fights only one or two cities.  Any difference in numbers never seems to turn into a crushing advantage.
Who are they fighting in the quote where they have no reserves(in itself an indication that they normally did have reserves) ?


Roy

The Chigi vase from the Etruscan tomb, Monte Aguzzo, shows hoplites on the march - and I think I can say they are holding long spears, although they are from the early period.  I realise it is not easy to find an artefact carrying both spear and hoplon - one man's spear is another man's javelin!

The etruscan bronze handle, portraying two warriors carrying a wounded comrade from Preneste, circa 550 BC, are holding what looks like long spears but minus hoplon shields.

both artefacts are from the Etruscan Museum, fairly we'll known, but highlight the problem of identifying what type of shield or spear is being displayed.

Robert

The Chigi vase may have been made in mainland Greece. It does, supposedly show hoplites with two spears, one perhaps for throwing and one thrusting and does not show swords. That makes the weapon set like the ones on the Lucanian tombs!


As to the bronze handle, I wonder if the depiction of spears , which I recall as being quite short, is not about the convention of how hoplite types are represented? Athough I do not seriously doubt that some Etruscans carried spears, be cause that is what is shown on the Certosa situla and there is likely an origin point for the Triarii in Etruscan organisation , with older better off men acting as a reserve with hoplon and spear. Now would it make sense if some of the Romans' half remembered reorganisation was the triarii class moving to scuta rather than the aspis?  I would also suggest here that they are not camp guards, but in reserve and placed in front of the camp which was centrally situated behind the army.
Roy

Quote from: Erpingham on August 05, 2014, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 05, 2014, 12:38:50 PM
When discussing Livy and the Romans being outnumbered, I feel the Mandy Rice-Davies reply is called for, "well he would say that, wouldn't he"?  :-[

I have to say, from my non-classical perspective, I had a similar thought.  The Etruscans always seem to lack military skill but rely on numbers, against the plucky Romans' virtus.  Or does Livy rise above the constraints of only having one side of the story?

Livy himself occasionally wonders about this: on one occasion he goes as far as saying that he finds it amazing that Rome's enemies managed to keep putting armies together after sustaining so many defeats and such heavy losses.  This is as far as he comes to criticising his more rabidly pro-Roman sources (notably Fabius Pictor, whom he refers to as the oldest of the Roman historians but without passing judgement on his reliability).

Although Livy does mention - usually laconically - occasional Roman defeats, some of the 'victories' he reports, especially those where both sides are said to have returned to their camps, seem to be followed by the opposition mobilising and campaigning more keenly than before.  It is enough to make one wonder about the accuracy shown by whoever was keeping score.  A classic case is Latulae in 315 BC, which Livy records as a Roman victory and Dionysius as a Roman defeat.

This is not to say that Livy is universally unreliable, merely that the tedious tide of Roman victory may be concealing a few ebbs, which might be indicated by the behaviour of the opposition.   Overall he seems to be a conscientious assembler of material and comparer of accounts but seems to have a tendency when pressed to take a version is more favourable to the Romans - not necessarily the most favourable version, but perhaps an over-optimistic one.

Quote from: aligern on August 05, 2014, 01:32:57 PM

Who are they fighting in the quote where they have no reserves(in itself an indication that they normally did have reserves) ?

The Etruscans were fighting the Romans in 311 BC.  The fact that they deployed in a single line of battle is not an indication that they 'normally did have reserves', merely that on this occasion and perhaps others they deployed and fought in a single battle line of indeterminate depth.

Quote from: aligern on August 05, 2014, 08:32:51 PM
The Chigi vase may have been made in mainland Greece. It does, supposedly show hoplites with two spears, one perhaps for throwing and one thrusting and does not show swords. That makes the weapon set like the ones on the Lucanian tombs!

It might also be a good idea to start mapping dates for these various portrayals.  I suspect that Etruscan fashions change; Greek fashions did.  The original two spears ended up as one spear, suggesting that the value of the thrown spear/javelin was considered minimal, or at least less desirable than a good ephodos and a decent doratismos.  :)

Quote
As to the bronze handle, I wonder if the depiction of spears , which I recall as being quite short, is not about the convention of how hoplite types are represented? Athough I do not seriously doubt that some Etruscans carried spears, be cause that is what is shown on the Certosa situla and there is likely an origin point for the Triarii in Etruscan organisation , with older better off men acting as a reserve with hoplon and spear.

An interesting idea, though Roman triarii seem to have originated as experienced campaigners guarding the camp, not as a reserve.

Quote
Now would it make sense if some of the Romans' half remembered reorganisation was the triarii class moving to scuta rather than the aspis?  I would also suggest here that they are not camp guards, but in reserve and placed in front of the camp which was centrally situated behind the army.

I think this does not happen until 394 BC in the Roman case, and there does not seem to be anything to suggest that the triarii were a 'class', just men with lots of experience - and perhaps incipient arthritis.  ;)  Later on, when we see Roman triarii on the battlefield (340 BC), their technique of resting on one knee indicates that they were not intended to get up and go anywhere until the other lines had given up fighting and fallen back through them.  This is more the concept of a rearguard than a reserve.

Clearly we disagree on what a reserve is.
Republican triarii look and act like an army wide tactical reserve to my eyes, always placed exactly where they can be pushed forward into ant serious fractures in the line.

If your conception relies entirely in a reserve being a single body centrally placed, then they are not it.  But you must surely agree that they are tactically in the ideal place to act as a local reserve for each and every front maniple.

Perhaps given the thread, it is more important to ask for any examples of hoplites being employed in this way, or for examples of hoplites defending camps during a battle, or anything other than being the main front line troops- being the elite of the city and therefore having the most to lose

I suggest that there is a fundamental difference between the Greek and Italian systems. In Greece the best equipped and oldest men go into the front ranks or are file closers . They lead the files and  are trusted to keep up morale and  exploit tactical nuances such as when to push.
In an Italian system the recruitment is by economic class and that produces different units with different places in the line. The example of the Triarii suggests that the wealthiest and oldest act as as a reserve, either as a bulwark or as an active reinforcement. That would make sense because Italian warfare is much more energetic than Greek warfare. If you are operating in a looser order, throwing javelins and then duelling maybe the majority of older men should best be in reserve?
Roy

Patrick, my question about whom the Romans were fighting in 311BC when the Etruscans formed only one line was as to whether this was only one city such as Caere or Veii or was it a pan Etruscan alliance? If it is only one or two cities then it is quite possible that they are stretched for numbers against Rome.

I agree that we need to put dates on the descriptions and illustrations.  The Etruscans as hoplites camp seem to accept that at the end  of their period the Etruscans are using pila and that they start with a missile based Italian system. The debate thus resolves around whether they moved from an Italian system to a Greek tactical set and then back to an Italian system.
I must say it still seems more likely that they always have an Italian system and that in that system a portion, the wealthiest non cavalry class? was always a spear armed reserve which skews artistic representations because that class is the one that can afford Greek imports.

Another point on representations. Remembering the handle with two armoured, but unshielded spearmen carrying a third who is dead?  Wee perhaps they are unshielded because they are cavalrymen? Of course carrying a dead comrade is easier without an aspis!
Roy

Quote from: Mark G on August 06, 2014, 07:38:16 AM
Clearly we disagree on what a reserve is.
Republican triarii look and act like an army wide tactical reserve to my eyes, always placed exactly where they can be pushed forward into ant serious fractures in the line.

Well, this is the point, is it not?  Triarii were not pushed into serious fractures in the line; in the Livian and Polybian legions, the line, fractured or otherwise, was pulled back through them.  Back in the camp guards era, the triarii got stuck in if and when the fighting reached the camp - but not otherwise.

Quote
If your conception relies entirely in a reserve being a single body centrally placed, then they are not it.  But you must surely agree that they are tactically in the ideal place to act as a local reserve for each and every front maniple.

If the Republican Romans of the pre-Polybian period had a 'reserve', it was the cavalry.  In quite a few of the early battles we have accounts of Roman cavalry being applied at the 'decisive point', and with their cuspides, which were melee weapons rather than the more usual javelins, they seemed quite good at shock attacks.

Conversely, the triarii never, ever acted as a 'reserve' in the sense we understand.  They were, indeed, placed at the rear of the army, but so were baggage trains in many armies and that did not turn the baggage into a reserve.   ;)

Quote
Perhaps given the thread, it is more important to ask for any examples of hoplites being employed in this way, or for examples of hoplites defending camps during a battle, or anything other than being the main front line troops- being the elite of the city and therefore having the most to lose

Ummm ... would it be possible to explain why?  Triarii were the oldest and most experienced, not the best, troops in an early Roman army (pre-Livian legion, i.e. pre-394 BC).  The cavalry were the best, the elite, and often enough the battle deciders.  After 394 BC the quality of the cavalry, or of their employment, or both, seemed to drop steadily - with a few exceptions, e.g. Scipio's cavalry in his Spanish and African campaigns - but victory was won by the hastati and principes rather than the triarii, who remained the last gasp in a tight corner except when Scipio untypically (or 'atypically' for those who prefer) used them offensively at Ilipa and Zama.

I do not really see where hoplites come into this.

Quote from: aligern on August 06, 2014, 08:09:28 AM
In an Italian system the recruitment is by economic class and that produces different units with different places in the line.

Er ... is there a source for this assertion, please?

Quote
The example of the Triarii suggests that the wealthiest and oldest act as as a reserve, either as a bulwark or as an active reinforcement.

Now where did anyone gain the impression that triarii were wealthy?

Quote
That would make sense because Italian warfare is much more energetic than Greek warfare. If you are operating in a looser order, throwing javelins and then duelling maybe the majority of older men should best be in reserve?

If ... but this seems to be closer to traditional Illyrian warfare from 'Otzi' onwards.  Our accounts of Italian battles, or at least those involving Romans vs other Italians, have one or both sides closing closing and then both sides slogging it out mano a mano, or rather battleline to battleline.   Greeks did much the same thing, but differently, in that they had the doru and aspis rather than the pilum-equivalents, gladius-equivalent and scutum, and in Greece (certainly in Athens) the older men generally stayed at home and, together with the youngest, manned the walls (see Thucydides II.13).  Besides, there seem to have been several flavours of 'Italian warfare': Etruscan, Apennine (Volsci etc.), Oscan (Samnite etc.) and of course Roman.

Quote from: aligern on August 06, 2014, 08:22:29 AM
Patrick, my question about whom the Romans were fighting in 311BC when the Etruscans formed only one line was as to whether this was only one city such as Caere or Veii or was it a pan Etruscan alliance? If it is only one or two cities then it is quite possible that they are stretched for numbers against Rome.

This seems to have been a general Etruscan alliance involving all twelve cities, and one the Romans were afraid of.

" The war with the Samnites was practically ended, but the Roman senators had not yet ceased to be concerned about it, when the rumour of an Etruscan war sprang up. [2] in those days there was no other race —setting apart the risings of the Gauls —whose arms were more dreaded, not only because their territory lay so near, but also because of their [3] numbers. " - Livy IX.29.1-3

Quote
I agree that we need to put dates on the descriptions and illustrations.  The Etruscans as hoplites camp seem to accept that at the end  of their period the Etruscans are using pila and that they start with a missile based Italian system. The debate thus resolves around whether they moved from an Italian system to a Greek tactical set and then back to an Italian system.

First I suggest we get our pictorial evidence lined up by date and then see if a shift is indicated, and if so when (and in which direction).  For this purpose I suggest we adopt the general principle that if it looks like hoplite kathoplisma (overall kit) it signifies hoplites, and if it looks different then it signifies non-hoplites; in each case we then attempt to divine what we can of organisation and battlefield doctrine (assuming that off the battlefield everyone can raid, pillage and ambush with the best of them).

We can also try to fit the depictions to what we know of Etruscan (and other) social organisations.  Hopefully this will bring about the emergence of a changing picture over time which will add something to our insights about the period and its armies.

QuoteTriarii were not pushed into serious fractures in the line; in the Livian and Polybian legions, the line, fractured or otherwise, was pulled back through them.  Back in the camp guards era, the triarii got stuck in if and when the fighting reached the camp - but not otherwise.

but were they?

which battles of the livian / polybian era are you thinking of when the Romans pulled back behind the triarii in a defensive posture?

they seem to continue forward aggressively to me - it was just Rome's good fortune that most of its opponents apart from Hannibal were defeated without the need to commit the triarii.

Livy 46 and 47 both have references to Etruscans discharging javelins as part of their main combat role, BTW.

46 "The Etruscans had barely had time to deploy when their enemies, who in the first excitement' had rather cast their javelins at random than fairly aimed them, were already come to sword-strokes at close quarters, where fighting is the fiercest"

47.6 "Their first discharge of javelins was parried2 by the soldiers who surrounded him, but after that there was no withstanding their violence. [7] The consul fell, mortally wounded, and all about him fled" - describing an Etruscan attack

just to add to the mix on this 'Etruscans are hoplites' thing.

I cannot agree that if it looks like a hoplite it is a hoplite. The whole thrust of the argument here is that the Etruscans import kit so Italic warriors with round shields and either spears or javlins morph into figures with the aspis and Greek style helmet and often armour , but retain An Italic style of fighting with missile weapons rather than becoming hoplites using a doru spear and pushing with the aspis.  Hnce if a figure looks like a hoplite he may well be operating in. a very different fashion. I could not agree because the representation may look like a duck, but with its missile weapons and 38 standards, it does not quack like a duck.

Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 06, 2014, 04:07:15 PM
I cannot agree that if it looks like a hoplite it is a hoplite.

This is really going to complicate discussions of Greek warfare ...  ;D

Quote
The whole thrust of the argument here is that the Etruscans import kit so Italic warriors with round shields and either spears or javlins morph into figures with the aspis and Greek style helmet and often armour , but retain An Italic style of fighting with missile weapons rather than becoming hoplites using a doru spear and pushing with the aspis.

But do they 'import kit'?  They seem perfectly able to make their own, and while their equipment shows a good deal of foreign influence form has to largely follow function (or vice versa) otherwise things get rather difficult on the battlefield.

Why the objection to Etuscans having - at some point in their existence - a hoplite-based army?  What is the root of the objection?

Quote
  Hnce if a figure looks like a hoplite he may well be operating in. a very different fashion. I could not agree because the representation may look like a duck, but with its missile weapons and 38 standards, it does not quack like a duck.

And the Etruscan army of 310 BC does not seem to exhibit the same compatible-with-hoplite behaviour as the army of 311 BC, which Livy states was essentially wiped out on the battlefield.  Are we seeing a change when the 'new army' (novus exercitus) is raised by the Etruscans?  I think we need to look at as many actions as possible and as many pieces of artwork as possible, with dates for both, and see what trends emerge.

And we do need to give troop types a level playing-field.  If we start with the premise that men with hoplite equipment cannot be hoplites, should we also start with the premise that men with non-hoplite equipment must be hoplites?  It seems just as rational.  Let us rather see if art meshes with battle descriptions to give a coherent picture, or whether the result raises more questions.

Quote from: Mark G on August 06, 2014, 12:34:29 PM
Livy 46 and 47 both have references to Etruscans discharging javelins as part of their main combat role, BTW.

Livy 46 and 47 are not extant (our manuscripts end with book 45).  Do you mean chapters 46 and 47 of an unspecified book?

Hi Patrick,
I think we have gone a long way to making a case here that would say that:
1) The Etruscans have an Italic military system pre their Greek contacts.
2) They copy shields , helmets  and greaves from the Greeks.
3) So do Lucanians whom we believe to be javelin throwers.
4) The Etruscans have an army divided into many smallish units. This too is Italian rather than Greek.
5) Etruscan armies often have reserves which is un Greek.
6) We know that early pill are found in Etruria and that these are illustrated on Etruscan tomb walls.
7) We know that early Greeks used javelins with a helmet/aspis/greaves combination.

We are short on references in literature that emphatically state that Etruscans have spears or rather there are as many that state that they have javelins/tela.
Sadly there is no reference to the Etruscans having spears and so  being outfaced by plum armed Romans. We do not have a Polybius to point out the military differences in nItalian peoples.
Even if Etruscans have doru like spears they are not operating a Greek tactical system, but a looser multi unit Italic one.

Etruria is a wide area and this is a span of some 300 years . It may be possible that there is change in time, or across geography, but no conclusive evidence appears to exist for the Etruscans operating like hoplites, despite the similarity in kit.


I am led to the conclusion that the situlae show a differentiated Italic system pre Greek influence and the Giglioli tomb and battle references
and the Giglioli tomb are suggestive of missiles in the fourth century.
I conclude that the Etruscans have a multi class Italian army with body shields and some expensively equipped round shield units. There is a possibility that the better off chaps with asps shields carried a thrusting spear, but only a possibility.

Roy

I agree we are short on written sources.  There are numerous depictions of Etruscan hoplites from the 7th to the 3rd century BC but few which show the hoplon shield together with spear.  The over arm positions give an impression of spear being held as opposed to javelin thrown but that is an opinion not evidence.  I am not sure sculptors and painters can be expected to put realism before aesthetic effect (echoes of A M Snodgrass,Arms & Armor of the Greeks) and there are few Etruscan coins to survey.
Given the close relations between Greece and Etruria it is also difficult to know if the latter are copying the former's pottery and art.  It is also difficult to portray multiple ranks in operation (Snodgrass again) so I am not expecting to find depictions of hoplite formations as opposed to collections of warriors in a heroic pose.
But there are many depictions of Etruscan warriors dressed in hoplite armour so why should a part of the army not be deployed as a hoplite phalanx?
The Etruscan warrior statuettes in the British Museum evidence hoplite apparel but do not show shield with spear.  An artist is at liberty to reduce spear/pike size to fit the picture.  My search has been inconclusive and I am still not sure how to construct an early Roman or Etruscan war games army!
Robert

since I am Italian myself, I would like to point out that italic warfare did not exist since the same idea of italia is very much modern. Italy was born in 1861. Before there were many different populations each one with its own language and traditions. This especially before Roman age and romamization. You cannot talk of Italian traditions. Etruscans were //a thing Romans another samnites another same for vulsci umbri and all other populations completely different, like veneti and celts who were in the peninsula.
Same idea of Italy with its modern borders is medieval. in Roman age beyond Rubicon river there was Gaul, while today there is Northern Italy.
Even today if I hear a inhabitant of neaples talking his own language I hardly understand some words not to talk of phisical differences between a typical southern and a Northern Italian, generally speaking. We are separate populations forced to live together, forced to speak same language (the one of Tuscany) and obey same law.
I know that this is hard to believe for a guy who lives in USA or England because the way we are shown as stereotypes in movies is always the same and refers to the stereotypical Napolitan or Sicilian.

Livy book 2

Andrew I have been to Italy many times, both mainland and Sicily and Sardinia.  i venture to suggest that it is no more different in its parts than Britain... Scotland Wales N. Ireland and N. and S. England Is Spain not very different within itself, Castilians, Catalans Basques. Even France with Languedoc and Brittany has substantial regional differences.
I don't think it is wrong to talk of Italian military systems as having a degree of similarity with cohort sized units, long shields and paired javelins and different classes of troops in the same army .
If we have a picture of Greeks in the sixth century it is pretty uniformly of hoplites (though areas in Greece maintain a light infantry tradition right through until Hellenistic times as the are still maintaining the Mediterranean Way of War :-)).
I accept that Greek states in Italy have, presumably Greek based military systems, but see a commonality between the others.  Patrick very helpfully quoted a battle between Romans and Hernici ( or was it Volsci) which showed both as having very similar systems.

Roy

I discovered a book: The Search for the Etruscans by James Wellard in my stockpile and leafed through in the hope of acquiring a bit of information.  Although one learns how to read the Etruscan alphabet, it is very thin on military material but might be helpful; on a couple of points.

Twelve Cities: as the author points out, the true figure for operative Etruscan cities at any one time was nearer fifty (this incidentally makes the capture of 38 standards in a single engagement understandable if each city had sent a contingent; in 311 BC they probably did).  Of these, Tarquinii, Caere, Vulci, Rusellae, Vetulonia, Populonia, Volsinii, Clusium, Arretium, Perusia, Volaterrae, Faesulae and Cortona seem to have been the most noteworthy.

Holding a Hoplon: on p.141 the author reproduces (in black and white) a wall painting from the Tomb of Orcus in Tarquinia.  The painting depicts Hades ('Aita') and Persephone ('Persignvi') conversing with Geryon (Gerun).  The latter is equipped with a classic mail thorax including shoulder-strips that attach at the front, greaves, a spear (hasta or doru, about his height) and hoplon held by an upper arm band, a forearm band (porpax) and a side hand grip (antilabe).  (The artist apparently shirked any consideration of a helmet for this triple-headed subject.)

The Regiolini-Galassi patera: pp.122 and 123 have a colour photograph of part of the golden goblet from the Barberini tomb at Palestrina (7th century BC: items within are dated 620-675 BC) which has very similar subject material.  The chariot visible has an eight-spoked wheel and, in addition to the unhelmeted round-shield warriors each carrying two spears, there is a depiction of two helmeted warriors fighting with swords.  These both have round shields shown in side view, so one can see they are hoplon-type, but one is distinctly larger and its user wears a different style of helm, almost Italo-Corinthian, and uses a short sword with a leaf-shaped blade.  His opponent, who appears to be fighting left-handed, has a smaller shield and longer, slenderer, slightly asymmetric sword (one thinks: machaira).  He has a crested Attic-looking helm but with a neck-guard which looks very Early Imperial Roman.  I have tried to hunt down depictions of this goblet on the internet but so far without success.

So much for the book.  Andrew's point that "... there were many different populations, each one with its own language and traditions" is important, because it suggests that it may be a mistake to assume that all Etruscans used the same equipment and fighting style.  (They certainly did not all use exactly the same letters in their script!)  I would however expect a high degree of commonality with the Roman kingdom and perhaps the early Republic, although not for long.

Quote from: aligern on August 07, 2014, 08:10:50 AM

I don't think it is wrong to talk of Italian military systems as having a degree of similarity with cohort sized units, long shields and paired javelins and different classes of troops in the same army .

While keeping this in mind as a basic model, I would be cautious about attempting universal application.  Italy did have numerous different cultures, and a sea power like the Etruscans would have had a different heritage and different army from the Aequi, who were centred in the mountains.  What may be true is that Italian armies seemed to develop towards a common pattern over time, particularly as Roman influence spread.

Quote
If we have a picture of Greeks in the sixth century it is pretty uniformly of hoplites (though areas in Greece maintain a light infantry tradition right through until Hellenistic times as the are still maintaining the Mediterranean Way of War :-)).

This could be quite similar to Etruria.

Quote
I accept that Greek states in Italy have, presumably Greek based military systems, but see a commonality between the others.

As mentioned, I am less sure about this.  The Aequi and Hernici were mountain-dwelling peoples; the Volsci inhabited hills and marshlands; the Etruscans were mostly plains-dwellers with some occupying more elevated topography (hills and mountains, e.g. Veii).  Any commonality probably increased with time, but as of the 6th century BC is unlikely to have been significant.

Quote
  Patrick very helpfully quoted a battle between Romans and Hernici ( or was it Volsci) which showed both as having very similar systems.

The battle with the Hernici had both sides using piecemeal reserves (sending up a maniple here and there from the reserve line to patch up weakened parts of the battle line).

The Volsci and Romans did have very similar systems - once Coriolanus had taught the Volsci to fight using the Roman system.  Their previous system evidently differed, otherwise his instruction would have been pointless.

Quote from: aligern on August 07, 2014, 08:10:50 AM
Andrew I have been to Italy many times, both mainland and Sicily and Sardinia.  i venture to suggest that it is no more different in its parts than Britain... Scotland Wales N. Ireland and N. and S. England Is Spain not very different within itself, Castilians, Catalans Basques. Even France with Languedoc and Brittany has substantial regional differences.
I don't think it is wrong to talk of Italian military systems as having a degree of similarity with cohort sized units, long shields and paired javelins and different classes of troops in the same army .
If we have a picture of Greeks in the sixth century it is pretty uniformly of hoplites (though areas in Greece maintain a light infantry tradition right through until Hellenistic times as the are still maintaining the Mediterranean Way of War :-)).
I accept that Greek states in Italy have, presumably Greek based military systems, but see a commonality between the others.  Patrick very helpfully quoted a battle between Romans and Hernici ( or was it Volsci) which showed both as having very similar systems.

Roy

Well I suppose you have not really been both in South, central and Northern Italy otherwise you would have seen enormous, incredibly big differences. Differences which exist today and are visible, after 150 years of forced coexistence and cwntral government.  In the past these differences would have been even bigger. I can assure you that inhabitants of Sardinia share very little as tradition and from a genetical point of view with the rest of Italians, for example. I could understand some words of Spanish talked while I could understand nothing of Sardinia n language talked. Same for many other parts of Italy. I have travelled in almost all Italy from north to South and I can assure you that the difference from a inhabitant of Trentino and a inhabitant of Sicily are the same between a Swedish and an African. It is not the matter of accent or some traditions as it can be between Northern France and southern.
I am not saying that in early Roman time there were not similarities between populations maybe even living near. I am sure that some traditions and Gods and military system could be similar. But you cannot confuse this with the idea of an Italian population with same tradition, same language, same warfare, because even withouth any source, simply watching Italy as it is today, I can tell you that probably there were more differences than similarities. I don't know if you have ever come to Northern Italy, or even central, then to Southern Italy. I live in Tuscany, Florence/Firenze, so central upper Italy, and When I go into the South I have always the deep feeling of going into some other nation with its proper tradition, language and way of living. More than when I went into France, or Austria or Switzerland, which if not for the language share a lot of lifestyle and dna with Northern Italy.
You cannot know this very well if you have not lived years in Italy as I have. Anyway we should not forget that Northern Italy was occupied by celts who had little in common with Vulsci, Etruscan, Samnites, Romans, et cetera, no doubt about it.
You cannot compare Italian regional differences and English or French ones.
French and England have been kingdoms since high (beginning of low for England) middle age with substantial uniform population, celtic/anglosaxon/Norman for English and celtic/Frank for french.
In Italy there have been so many invasors conquerors and populations melted together that you can see much more variability. And Italy is a uniform Kingdom only since 150 years ago, not 1000 years. You have no idea how many political movements going towards autonomy are growing today. One of this called Lega (league) was one of major political parties until some time ago and asked secession of North Italy from South (for assumed deep racial and economic differences).
The same idea of Italian language is deeply arbitrary, since as I said before, it was only one of the several existing languages chosen to be the language for the raising nation 150 years ago. 

I think you misunderstand what we are saying, Andrew.
We ar nit saying that they were all the same.
We are saying they all had similarities.
Greeks fought with a single line if battle.  The argument here is that in Italy, this is different, with successive lines if fighting troops .
Greeks based their army around one basic type, a spear armed hoplite.
Italians seem to have had different types of equipment for the different lines.
For those Italians we have descriptions or images of, that equipment channge suggests each line was better equipped thaan the line before it.
But within that broad description, the equipment itself had local and regional variation, the number of lines of battle might vary (3, 4, 5).

Also, a lot of sorces suggest that most Italians seem to gave had one or more throwing javelins as well as a main hand to hand weapon (spear or sword).

That is also different from Greeks.

Similarities, not uniformity, but all different from Greece

 only one question: how would these separate line, behind the first, join the battle?

Good question.

As you know, we cannot even agree on how romans did it.

But they did.

Whichever answer you like for them is probably similar to the answer you will like for the others.

Andrew, you obviously live n Italy and feel that is different and disunited . That is your privilege as a resident. That I can point to Catalonians in Pain who want out and have a different, albeit Latin language from Castilian, let alone Basques dies not influence you a jot. In the UK there are four languages, English, Broad Scots, Gaelic and Welsh. Irish too if you include the province. Only English and Broad Scots are mutually intelligible (well just about) .
Having been there I'd say to an outsider that Sicily feels more Italian than say Spanish or French.

The Celts in Northern Italy seem to fight differently and I would accept that theirs is a non Italic system. However, they are invaders. I would see the Ligurians and Veneti whom the Celts pushed out, as operating in an Italian method. Which is just as Mark says it is.

Patrick I wonder if you are making too much of alleged reforms where a general changes what an army does.  Reforming tactics or kit is a trope in ancient accounts, especially Livy. There is no doubt a genre of stories such as the replacement of one pin in a pilum with wood, Marius chaps having to carry alo their own kit, someone fitting cloth covers on helmets, alleged use of borrowed spears to blunt Celtic swords.  Small changes are  bigged up to add lustre to a hero or ancestor. This is rather like a general making a pre battle speech, the commonplace such as Marius'' instructions before the battle with the Teutones is elevated to show the hero in a flattering light, no doubt, with more than his share of virtus. Hence I think these peopkes such as the Volsci, Aequi, Samnites, Lucanians, Veneti, Ligurians fight in a broadly similar manner, though many will have their own peculuarities within the mainly loose order javelin throwing culture.

Andrew, If an army does not  have formal rank replacement then we should envisage units sent up as support as adding in to a mixed melee that their side is losing. That would give them greater numbers  and a morale boost to the men being pushed back.

Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 08, 2014, 11:41:07 AM
That I can point to Catalonians in Pain who want out and have a different, albeit Latin language from Castilian,

Yes, the despair of the Catalans does seem to reach a crescendo of anguish at times :)

Ok, I'm going to display my fundamental ignorance again.

We seem to have a consensus that Etruscans fought in multiple lines.  We assume that they have a fighting class system like the Romans (is this more than argument from their similarity to Romans - independent evidence?).

There seems to be some dispute about the nature of the classes in the Etruscan army.  Are they wealth classes or age classes or a bit of both?  Also, we seem to have a dispute about where the best troops were - did they lead with their best equipped and use the worse equipped as reserves or did the best stand at the back, waiting for the poorer classes to wear down the enemy?  Or, given the discussion of each city contingent having a standard above, were the lines made up of contingents of all classes with their position determined by e.g. seniority/importance of city or overall level of eqippedness of the contingent?

Quote from: Erpingham on August 08, 2014, 12:17:22 PM

There seems to be some dispute about the nature of the classes in the Etruscan army.  Are they wealth classes or age classes or a bit of both? 

The honest answer would seem to be: we do not know.  Given 50+ Etruscan cities and perhaps 100 major towns, each of which seems to have had its own way of doing things, we are reduced to guessing games based on scenes on metalwork, tomb paintings and sculpture.  I do not really think we are at the stage where we can draw conclusions and say that Etruscan armies fought in any particular manner.

We may however note that armour in Etruscan art seems to be heavily hoplite-oriented, particularly in the earlier centuries, but armament seems to be more eclectic: spears and missile weapons seem to overlap to an extent.  This gives plenty of opportunities for guesswork but none for certainty.

The question of wealth classes seems to arise exclusively from Servius Tullius' Roman army.  The impression one gets is that this was Servius' own particular creation, previous Roman rulers (and incidentally his successor Lucius Tarquinius Superbus) levying a flat rate tax or contribution from every citizen irrespective of 'means testing'.  I am not aware of any source which describes the Etruscan norm.  (Anyone?)

Quote
Also, we seem to have a dispute about where the best troops were - did they lead with their best equipped and use the worse equipped as reserves or did the best stand at the back, waiting for the poorer classes to wear down the enemy?  Or, given the discussion of each city contingent having a standard above, were the lines made up of contingents of all classes with their position determined by e.g. seniority/importance of city or overall level of equippedness of the contingent?

Among Etruscans the cavalry seem to have been the best troops; exactly what they did with the infantry with regard to organising men of differing quality I leave to others to assert or conjecture.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 08, 2014, 12:03:01 PM

Quote from: aligern on August 08, 2014, 11:41:07 AM
That I can point to Catalonians in Pain who want out and have a different, albeit Latin language from Castilian,

Yes, the despair of the Catalans does seem to reach a crescendo of anguish at times :)

That was very hard to resist.  :)

A useful link for which periods various Etruscan tombs belong to is here (http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/tombs.html).

It also conveniently lists a considerable number of tombs and has links describing several of them.  Note that not all pictures in each tomb are shown - and they seem to miss out most of the warrior pictures, which is a pity.

Do scroll down the page - it is quite extensive.  Try all the links to the various tombs and you too can become an instant Etruscan art expert.  :)

Or are you to become A Greek art .

Two other examples of attributing possibly spurious tactical innovation to great men are :
Anna Comnena who seems to think that her father invented the marching square formation to be used in the face of horse archers.
Gesta Regis Ricardi which has The Lionheart inventing a  formation where crossbowmen stand behind spearmen to face off the army of Saladin. Both if these are in Erpingham's bailiwick, but I believe they are examples if the same tendency to credit great men with tactical innovations which, if they are true at all, may only be teensy tweaks rather than major reforms.

Roy

Richard I is a bit more in my patch.  I think the consensus on the crossbowmen at Jaffa (I think it was) is that the tactics are Italian.  Richard is also credited by one French chronicler of having introduced the crossbow to France, which goes to show just being closer in date to something doesn't necessarily mean you are a better source.

I personally tend to think a lot of these "innovations" did happen in some form, which is why they were remembered, even if they became embellished later.  If the army was successful, the story became the explanation for victory and a sign of the heroic ancestors wisdom or skill, when they may have had no real effect and it was really all down to good, old fashioned discipline and training.  With some of the Roman innovations, you do wonder. If, say, it was so much better to stab Gauls with your pilum why did they returned to throwing the things?  And the counter is also true - if the Gallic swords were rubbish and caused such exhaustion in the user that they led him to be easily killed by a noble Roman, why did they use them for hundreds of years?

Quote from: aligern on August 08, 2014, 04:35:38 PM

Two other examples of attributing possibly spurious tactical innovation to great men are :

There is no reason to consider Servius Tullius' innovations 'spurious'.  They lasted only for his reign and had a defined political object: increasing contentment by reducing the financial burdens on the lower classes (= poorer citizens) and increasing the influence of the first class (= wealthier citizens).  They were promptly dismantled by his successor and never repeated.

I have to say I've been enjoying my tomb raiding thanks to Patrick's list.  I've fallen in love with one - The Tomb of the Reliefs (Tomba dei Relievi).  This is late (4th or even 3rd century) but it both a remarkable work of art and has lots of weaponry on display - swords, shields, helmets (Coolus and Hellenistic types) - but no spears (the thing that looks like one is a staff).  Anyway, have a look here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxH8OuRzwl8

OK, having followed Patrick's injunction to become an DIY Etruscan art expert, I've had some fun searching images of Etruscan hoplites (or men with hoplite panoply, if we prefer).  I've found plenty of images of men with spears, especially in the late period (4th/3rd century).  As a caveat, I would say many are in Greek mythological scenes or represent Greek heroes.  Two interesting points

1. Shields remain argive aspis style but embossed versions seem to become common, with a central circle, although the plain type continue.
2. Spears seem short by dory standards - no more than six feet - and don't have clear butt-spikes.  This could be artistic convention or it could represent them being more dual purpose (warning - speculation).  Most have ordinary iron leaf-shaped points but there is another sort with a triangular head and longer shaft.

Good example of these trends here, from the Francois Tomb

http://www.instoria.it/home/FrancoisV.htm

If you view the picture separately you'll find it is big and detailed.  Note the right hand hoplite's spear.

So, wild speculation time.  The Etruscans got in early on the developing phalanx, at the time it was still in transition and hoplites had throwing or dual purpose spears.  They didn't follow the Greek evolution to a single longer spear but kept the missile component because it fitted better the type of battles they were fighting.  Over time, they developed/adopted the proto-pilum, which was used alongside the dual purpose spear in place of a javelin or second light spear.

Perhaps to combine Erpingham's thoughts with those of PW the changes that the hero makes are small ones, but in an era when change was very slow they are exaggerated because daring to think s quite a big deal. There is certainly motive for claiming innovation for a great man and there is motivation in claiming that Gallic swords are soft, that  barbarians are only good in the first rush, that traditional ways are best, that we have declined from a golden age and that we are loyally upholding ancient traditions.
Even today writing of history is riddled with prejudice and with topoi, just look at a lot if the stuff about the first world war.  What would we think about hat if only Oh What a Lovely War , Guardian editorials and an anthology of War poets had survived?

Roy

Quote from: Erpingham on August 09, 2014, 12:07:56 PM

So, wild speculation time.  The Etruscans got in early on the developing phalanx, at the time it was still in transition and hoplites had throwing or dual purpose spears.  They didn't follow the Greek evolution to a single longer spear but kept the missile component because it fitted better the type of battles they were fighting.  Over time, they developed/adopted the proto-pilum, which was used alongside the dual purpose spear in place of a javelin or second light spear.

I think this is a sensible speculation.  The one caveat I would have would be the tendency of artists to depict single spears as opposed to two spears in a grip.  We would need to consider how much of this is artistic convention, or convenience, how much of it a likelihood that the second spear is, at the notional time of the scene depicted, assumed to be left quivering in the ground or in someone's shield or body, and how much of it is an actual a representation of a belated Etruscan switch, in whole or in part, to the single-spear hoplite.

In the Francois Tomb scene, the man wielding the shortsword is identified as 'Achlv', probably 'Achilles'.  This would presumablyt make the scene Achilles slaughtering prisoners at Patroclus' tomb but, as ever with such depictions, presented in 'modern dress'.  The blue-skinned individual with the hammer is Charun, the Etruscan death-god.  The winged figure would be Athena.

Quote from: aligern on August 09, 2014, 12:15:25 PM

Even today writing of history is riddled with prejudice and with topoi ...

Which is why we of the SoA try to get at the essence of the matter.  :)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 09, 2014, 12:39:16 PM

In the Francois Tomb scene, the man wielding the shortsword is identified as 'Achlv', probably 'Achilles'.  This would presumablyt make the scene Achilles slaughtering prisoners at Patroclus' tomb but, as ever with such depictions, presented in 'modern dress'.  The blue-skinned individual with the hammer is Charun, the Etruscan death-god.  The winged figure would be Athena.

The Italian webpage agrees with you about the scene.  It reckons it comes from The Iliad, XXIII, 175-176; 181-182.

I don't think you can divorce the phalanx from the society that begat it.

Which is why i think the stratification of Italian armies is quite significant, and may well reflect a similar stratification within the cities themselves

Quote from: Mark G on August 08, 2014, 11:34:05 AM
Good question.

As you know, we cannot even agree on how romans did it.

But they did.

Whichever answer you like for them is probably similar to the answer you will like for the others.

problem is that phalanx for how it works can be only on one line. So, if we assume different ranks, we must assume a different thing from phalanx. Maybe a manipular system with gaps between manipula? But this would be strange since we know that etruscans for example used the Greek war style, with Greek equipment, and very likely the simple phalanx used by Greeks. Now since I don't know well sources I am asking you: are you sure that etruscans fought with the different classes on different ranks? because if this was the case it would be a real mistery how the classes beyond first joined the battle. Only when all the first class was entirely killed would seem a bit unlikely [emoji6]. Maybe there was only one line with all different classes one next to the other? but this would create a powerful side where first class was and a weak side where others were. Problem is that same idea of phalanx is based upon uniformity, equality, so you cannot have places with different levels of equipment, weapons and training (unless you put more rows of men less equipped and fewer rows of men more equipped to overcome someway the problem, but it would be a weak explanation) How do nowadays' authors explain this? I am even sure that I read somewhere between your posts that a source told that etruscans fought with no reserves while Romans did and won for that reason.
Only one solution comes to my mind: etruscans fought in a phalanx style, so with only one "rank" but on many rows, the rows a phalanx was usually made of, from 4 to 8. And we know that etruscan model army, for example that of servian reform, had exactly 5 classes.  So solution could be that each class is on one row, not on different "ranks" with maybe gaps in between. In this way first 3 classes/rows participate almost for sure to the battle, first class more than second and second more than third, according the idea of "privilege gives duties" while 4th/5th ranks can eventually join battle. This idea saves both the idea of phalanx and the idea of different classes together with different levels of participation. Can it be? I am sorry if I am repeating things already told which I did not read.

This is an interesting comment Andrew

Let's stop and think about it. If the First Class formed the front rank of the phalanx, then in battle they would take the main of the casualties.
In combat they're the hard edge of the phalanx, the bit that gets hit and whilst they are better armoured, they are the ones who have to die before their social inferiors get to fight.

When the phalanx breaks, the survivors of the First class are the heavily armoured slow ones who are nearest the pursuing enemy whilst their social inferiors cast away their shields and skip lightly away, unencumbered by body armour etc.

So when you stop and think about it, a defeat is a social revolution in an Etruscan city, because the casualties fall mainly on the rich.
The end of a military campaign would be marked by wealthy families frantically adopting new sons into the family and marrying each other's widows.

I'm sorry but something is amiss here. A Greek phalanx had more experienced citizens in the front rank, the more reliable men. The lack of a class grading within the 'heavy infantry' means that casualties were probably reasonably evenly distributed through a very broad hoplite class.

Whereas the Etruscans and Romans set up a system which must warrant being described as the most brutal form of redistribution of wealth and social status in the ancient world!
No wonder the Romans switched so rapidly to maniples, it's the only way the wealthy could have survived bar adopting pacifism as a state religion

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 09, 2014, 04:54:40 PM
Let's stop and think about it. If the First Class formed the front rank of the phalanx, then in battle they would take the main of the casualties.
In combat they're the hard edge of the phalanx, the bit that gets hit and whilst they are better armoured, they are the ones who have to die before their social inferiors get to fight.

When the phalanx breaks, the survivors of the First class are the heavily armoured slow ones who are nearest the pursuing enemy whilst their social inferiors cast away their shields and skip lightly away, unencumbered by body armour etc.

Before we stop and think, a quick reminder that we aren't sure the Etruscans had a 5 class structure.  We can safely assume they had a wealthy class who fought but our evidence for multiple class gradations has been presented here.  For all we know, the Etruscan army had an elite of cavalry, a body of hoplite equipped citizens (albeit probably with the missile option) and some light infantry types.   Perhaps the Roman innovation was classes 2-4, beefing up some of the psiloi types into second-class close combat troops?

Now stopping to think, what is so surprising about a society in which the elite, who have the best kit and the most time for pursuing military pursuits, stand at the front?  An elite that stands back and lets lesser men take all the casualties is taking a risk that the masses will tire of leaders who don't lead.  Or maybe that's too medieval a perspective?

We have throughout the ancient world in this period a general belief that only those prosperous enough to afford kit will have the incentive to fight for their city/state

Indeed military service seems to have been a combination of tax liability and privilege.

Setting aside that the very wealthiest are out there on horseback, I'd still be wary about the rich allowing themselves, as a class, to be out in the front.
Remember that it isn't about experience, and it isn't about fitness or equipment, (although the rich are probably equipped better on average, there are doubtless combat veterans who've built up a better panoply than many rich kids, but again Hoplites moved to a lighter phase with less panoply anyway) but purely about income.

Indeed I can see the advantage of the Roman system where you formalise service from the other classes and stick them out in front of the rich guys to break up the charge which means that when your heavy infantry hits, it has an advantage.
But I can see no advantage to the rich who are the people who actually run the place, of putting the less wealthy in ranks behind them.
We have to stop thinking as wargamers and seeing the advantage of deepening the phalanx, getting more weight etc and think more like those in charge for whom more weight just means that they get butchered for longer because they cannot pull back

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 09, 2014, 06:10:09 PM
We have throughout the ancient world in this period a general belief that only those prosperous enough to afford kit will have the incentive to fight for their city/state

Indeed military service seems to have been a combination of tax liability and privilege.

Setting aside that the very wealthiest are out there on horseback, I'd still be wary about the rich allowing themselves, as a class, to be out in the front.
Remember that it isn't about experience, and it isn't about fitness or equipment, (although the rich are probably equipped better on average, there are doubtless combat veterans who've built up a better panoply than many rich kids, but again Hoplites moved to a lighter phase with less panoply anyway) but purely about income.

Indeed I can see the advantage of the Roman system where you formalise service from the other classes and stick them out in front of the rich guys to break up the charge which means that when your heavy infantry hits, it has an advantage.
But I can see no advantage to the rich who are the people who actually run the place, of putting the less wealthy in ranks behind them.
We have to stop thinking as wargamers and seeing the advantage of deepening the phalanx, getting more weight etc and think more like those in charge for whom more weight just means that they get butchered for longer because they cannot pull back

Jim

wealthier class was not only the one with best armor and weapons, it was the one who had most time in the day to train, so it was the best trained. Probably they were noblemen or anyway land owners. So why should they not stay in the front? in the ancient time there was a deep relationship between being warriors, in first line, and being elite. You were elite in your society cause you were in first line in battle. Same for medieval knights until firepower was invented.
So what is the problem in this? they take most casualties? first, they have best armor, secondly they are the best trained so they take less casualties of their social inferior, less trained. Third, in ancient battles, especially phalanx battles, there were usually few casualties. It was more a psychological thing, to keep formation before the enemies lose theirs. And anyway, they can run away exactely as the others, since they have a shield which is the first to be left if they run away, a body armor, probably in pressed linen or a more etruscan bronze plate, a helmet, a spear and a sword. They don't have this equipment so heavier than the other classes. It is more a fact of quality and role in the deployed Line. And when escaping they are with all the others, remember in a phalanx there are only few meters between the first row and last, so I don't see why they should be in a much worse condition than all others escaping, when formation is broken.
Surely in a defeat and consequent routing the first class Would suffer a lot of casualties but exactely as all the others. In a mass routing it is not a fact of if you were in the first or last row, it is a matter of how fast you are in leaving all your armor (eventually, if heavy) your shield and spear and run as fast as possible. I guess that a young well trained hoplite was fast enough to go in front of some weak, old guy of the last row. I don't see the problem in hoplites with simple bronze plates or linen, maybe if they wore a bronze full chest plate there was some added problem, but who knows, maybe they add some system to open the chest armor and leave it fast in the ground. In the end, it was 2 pieces of bronze linked together with a cord, nothing more. Open the link and job is done.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 09, 2014, 05:43:10 PM

Before we stop and think, a quick reminder that we aren't sure the Etruscans had a 5 class structure.  We can safely assume they had a wealthy class who fought but our evidence for multiple class gradations has been presented here.  For all we know, the Etruscan army had an elite of cavalry, a body of hoplite equipped citizens (albeit probably with the missile option) and some light infantry types.   Perhaps the Roman innovation was classes 2-4, beefing up some of the psiloi types into second-class close combat troops?

This is a good observation.  Servius Tullius inherited a situation which he reformed as follows:

Quote
"Hear from me now the benefits I myself have arranged to confer upon you and the reasons that induced me to summon this assembly. Those among you who already have debts which through poverty they are unable to discharge, I am eager to help, since they are citizens and have undergone many hardships in the service of their country; hence, in order that these men who have securely established the common liberty may not be deprived of their own, I am giving them from my own means enough to pay their debts. 7 And those who shall hereafter borrow I will not permit to be haled to prison on account of their debts, but will make a law that no one shall lend money on the security of the persons of free men; for I hold that it is enough for the lenders to possess the property of those who contracted the debts. And in order to lighten for the future the burden also of the war taxes you pay to the public treasury, by which the poor are oppressed and obliged to borrow, I will order all the citizens to give in a valuation of their property and everyone to pay his share of the taxes according to that valuation, as I learn is done in the greatest and best governed cities; for I regard it as both just and advantageous to the public that those who possess much should pay much in taxes and those who have little should pay little. 8 I also believe that the public lands, which you have obtained by your arms and now enjoy, should not, as at present, be held by those who are the most shameless, whether they got them by favour or acquired them by purchase, but by those among you who have no allotment of land, to the end that you, being free men, may not be serfs to others or cultivate others' lands instead of your own; for a noble spirit cannot dwell in the breasts of men who are in want of the necessaries of daily life. 9 But, above all these things, I have determined to make the government fair and impartial and justice the same for all and towards all. For some have reached that degree of presumption that they take upon themselves to maltreat the common people and do not look upon the poor among you as being even free men. To the end, therefore, that the more powerful may both receive justice from and do justice to their inferior impartially, I will establish such laws as shall prevent violence and preserve justice, and I myself will never cease to take thought for the equality of all the citizens." - Dionysius IV.6-9

The situation he inherited may or may not have been typical of city-states of the time, but his reforms seem to have been unique: the civil reforms are noted in Dionysius Book IV (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/4A*.html); the military reforms are quoted here:

Quote
After all had given in their valuations, Tullius took the registers and the size of their estates, introduced the wisest of all measures, and one which has been the source of the greatest advantages to the Romans, as the results have shown. 2 The measure was this: He selected from the whole number of the citizens one part, consisting of those whose property was rated the highest and amounted to no less than one hundred minae. Of these he formed eighty centuries, whom he ordered to be armed with Argolic bucklers, with spears, brazen helmets, corselets, greaves and swords. Dividing these centuries into two groups, he made forty centuries of younger men, whom he appointed to take the field in time of war, and forty of older men, whose duty it was, when the youth went forth to war, to remain in the city and guard everything inside the walls. 3 This was the first class; in wars it occupied a position in the forefront of the whole army. Next, from those who were left he took another part whose rating was under ten thousand drachmae but not less than seventy-five minae. Of these he formed twenty centuries and ordered them to wear the same armour as those of the first class, except that he took from them the corselets, and instead of the bucklers gave them shields. Here also he distinguished between those who were over forty-five years old and those who were of military age, constituting ten centuries of the younger men, whose duty it was to serve their country in the field, and ten of the older, to whom he committed the defence of the walls. This was the second class; in engagements they were drawn up behind those fighting in the front ranks. 4 The third class he constituted out of those who were left, taking such as had a rating of less than seven thousand five hundred drachmae but not less than fifty minae. The armour of these he diminished not only by taking away the corselets, as from the second class, but also the greaves. 5 He formed likewise twenty centuries of these, dividing them, like the former, according to their age and assigning ten centuries to the younger men and ten to the older. In battles the post and station of these centuries was in the third line from the front.

Again taking from the remainder those whose property amounted to less than five thousand drachmae but was as much as twenty-five minae, he formed a fourth class. This he also divided into twenty centuries, ten of which he composed of such as were in the vigour of their age, and the other ten of those who were just past it, in the same manner as with the former classes. He ordered the arms of these to be shields, swords and spears, and their post in engagements to be in the last line. 2 The fifth class, consisting of those whose property was between twenty-five minae and twelve minae and a half, he divided into thirty centuries. These were also distinguished according to their age, fifteen of the centuries being composed of the older men and fifteen of the younger. These he armed with javelins and slings, and placed outside the line of battle. 3 He ordered four unarmed centuries to follow those that were armed, two of them consisting of armourers and carpenters and of those whose business it was to prepare everything that might be of use in time of war, and the other two of trumpeters and horn-blowers and such as sounded the various calls with any other instruments. The artisans were attached to the second class and divided according to their age, one of their centuries following the older centuries, and the other the younger centuries; 4 the trumpeters and horn-blowers were added to the fourth class, and one of their centuries also consisted of the older men and the other of the younger.36 Out of all the centuries the bravest men were chosen as centurions, and each of these commanders took care p327that his century should yield a ready obedience to orders.

18 1 This was the arrangement he made of the entire infantry, consisting of both the heavy-armed and light-armed troops. As for the cavalry, he chose them out of such as had the highest rating and were of distinguished birth, forming eighteen centuries of them, and added them to the first eighty centuries of the heavy-armed infantry; these centuries of cavalry were also commanded by persons of the greatest distinction. 2 The rest of the citizens, who had a rating of less than twelve minae and a half but were more numerous than those already mentioned, he put into a single century and exempted them from service in the army and from every sort of tax. - Dionysius IV.16-18

Whatever the pre-existing system was, he evidently changed it.  I would therefore suggest that a system based on classes by wealth is very much the exception, not the norm, and may well have been unique to Rome during Servius Tullius' reign.

Dionysius' involved explanation also suggests this system was unique to Servius Tullius' Rome:

Quote
In pursuance of this arrangement he levied troops according to the division of the centuries, and imposed taxes in proportion to the valuation of their possessions. For instance, whenever he had occasion to raise ten thousand men, or, if it should so happen, twenty thousand, he would divide that number among the hundred and ninety-three centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its share. As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating. 2 Thus it happened that those who had the largest possessions, being fewer in number but distributed into more centuries, were obliged to serve oftener and without any intermission, and to pay greater taxes than the rest; that those who had small and moderate possessions, being more numerous but distributed into fewer centuries, serve seldom and in rotation and paid small taxes, and that those whose possessions were not sufficient to maintain them were exempt from all burdens. 3 Tullius made none of these regulations without reason, but from the conviction that all men look upon their possessions as the prizes at stake in war and that it is for the sake of retaining these that they all endure its hardships; he thought it right, therefore, that those who had greater prizes at stake should suffer greater hardships, both with their persons and with their possessions, that those who had less at stake should be less burdened in respect to both, and that those who had no loss to fear should endure no hardships, but be exempt from taxes by reason of their poverty and from military service because they paid no tax. For at that time the Romans received no pay as soldiers from the public treasury but served at their own expense.

This arrangement may also have improved the quality and elan of the Roman army during his reign, as it would have reduced to a minimum the number of reluctant soldiers.  There may even have been an element of deliberately configuring his army to fight a specific opponent:

Quote
His military operations were directed against one nation only, that of the Tyrrhenians; of these I shall now give an account. - Dionysius IV.26.6

And, true to his word, Dionysius does:

Quote
After the death of Tarquinius those cities which had yielded the sovereignty to him refused to observe the terms of their treaties any longer, disdaining to submit to Tullius, since he was a man of lowly birth, and anticipating great advantages for themselves from the discord that had arisen between the patricians and their ruler. 2 The people called the Veientes were the leaders of this revolt; and when Tullius sent ambassadors they replied that they had no treaty with him either concerning their yielding the sovereignty or concerning friendship and an alliance. These having set the example, the people of Caere and Tarquinii followed it, and at last all Tyrrhenia was in arms. 3 This war lasted for twenty years without intermission, during which time both sides made many irruptions into one another's territories with great armies and fought one pitched battle after another. But Tullius, after being successful in all the battles in which he engaged, both against the several cities and against the whole nation, and after being honoured with three most splendid triumphs, at last forced those who refused to be ruled to accept the yoke against their will. 4 In the twentieth year, therefore, the twelve cities, having become exhausted by the war both in men and in money, again met together and decided to yield the sovereignty to the Romans upon the same terms as previously. - Dionysius IV.27.1-4

Because Servius Tullius was always victorious in his engagements, losses to his 'first class' were never a problem.  Naturally, had he lost any number of significant battles, we might never have heard of him.  Nevertheless he did not lose, and that may be because he seems to have deliberately crafted his army to achieve an ascendancy over a specific opponent: the Etruscans.

It is a bit medieval.
I keep coming back to conceptions of war and culture.

Hoplites are part of a specific city culture from Greece, right down to the shared shield.

We don't see that elsewhere, just Greece.

Additionally, the Greeks focussed on clear defined agreed battle, with a swift conclusion. What we have from italy is quite different.

Greeks were quite happy to win victory and claim hegemony. Italians want land and conquest.

The demands of warfare are quite different.

So it makes sense to open the battle with lighter intensity warfare, and progressively increase the stages, to ensure an opponent is fully committed and exhausted when you send in your battle winning troops to complete a total victory.

There is plenty of reason to doubt  the literal truth of Livy's account of the Servian reforms and even if he was one or two people.
I think we would need someone expert on Livy and on Early Roman history to guide us here and we do not have that person.

Wikipedia says of the Servian Military reforms The Roman army's centuria system and its order of battle are thought to be based on the civilian classifications established by the census. The military selection process picked men from civilian centuriae and slipped them into military ones. Their function depended on their age, experience, and the equipment they could afford. The wealthiest class of iuniores (aged 17 – 45) were armed as hoplites, heavy infantry with helmet, greaves, breastplate, shields (clipeus), and spears (hastae). Each battle line in the phalanx formation was composed of a single class.[33] Military specialists, such as trumpeters, were chosen from the 5th class. The highest officers were of aristocratic origin until the early Republic, when the first plebeian tribunes were elected by the plebeians from their own number. Cornell suggests that this centuriate system made the equites, who "consisted mainly, if not exclusively, of patricians" but voted after infantry of the first class, subordinate to the relatively low-status infantry.[34]'

I am not certain whether Cornell's description of each class referring to each line in the phalanx formation is meant to mean that the scutatoi formed  separate sequential lines of units or that they formed lines of one phalanx unit, with hoplites in front. Hoplites fork in close order and the ranks behind push from the back. Italian scutatoi are armed with throwing weapons and  do not push, but move around using a sword or spear after they have thrown their first weapon(s) .  It does not seem logical to have spear armed men in front of javelin armed men. 
We appear here to have moved to seeing the Etruscan hoplites as having throwing spears, perhaps a combination of throwing and thrusting spears.  I still feel more comfortable in each class providing units  that fight with others in the same kit surrounding them, round shields in units with round shields. and long with long.
I see Rome as being an Etruscan city following Etruscan tactics. That Livy and Dionysius buy into a legendary Roman past with one hero founder should not surprise us. What should be a surprise is that Livy etc do not describe differences between the Romans , the Hernici ,the Etruscans and the Samnites. This is not because they do not describe difference.  When the Gauls arrive who are different the differences are described. When the Romans encounter Spaniards they are different and described as such. The other inhabitants of Italy seem so relatively similar that they are not differentiated. Surely, if the Etruscans are operating as a single line phalanx with spears, not  javelins, then that would be worthy of mention. If the Etruscans moved later from spear use to javelin use then  would not this be commented upon. I am unaware that this suppised change is mentioned.
So I see the sense that the Certosa situla shows a class based army in an Etruscan area and that the organisation of Roman armies with Triarii in reserve and with classes of javelin armed men in flexible units in lines to the front is very likely based upon the Etruscan system of early Rome when it was an Etruscan city.

Patrick, in the description of the battle with Manlius, the Etruscans are cited as having mercenaries  in the army which you adumbrate as Greeks. Is there a reason why these are not Italian mercenaries? In the Wiki entry for Servius T there is a suggestion that he may have been an Etruscan mercenary called Mastarna. Mayhap the Etruscan mercenaries  are Etruscans from other cities that have not joined an alliance to resist Rome, but have allowed their citizens to serve, or maybe they are hill tribe Italians. If they are Greek mercenaries then you will no doubt have a specific reference to this.


Roy

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 09, 2014, 07:25:46 PM

wealthier class was not only the one with best armor and weapons, it was the one who had most time in the day to train, so it was the best trained. Probably they were noblemen or anyway land owners. So why should they not stay in the front?

Remember the wealthiest would be cavalry anyway and out of this discussion

Whilst they might have had time to train, there is little evidence that they did other than at sport in the Gymnasium. Most of the evidence for formal training seems very late
Which is fair enough, they had plenty to do without playing soldiers
Jim

I am not sure the Certosa situla is describing a complicated class system.  Maybe we are looking at allies, mercenaries or poorer warriors.   I read somewhere that the cavalry was the best element of the army and I presume the contribution of the nobility.  The landowning class - of varied wealth - could afford the cuirass/corset and the poorer citizens just shield and an offensive weapon.  I like Andrew's simpler approach to the social class system and a single phalanx with no reserves.
The pictorial evidence seems to show armoured warriors in the hoplite type armour right up until the end of their independence.   
Greeks and Italians fought side by side - Romans and Cumaeans (hoplites most probably) - against the Etruscan enemy.  I can see elements of the Roman and Etruscan landowning class adopting Greek armour and copying part of the hoplite line of battle but evolving weaponry to fit their geography - javelin and looser formation on rough terrain.
Robert

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 09, 2014, 09:55:17 PM

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 09, 2014, 07:25:46 PM

wealthier class was not only the one with best armor and weapons, it was the one who had most time in the day to train, so it was the best trained. Probably they were noblemen or anyway land owners. So why should they not stay in the front?

Remember the wealthiest would be cavalry anyway and out of this discussion

Whilst they might have had time to train, there is little evidence that they did other than at sport in the Gymnasium. Most of the evidence for formal training seems very late
Which is fair enough, they had plenty to do without playing soldiers
Jim

http://www.ilportaledeltempo.it/?sezione=AC&art=etruschi&sub=4
(Google translator again)
the typical day of an etruscan nobleman involved war training or hunting as primary activities, exactly as middle age noblemen. In the ancient period, they used chariots which needed a lot of training for sure. Same for hoplites or first class, who probably were not elite noblemen but landowners class anyway. Etruscans were good warriors, they based their power on raiding seas and they were in almost constant war with  nearby populations, so I guess they trained for war somehow and spent some time for it, especially upper classes. Surely they were not super trained warriors as Spartans, since etruscans were basically people who loved life and its pleasures, eating, drinking, playing, doing sport, making  love ( and almost unique feature in ancient world, women played an active role in society), but war played an important role for ancient world so they trained for it, no doubt (probably more than Greeks who preferred gymnasium and physical training rather than war training, as Romans noticed).

Quote from: RobertGargan on August 09, 2014, 10:44:43 PM
I am not sure the Certosa situla is describing a complicated class system.  Maybe we are looking at allies, mercenaries or poorer warriors.   I read somewhere that the cavalry was the best element of the army and I presume the contribution of the nobility.  The landowning class - of varied wealth - could afford the cuirass/corset and the poorer citizens just shield and an offensive weapon.  I like Andrew's simpler approach to the social class system and a single phalanx with no reserves.
The pictorial evidence seems to show armoured warriors in the hoplite type armour right up until the end of their independence.   
Greeks and Italians fought side by side - Romans and Cumaeans (hoplites most probably) - against the Etruscan enemy.  I can see elements of the Roman and Etruscan landowning class adopting Greek armour and copying part of the hoplite line of battle but evolving weaponry to fit their geography - javelin and looser formation on rough terrain.
Robert

living in Tuscany land of Etruschi I can assure you that there is not this rough terrain you imagine. There are a lot of valleys, a lot of flat places (where I live, Florence, I hardly see some Hills in the far distance), some mild hilly area, and a limited central area running in the middle of the peninsula with mountains. Not this rough terrain. Having been to Greece, I noticed that it has generally more rough terrain than Italy, or etruscan part of Italy. So why should they adapt phalanx to a terrain less rough than theirs? [emoji6]
Even these idea of javelin, I accept it but I don't find the necessity of javelins in "rough terrain" because there would be not. In reality, most places I have seen would be very good for big phalanx battles, maybe better than Greece.

Mostly the art evidence shows rich people, artefacts they imported and bought made by Greek craftsmen, expensive decorations for their tombs, expensive decorated saecophagi for their ashes. Then we get  :o of Greek myths showing Gods and heroes in Greek kit. Of course the armour deposited in rich men's  tombs tends to be rich men's armour and might often be for cavalrymen.

Robert, look again at the Certosa Situla. Does it show the nobles of three tribes in differentiated costumes meeting up? No I  don't see that there. It seems to show one unitary set of civilian characters and three variations of infantry equipment, One of these variants has a crested helmet and the other two look like  classes of troops with  cheaper kit.  I sort of feel that if you believe that these warriors represent different tribes then you should be able to adduce some sort of evidence from the piece itself to justify that or from other pieces to show that this is a common, or at least not unique treatment.  I am with you on the javelin and their own Italian weapon development.

Andrew, yes Tuscany is mostly rolling hills, though there are mountains , the area is not as rugged as Greece and perhaps that is a good reason for them not having phalanx warfare as that style developed where there are small plains  and good flank protection so that cavalry were generally less important, except for the Theban plains and Thebes had more and better cavalry than the rest of the Greek city states. Etruria being more open it would have made sense to have a more flexible system with smaller units and reserves and good cavalry and this is how some of  us see the Etruscans operating.

That the Etruscans operated in classes seems highly likely partly because of evidence such as the Certosa Situla, but in large part because Rome is an Etruscan colony and it is highly likely that the system of wealth based classes that pertained at Rome was an Etruscan system.
Roy

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 09, 2014, 10:59:02 PM


http://www.ilportaledeltempo.it/?sezione=AC&art=etruschi&sub=4
(Google translator again)
the typical day of an etruscan nobleman involved war training or hunting as primary activities, exactly as middle age noblemen. In the ancient period, they used chariots which needed a lot of training for sure. Same for hoplites or first class, who probably were not elite noblemen but landowners class anyway. Etruscans were good warriors, they based their power on raiding seas and they were in almost constant war with  nearby populations, so I guess they trained for war somehow and spent some time for it, especially upper classes. Surely they were not super trained warriors as Spartans, since etruscans were basically people who loved life and its pleasures, eating, drinking, playing, doing sport, making  love ( and almost unique feature in ancient world, women played an active role in society), but war played an important role for ancient world so they trained for it, no doubt (probably more than Greeks who preferred gymnasium and physical training rather than war training, as Romans noticed).

Guesses are nice but if the writer had quoted sources it would have been nicer.

Jim

Quote from: aligern on August 10, 2014, 12:16:24 AM
Robert, look again at the Certosa Situla. Does it show the nobles of three tribes in differentiated costumes meeting up? No I  don't see that there. It seems to show one unitary set of civilian characters and three variations of infantry equipment, One of these variants has a crested helmet and the other two look like  classes of troops with  cheaper kit.  I sort of feel that if you believe that these warriors represent different tribes then you should be able to adduce some sort of evidence from the piece itself to justify that or from other pieces to show that this is a common, or at least not unique treatment.  I am with you on the javelin and their own Italian weapon development.

I think the Certosa situla has been accepted in the past unquestioningly as a class based system.  But then, the Etruscan phalanx has also been pretty unquestioningly accepted.  If we are throwing things in the air, lets look at it again.  It shows a parade, perhaps religious - a common motif.  Most others I have seen don't show groups with different equipment.  That maybe because they concentrate on the elite classes and the Certosa situla is the only one that is realistic.  Or it may be that this represents an alliance of tribes, all distinguished by their kit, and the others represent Etruscan reality.  I could be convinced either way.

As to whether you can have a phalanx without a certain culture, I think I would point out that democracies, oligarchies and the Spartan kingdom had phalanxes.  There were mercenary phalanxes.   Given that width of sub-cultures, do you really have to be a Greek to do this?  It could be much more like a Successor phalanx, Imitation legionaries or non-Swiss pikemen in the late middle ages - the package may have started in a cultural context but it became an exportable commodity.  That said, I wouldn't say we have necessarily got a slavish copy of a Greek phalanx in Etruria.  As I've said above, the balance of the visual evidence, some of the remarks in Patrick's historical quotes and some archaeology all point to the continued presence of multiple spears, multi-purpose or throwing types, in use by hoplite-type warriors.  Nor can we say that the Etruscans would have used their phalanx-like  body in the almost ritualised combat style of Classical Greece (noting in passing that hoplite phalanxes engaged in non-ritualised combats with non-Greeks).  These people could have stood at the back and watched their lesser classes do the fighting like some predeccesor of the Old Guard, or they could have led from the front.

I genuinely do not know where there is an example of non Greeks forming a genuine Greek hoplite phalanx.  Celts and Germans make formations that are described as phalanxes, but that only seems to be a frontage of overlapping shields, or by then has phalanx become the word for any close order packed formation?

I thought about Carthaginians, but then they have the shield and Greek armour, but is the latest balance of opinion that they have a  longche  pairing as weaponry?
The Persians hire Greeks, interesting as one would have thought that having such resources the Great king could hire the trainers, make the kit and out Greek the Greeks.

There may well be something that hits true in what Mark says here. It has echoes of points that Victor Davis Hanson makes that there is a self reinforcing culture to do with the phalanx and it is about equality and submitting the individual to the mass and an attitude to giving it to the enemy in the face.
I say submission of the individual, but not in a slavish Persian way, the phalanx is about the submission of free men by choice to this close packed sweaty mass that depends upon collective action for its success.
I am tempted by the idea that this is cultural and dies not easily transfer. As to different social structures, well, the Romans still thought of themselves as free men, distinguished by their liberty from the slavish Parthians even when they were under a severe military contract and ruled by despotic madmen.

Roy

I think we are caught in a tangle modern Western Way of War concepts.  If you define a "true" phalanx as only formable by free-born Greeks, then a priori neither Etruscans or Carthaginians could have one.  But Greek historians seem to use phalanx to mean close-packed infantry formation and hoplite to mean armoured-infantryman (presumably, they hadn't read Victor Davis Hanson :) ).

Perhaps we should call what the Etruscans and Carthaginians had a "pseudo-phalanx" to show that it used hoplite kit but didn't have the social structure or necessarily the exact tactics of a Greek one?

Quote from: aligern on August 09, 2014, 08:57:08 PM
That Livy and Dionysius buy into a legendary Roman past with one hero founder should not surprise us.

Could you elaborate on the reasons for thinking this?  Also which hero is assumed to be the founder, please?

Quote
Patrick, in the description of the battle with Manlius, the Etruscans are cited as having mercenaries  in the army which you adumbrate as Greeks. Is there a reason why these are not Italian mercenaries?

Dionysius calls them 'xenoi', which in ordinary usage would only be applicable to Greeks.  The non-Greek mercenaries would be under those he calls 'misthophoroi'.

Quote
In the Wiki entry for Servius T there is a suggestion that he may have been an Etruscan mercenary called Mastarna. Mayhap the Etruscan mercenaries  are Etruscans from other cities that have not joined an alliance to resist Rome, but have allowed their citizens to serve, or maybe they are hill tribe Italians. If they are Greek mercenaries then you will no doubt have a specific reference to this.

As above.  I have never known a Greek author to use 'xenoi' to mean non-Greeks (perhaps someone else does?).

Quote from: aligern on August 10, 2014, 12:16:24 AM

That the Etruscans operated in classes seems highly likely partly because of evidence such as the Certosa Situla, but in large part because Rome is an Etruscan colony and it is highly likely that the system of wealth based classes that pertained at Rome was an Etruscan system.

I would disagree.  The class-based system created by Servius Tullius appears to be unique to Servius Tullius and was not persisted with even in Rome once his reign was over.  It did, according to our sources, give him twenty years of unbroken victory in war, which argues that it was a) superior to other contemporary systems and b) quite probably unique.

This leaves us with no reason to suppose that Etruscan city-states had a 'class-based' system of this nature.  Their art seems more consistent with a Greek-style arrangement in which one had cavalry, hoplites and some lighter infantry, the latter rarely if ever being represented in art but which are referred to in our sources.

Quote
The other inhabitants of Italy seem so relatively similar that they are not differentiated.

This - ah - misconception can be refuted by one simple statement of Dionysius:

"For the Volscians had changed all their military tactics after securing Marcius [Coriolanus] as their commander, and had adopted the customs of the Romans."  - Dionysius VIII.67.4

Quote
Surely, if the Etruscans are operating as a single line phalanx with spears, not  javelins, then that would be worthy of mention.

Not by Livy and Dionysius, who seem to be political chaps first and attend to military matters almost as an afterthought.  One may note in passing that nobody, not even Polybius (at least in his extant books) bothers to explain the military system of the Carthaginians, so why should they feel a few Italian tribes and cities to be worthy of mention?

Quote from: aligern on August 10, 2014, 11:38:46 AM
I genuinely do not know where there is an example of non Greeks forming a genuine Greek hoplite phalanx.

Dionysius I of Syracuse supplied hoplite equipment to Illyrians for a campaign in 385 BC.  Granted he sent only 500 sets, but they were intended for (and apparently used by) Illyrians.

Lydia is supposed to have used a hoplite phalanx as part of its army (interesting, given the Herodotean tradition that Etruscans originally came from Lydia).

Quote
I am tempted by the idea that this is cultural and does not easily transfer.

It did not transfer to Persians, but Lydians and Etruscans seem to have had no problem picking it up.  Lydian hoplites are attested by Polyaenus VII.2.2:

"The Kolophonians had a great cavalry strength and Alyattes, in order to weaken them, entered into alliance with them. In distributing the booty of military expeditions he was ever giving the greater part to the horsemen. Finally, as he was in Sardis, he arranged a magnificent market for them and prepared a double pay. The horsemen, whose camp was outside the city, delivered their horses to the grooms and went inside the walls looking forward to the double pay. Alyattes shut the gates and, having surrounded the horsemen with his own hoplites [hoplitas], cut them all to pieces. Then he gave their horses to his hoplites."

Polyaenus' reference to Lydian hoplites in VII.2.2 may be understood as 'proto-hoplites' (whatever those are) or heavy infantry, but the following from VII.8 is unmistakeable, even if it does shed suspicion on the degree of hopliteness of Alyattes' hoplites.

"Croesus, finding that his Greek allies were slow in coming to his aid, chose out some of the ablest and stoutest of the Lydians, and armed them in the Greek manner. Cyrus' men, who were unaccustomed to Greek weapons, were at a loss how either to attack, or to guard against them. The clang of the spears upon the shields struck them with terror; and the splendour of the bronze shields so terrified the horses, that they could not be brought to charge. Cyrus was defeated by this stratagem, and made a truce with Croesus for three months." - Polyaenus VII.8.2

An even more rapid, if perhaps incomplete conversion, was achieved by the Persian rebel Orontes:

"After losing a great number of his allies, who had been cut off in an ambush by Autophradates, Orontes spread a report that a group of mercenaries were on the march to join him. He took care that this message, with every mark of confirmation that he could give it, was communicated to Autophradates. By night he armed the strongest of the barbarians in Greek armour; and as soon as it was day, he posted them in his army amongst the rest of the Greeks, along with interpreters who knew both languages and could repeat the Greek commands in the barbarian language. Autophradates, seeing such a large number of men in Greek armour, assumed that Orontes had received the reinforcements, of which he had been informed. Not wishing to risk a battle at so great a disadvantage, he broke up his camp and retreated." - ibid. VII.14.4

Croesus taught his home-grown hoplites how to fight as hoplites: Orontes was content for his just to look like hoplites.  All of this suggests that adopting hoplite equipment and method is not particularly limited by cultural barriers (it is not necessary to be Greek): where there is a will there is a way!

A necessary corrective on Servius Tullius : http://mythindex.com/roman-mythology/S/Servius-Tullius.html


I do love you for your debating style Patrick. You quote two examples of leaders dressing up their men as hoplites (from the notoriously gamey Polyaenus) and claim that this shows them becoming effective hoplites when all it shows is them dressing up as hoplites, rather as Welsh women   defeated the French invasion at Fishguard.  If You were to dress in SAS uniform it would not make you a trained killer.
Where, by the way do Croesus and Orontes get the hundreds of sets of hoplite armour required for such a rapid conversion?
Then , Loki like,you  slip the Etruscans into peoples that operate a hoplite phalanx, a la Grecque. However, there is no further evidence posted for such a conversion for the Etruscans, save that they too adopt greek style greaves, helmets, shields....another case of dressing up?

Roy

For 'dressing up' as hoplites, you'd probably get away with giving them new shields, as they'd have helmets and greaves which would be good enough from a distance.
For shields I would expect a force to carry a number of spares in their baggage, (We know Roman republican armies did at least once because they issued them).
The trouble is we don't really know how much kit armies carried

Jim

I'm not talking specifically about democracy, but rather the uniform city culture which contributed to democracy arising.

Put simply, the Greeks don't seen to ever have stratified into many classes in the same way that the romans and i think other Italians also have.
Greeks seem to gave had citizens and slaves, citizens must all provide hoplite panoply.

by comparison
Italians have different equipment requirements for the different classes.

This is by Steven James on Roman Army talk. He is a respectably knowledgeable chap. The piece is, as he says , a little rough hewn, and that explains some of the contradictions, but his conclusions are, I think, interestingly similar to those here.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/319848-etruscan-military-organisation.html

Quote from: aligern on August 10, 2014, 02:31:55 PM

I do love you for your debating style Patrick. You quote two examples of leaders dressing up their men as hoplites ...

No, one case of Illyrians using sets of hoplite equipment sent by Dionysius I of Syracuse and one of Croesus creating his own hoplite corps.  We may note in the latter case that:

"Cyrus' men, who were unaccustomed to Greek weapons, were at a loss how either to attack, or to guard against them."

This shows that Croesus' troops were actual hoplites, not just temporary human mannequins outfitted to give credibility to a deception, as in Orontes' case.  And I shall forbear to make mention of a debating style that deliberately confuses the two.  ;)

Quote
However, there is no further evidence posted for such a conversion for the Etruscans, save that they too adopt Greek style greaves, helmets, shields....another case of dressing up?

But ... since most of this dressing up seems to have occurred in their tombs and on their vases, one wonders exactly whom they would be fooling.  For centuries, their armour and shields - and to an extent helmets - are consistent with contemporary Greek patterns, and overwhelmingly so.  Somehow I do not think 'dressing up' serves as an explanation.  Conversely, a quintessentially hoplite (or, if we like, hoplite-style) army would.

Quote from: Mark G on August 10, 2014, 05:21:24 PM

Put simply, the Greeks don't seen to ever have stratified into many classes in the same way that the romans and i think other Italians also have.
Greeks seem to gave had citizens and slaves, citizens must all provide hoplite panoply.

by comparison
Italians have different equipment requirements for the different classes.

But we have no evidence for these imagined 'different classes' in Italian society - do we?

An interesting point Steven James mentions in his RAT post is that:

"The Etruscan social structure was divided into a powerful aristocracy (domini) with an immense body of clients (etera), serfs and slaves (servi) with no middle class. Although this seems unique for a Mediterranean society, epigraphic evidence does support a two class society, the wealthy aristocrats and the serfs and slaves."

One sees much the same arrangement in Sparta.  There it is the conquerors (armed) at the top and the conquered (unarmed) below.  Question: do we know if the Etruscans were ethnically identical at all levels of society or whether the servi were the vanquished survivors, and the domini and etera the dominant descendants, of a migrant conquest settling in as the top echelon of a stratified two-class society?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 10, 2014, 08:34:39 PM


One sees much the same arrangement in Sparta.  There it is the conquerors (armed) at the top and the conquered (unarmed) below.  Question: do we know if the Etruscans were ethnically identical at all levels of society or whether the servi were the vanquished survivors, and the domini and etera the dominant descendants, of a migrant conquest settling in as the top echelon of a stratified two-class society?

I can see the similarities, in Sparta you have  Spartiates,   Mothakes (  free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (those 'living about'), and Helots 

From the point of view of the army, the first two groups were probably identical. The Perioikoi were 'second class' in Spartan eyes, but provided hoplites, whilst the Helots, if used, were either baggage handlers, nominal light infantry throwing stones or javelins, or if they were going to be used properly, Hoplites.

It's interesting that within a Greek context, all four classes provided the same troop type

In Athens those who didn't have to fight on land because they didn't meet the property qualification could still scrounge the equipment and fight as hoplites (Socrates). There was obviously a small demand for archers (if only for the fleet) and light infantry. It was only in the 4th century (?) that the Athenians started raising peltasts from their own citizens.

What I'm driving at is that in a Greek context, if you expected the lower classes to fight, you generally expected them to be hoplites

Jim

Quote from: Mark G on August 10, 2014, 05:21:24 PM
I'm not talking specifically about democracy, but rather the uniform city culture which contributed to democracy arising.

Put simply, the Greeks don't seen to ever have stratified into many classes in the same way that the romans and i think other Italians also have.
Greeks seem to gave had citizens and slaves, citizens must all provide hoplite panoply.

by comparison
Italians have different equipment requirements for the different classes.

exactly. Athens for example for a democracy and all inhabitants were "citizens" firstly then hoplites when necessary. Having all same political rights they had same position (more or less, a first line was needed anwyhow) in the deployed army.
This did not happen in Italy and etruscan city States in particular. These were city States but they had kings and a strong aristocracy and then different social classes, from productive class to the servants and slaves (not treated bad as slaves in Rome though: they were still a precious resource, not like in Roman imperial age, and usually shared almost same language or same habits as their masters, so friendship bonds could raise between master and slaves).  So there could be not a unique role of citizen/warrior like in Greek city States. They re adapted Greek war style to the different social context of Etruria back then, with different roles and lines according the social status. In front, leading all others as in the age of heroes (with chariots probably, back then) the Aristoi, then all others in correct order. More social status, more privilege, more duty and risk on the battlefield. So in daily life they could probably explain to social inferiors their privileges with the fact that they were in the first line defending homeland (the town) in battle.
But this is worth only for etruscans. Not generally "italians". For what I have read, neighbours samnites had a different social structure and used a different model for armies, though probably still in a some type of re adapted phalanx. They recruited in the "districts" and I have never read of different lines or social classes. In fact samnites were generally poor, rough cattle farmers and sheep breeders. If there was some upper class, it was not so rich (so powerful) as etruscan one.
Then there were other populations like Umbri, living in dense forests, so probably with armies useful on that type of terrain.
There were no "italians" back then. Same word Italia was invented much later (90ac bellum Cum sociis) and has probably a samnitic origin.
The idea of Italy being a nation with a unique population is very modern indeed. When Rome managed to conquer all Italy, there was absolutely not the idea of a single population, but rather the opposite, Romans were the leaders of coalition of nations (which tried to rebel quite often). So please don't talk of "Italians".
Even today I can assure you that many people hardly feel themselves" italians" but they feel firstly veneti/campani/pugliesi/siciliani/et cetera. It is full, still in 2014, of political autonomistic movements, mostly in the South and in the North. Many people living in the South still see Italy as a far concept and them as submitted to an external state (like they were de facto in 1861 after unity).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 10, 2014, 08:34:39 PM

Quote from: aligern on August 10, 2014, 02:31:55 PM

I do love you for your debating style Patrick. You quote two examples of leaders dressing up their men as hoplites ...

No, one case of Illyrians using sets of hoplite equipment sent by Dionysius I of Syracuse and one of Croesus creating his own hoplite corps.  We may note in the latter case that:

"Cyrus' men, who were unaccustomed to Greek weapons, were at a loss how either to attack, or to guard against them."

This shows that Croesus' troops were actual hoplites, not just temporary human mannequins outfitted to give credibility to a deception, as in Orontes' case.  And I shall forbear to make mention of a debating style that deliberately confuses the two.  ;)

Quote
However, there is no further evidence posted for such a conversion for the Etruscans, save that they too adopt Greek style greaves, helmets, shields....another case of dressing up?

there have been many hypothesis on origin of misterrious etruscans, basically any possible idea has been tempted, for example Erodotus says they come from Lydia (Turkey) but most modern studies say they are the descendants of Villanova society who was spread in bronze age throughout the northern Italy. So no migration and no ethnical difference.

Quote from: Mark G on August 10, 2014, 05:21:24 PM

Put simply, the Greeks don't seen to ever have stratified into many classes in the same way that the romans and i think other Italians also have.
Greeks seem to gave had citizens and slaves, citizens must all provide hoplite panoply.

by comparison
Italians have different equipment requirements for the different classes.

But we have no evidence for these imagined 'different classes' in Italian society - do we?

An interesting point Steven James mentions in his RAT post is that:

"The Etruscan social structure was divided into a powerful aristocracy (domini) with an immense body of clients (etera), serfs and slaves (servi) with no middle class. Although this seems unique for a Mediterranean society, epigraphic evidence does support a two class society, the wealthy aristocrats and the serfs and slaves."

One sees much the same arrangement in Sparta.  There it is the conquerors (armed) at the top and the conquered (unarmed) below.  Question: do we know if the Etruscans were ethnically identical at all levels of society or whether the servi were the vanquished survivors, and the domini and etera the dominant descendants, of a migrant conquest settling in as the top echelon of a stratified two-class society?

most recent studied show that etruscan have no oriental ancestors as we had thought in the past following Erodotus who made them migrating from Lydia, Turkey to modern Tuscany . Etruscans are descendants of Villanova society whixh was born in Italy. Modern scientists have shown that people living in Volterra and other typical etruscan towns share a lot of DNA with ancient etruscans. Having ancestors all born in Tuscany and a surname which is spread only in tuacany, I am probably an etruscan descendent somehow. Same typical Italian speaking here has a peculiar accent which is said to come from etruscan language.

And Andrew is, of course, correct. Studies of Etruscan DNA from tombs show them to be local Italians.  This is important because it shows them as developing their own civilisation and buying in what they choose from abroad, rather than culture having ti be implanted in Italy via Greeks!!

Roy

QuoteThe Etruscan phalanx was mainly made up of clients serving under the command of their aristocrats. One tradition amongst scholars is that after their encounter with the Greeks during the early seventh century (650 BC or a little later), the Etruscans had supplanted their military system with Greek hoplite tactics. A number of archaeologist and historian's state there is not enough evidence, archaeological or literary to support this view.

Using evidence from graves to verify the Etruscans fought in hoplite phalanx is misleading. The grave finds that contained hoplite panoplies such as the Corinthian-style helmet does not authenticate hoplite warfare but the evidence suggests hoplite equipment was restricted to high ranking aristocrats or princes. Archaeological evidence shows that in the sixth century Etruscan farmers could not equip themselves in hoplite panoply. The common Etruscan soldier did not provide his own armour; it was supplied to him by the gens. Many of the hoplite arms and armour found in graves are for ritual purposes to designate rank and status and some items found are impractical for combat purposes. One example of a bronze corselet is so thin that its function in battle is less useful than a hide of thick leather. Another of a shield shows the sheet of bronze is so thin that it has been penetrated by the embossing of the decoration.

Dionysius (VII. 4) description of the battle between the Etruscans and their allies against the Cumeans in 524 BC, has the Etruscan cavalry intermingled with the infantry and suggests the Etruscan phalanx was in an open formation that allowed individual mobility and the choice of weapons. An open formation would allow the cavalry to make their way through the gaps between the combatants. Later descriptions of battles indicate the Etruscans fought in a massed phalanx with no true rank and file organization and the nature of some Etruscan weapons such as the axe and the double-bladed axe support the fact they would not be suitable for fighting in a close arrayed phalanx formation, but would be well suited to the mass array phalanx (no rank and file organization). For further information; see "the phalanx" in the archaic warfare chapter.

Infantry Reserves
The Etruscans had no reserves to support their first line, and all fell in front of their standards or around them." Livy (IX. 32)

Although the above statement by Livy is not conclusive evidence, the literary sources describing Etruscan battles would indicate the Etruscans did not use infantry reserve tactics. The Etruscans are mentioned using reserves (cavalry) to capture a Roman camp and as the Romans claim they copied the phalanx from the Etruscans, this would strongly indicate the Etruscans, like the Romans had a second line of infantry made up of older troops.

To save folk from following Roy's link.

interesting to note the evidence clearly shows that the 'Hoplite' shield used y the Etruscans is simply not up to the job it is assigned too if they are to be hoplites.

It does depend on what you mean by "buy in".  There was certainly a lot of buying of material culture.  What is more difficult to sort out is what other influences did they have?  For example, lots of art features Greek legendary and religious themes, which suggests some engagement with/fashionability of Greek culture among the wealthy.  It is not clear what impact this may have had militarily (if any)

One thing I noted in Steven's essay was he states the Argive shield fades and the Scutum takes over in the later period.  This does not seem to be bourne out in my very basic survey of art.  I think I only noted two situlae (correct plural?) with rectangular or oval shields and they were quite early.  Most sculpture and painting shows the aspis, right down to the 3rd century.  But then, most sculpture represents the elite.  Is there another corpus of art showing lots of scuta, or literary descriptions not yet mined in this discussion describing widespread Etruscan use?

Quote from: Mark G on August 11, 2014, 07:26:58 AM

interesting to note the evidence clearly shows that the 'Hoplite' shield used y the Etruscans is simply not up to the job it is assigned too if they are to be hoplites.

Interesting.  I think Steven identified an embossed shield where the craftman had gone through the metal?  Multiple issues here, like was this a combat shield?  This embossed shield type is a Hellenistic fashion, I think.  Were they used in combat back East?  Also, the main strength of an argive shield is the wood - the bronze facing is very thin (3mms?)  and acts like the leather facing on a scutum or medieval shield, preventing splitting.

However, it is possible that our Etruscan quasi-hoplite only has an argive shield for parades and funerals and goes to war with a sturdy and disposable scutum.  Any evidence for this?  Because we have a lot of images of people fighting with Argive shields, and we know first class Romans used them.

I am reluctant to criticise the Steven James article because he is not putting it up as finished work. However, I would suggest that his quote on the  Etruscans having no reserves is at odds with his 'two lines' and that most likely they absence of a reserve is unusual in an Italian context and that therefore this battle is an exception because the Etruscans have extended the front line in order to outflank or are themselves fewer in number and thus have bolstered the first line.
Secondly I think he leaves a question unresolved, which is the numbers of the Etruscans. A system which is broadly a few aristocrats and their clients does not suggest mass armies and yet Livy and Dionysius describe there being a lot of Etruscans.  That might be resolved by clientage being very wide and by  the lower class Etruscans coming along in numbers, perhaps with lesser weaponry requirements, or by the Ertuscans having small elite armies by city and needing a large number of cities to make up a sensible force.  As they are often shown fighting as one city or a few I would go for them having armies in which there are core units of well equipped rich people and then units of lesser equipped scutatoi. I would suggest this because the situlae show uniformly equipped warriors in a disciplined formation and with that interesting difference that there are better armoured round shielded men and lesser armoured men with long shields.
I do not see evidence for mixed mobs led by a few hoplite kitted nobles and including axe men and scutatoi in the same units.

Roy

'The Etruscan Phalanx
When the barbarians (Etruscans) learned that they (Cumeans) were ready to fight, they uttered their war-cry and came to close quarters, in the barbarian fashion, without any order, the horse and the foot intermingled.Dionysius (VII. 4)"

An interesting cite from Steven.  If we believe it then either the Etruscans are chaotic or perhaps they had a structure of smaller infantry units with units of cavalry able to move though gaps and thus not an infantry phalanx at all. I'd say that Dionysius is imagining away here, but there are a quite a few examples in Livy where Roman cavalry appear to charge the opponent's battle line and be deployed centrally, not on the flanks. As the Romans are  descended from the Etruscans it may be we see there an echo of a genuine Etruscan tactic??
Roy

As for chaotic, i think both secunda (osprey, early roman armies), and lendon, and maybe one other early period osprey (nic fields, im not sure) all have early Etruscan and roman armies as unformedish, more clustering around a central standard, than using formations and ranks .

That could easily be described as chaotic, despite it not really being as messy as the adjective suggests

That could fit with them being sort of like the Iberians?  However, I am deeply suspicious of depicting early  Italians, or anyone as  unformed. It smacks of the period when scholars claimed that pre the Greeks pretty well everything Western was Homeric, Heroic Warfare consisting of clumps led by nobles.  Generally I suggest they are in  ranks and files and have some ability to manoeuvre, particularly in advance and retreat . When we meet Celts and Germans they are certainly not in clumps.

Roy

I tend to agree, Roy.
The first time I saw the illustration in lendon, i thought he was badly wrong, but the text leads me to think he just interpreted the text quoted.

We might be able to prove this point through art - are there any early depictions of musical instruments in a military context?

Flutes, and later percussion, are the early form of cadence marching, and strongly indicate (if not even prove) formations

Quote from: aligern on August 11, 2014, 10:04:03 AM
'The Etruscan Phalanx
When the barbarians (Etruscans) learned that they (Cumeans) were ready to fight, they uttered their war-cry and came to close quarters, in the barbarian fashion, without any order, the horse and the foot intermingled.Dionysius (VII. 4)"

An interesting cite from Steven.  If we believe it then either the Etruscans are chaotic or perhaps they had a structure of smaller infantry units with units of cavalry able to move though gaps and thus not an infantry phalanx at all. I'd say that Dionysius is imagining away here, but there are a quite a few examples in Livy where Roman cavalry appear to charge the opponent's battle line and be deployed centrally, not on the flanks. As the Romans are  descended from the Etruscans it may be we see there an echo of a genuine Etruscan tactic??
Roy

I would not follow Dionysus literally. He was Greek, etruscans were enemies of Greeks since etruscans were sea Raiders and found themselves very often in conflict with Greeks. Then, Greeks had this peculiar idea that everyone out of Greece was a "barbarian". Probably they emphasised this idea of caothic charge in the German style to give a barbarian look to their old enemies etruscans.
I would not doubt that, at least in 6th century, etruscans used proper, ordered phalanx. Even because the hoplite equipment we sea in all those paintings is almost useless unless it is used in a phalanx. An argive shield is bulky in individual combat and is made to cover the guy to your left, so to create a wall of overlapping Shields.
As for the idea of few noblemen with clients being incompatible with phalanx, we should not forget that clients could be of different wealth. The few real aristocracy formed probably the cavalry. Being a complex and rich society it surely had its own merchants, wealthy land owners and farmers (Tuscany produces wine among the others, which can be quite expensive) and other people able to afford hoplite kit even if not being nobles. Even considering that not all hoplite kits costed the same, and a linen corslet as we usually see in paintings was surely less expensive than an ancient bronze armor fitted on single man. Same for oplon shield and sword, they could be of different quality and cost.
Maybe it is off topic but I made this video of how I imagine the etruscan phalanx act in battle. Notice that differently by how we usually imagine, the 2 phalanxes don't close totally one with the other but they leave a small Gap between, enough to hit with Spears while having some protection. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tunwOI5O-Pg
Othysmos on my opinion was the exception not the rule, because finding shield vs shield against a man who wanted to kill you was very dangerous on my opinion. Same for the charge which could not have stopped inertia in last seconds so it would have created the shield on shield situation and would have made first ranks being pressed very much from enemies in front and friends behind.  I have even liked how the Spartans  hoplites keep spears overarm as in painting (probably to make the enemies feel like they could throw it any moments) but they hit with underarm strikes, both low/middle and high/from above. 

Quote from: aligern on August 11, 2014, 07:20:04 AM
Studies of Etruscan DNA from tombs show them to be local Italians. 

*Sigh*  If one were to take DNA studies of Englishmen in the South or Midlands and compare them with Saxons from the same areas one could just as easily reach the conclusion that Saxons were 'local English' and any supposed connection with the Saxons of Germany is just a myth.

Come to think of it, I believe this has already been achieved at least once.

Much more to the point: what DNA studies comparing Etruscans and Lydians have been performed, and with what result?

In fact, we can answer that question: see this page (http://news.softpedia.com/news/DNA-Clears-Up-The-Origin-of-the-Etruscans-57551.shtml).

Quote
Now, the most accurate approach, the DNA analysis, was applied. A team led by Professor Piazza has investigated genetic samples from three present-day Tuscany (central Italy) populations from in Murlo, Volterra, and Casentino. "We already knew that people living in this area were genetically different from those in the surrounding regions. Murlo and Volterra are among the most archaeologically important Etruscan sites in a region of Tuscany also known for having Etruscan-derived place names and local dialects. The Casentino valley sample was taken from an area bordering the area where Etruscan influence has been preserved."

This DNA samples were compared to those coming from healthy males from Northern Italy, the Southern Balkans, the island of Lemnos (Greece), Turkey, and the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia.

The Tuscan samples came from individuals living in the area for at least three generations, based on their surnames, having a geographical distribution limited to the linguistic area of sampling. "We found that the DNA samples from individuals from Murlo and Volterra were more closely related those from near Eastern people than those of the other Italian samples. In Murlo particularly, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey, and, of the samples we obtained, the Tuscan ones also show the closest affinity with those from Lemnos", Piazza said.

Previously, the same relationship had been found for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the female lineages. Another mtDNA of local ancient breeds of cattle still living in Tuscany and other areas found a close link to those from Anatolia ...

... In 1885, an inscription in a pre-Greek language discovered in the island of Lemnos, dated to about the 6th century BC, presented many similarities with the Etruscan language both in its form and structure and its vocabulary. Herodotus' theory, criticized by many historians, claimed that the Etruscans emigrated from the ancient region of Lydia (now western Turkey). Half the population sailed from Smyrna (now Izmir) until they reached Umbria in Italy.

Indeed, tombs discovered in ancient Lydia are extremely similar to those of the Etruscans. The Etruscans were also skilled sailors, who traded with the Greeks and Cartagena and the God of the Sea, Neptunus, was important in their religion.

So it looks as if DNA testing confirms Herodotus' account after all, or at least indicates that Etruscans were originally Lydian migrants.

Quote from: aligern on August 11, 2014, 10:29:41 AM

I am deeply suspicious of depicting early  Italians, or anyone as  unformed. It smacks of the period when scholars claimed that pre the Greeks pretty well everything Western was Homeric, Heroic Warfare consisting of clumps led by nobles.  Generally I suggest they are in  ranks and files and have some ability to manoeuvre, particularly in advance and retreat . When we meet Celts and Germans they are certainly not in clumps.

Agreed: I think this instance [the helter-skelter cavalry-infantry charge against the Cumaeans] is an exception, as other accounts have the Etruscans fighting it out for much of the day in what seem to be close, compact bodies.  Rather than taking it to be a Dionysian conceit, noting that he does not repeat it on other occasions when Etruscans are mentioned, might we do better to put it down to the presumed unique circumstances of this particular engagement?

Quote from: Mark G on August 11, 2014, 10:41:09 AM

We might be able to prove this point through art - are there any early depictions of musical instruments in a military context?

Flutes, and later percussion, are the early form of cadence marching, and strongly indicate (if not even prove) formations

Yes.  Some of the processions have musicians.  One situla (I'll try and track down later but I'm dashing at the moment) has two guys in crested helmets playing what appear to be panpipes.  Given the helmets they must have a military connection.

The panpipers in helmets are on the Welzelach situla.  Context is very much a procession though.

Also, I found these great picks from Chiusi.  http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/etruskisch/Interesting

The Poggio Gaiella monument has a phalanxoid with diaulos player.  Note also the late image with a warrior carrying an oval shield.

Also, worth a skim through a google image search on Chiusi Tombs.  A lot of late ones, lots of Hellenistic influence.  Apparently, all Etruscan cavalry looked like Alexander - who knew?

There is an interesting relief of three-horse chariots (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7945858@N08/12666346274) in the collection.

Also intriguing is the mix of shields in this 2nd century BC picture (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7945858@N08/12708063225).

I hoped in some comments of my video of phalanx battle...

I've not had a chance to look at it, Andrew.
Busy week ahead, but i ill

Anthony, that Chiusi relief is really  great.  Might we conclude from it that:
The Etruscans have music and so advance in step or at least in rhythm.
They have shields that look like a Greek aspis, but is a bit smaller and has a different grip.
They are carrying spears parallel with the ground which look shorter than doru?

Roy

I have to admit, I think this phalanx-type body is involved in yet another Etruscan procession.  These often have musicians.  In this case, though, the position of the flautist does suggest he is within the hoplite body - they are usually shown separate.  I can't make out what the warriors are holding but they are carrying it at the trail.  As to the shorter spear, I am increasing sure that the shorter spear than the Greeks isn't just an artistic convenience.  If you do a google search for Etruscan stele, you will see yet another artistic funerary convention, again with a six foot or shorter spear.   While there, note this one from Bologna

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/442478732109775247/ - an oval scutum with central spina, if I'm not mistaken.

The cavalryman fighting a naked Celt is interesting too.

The Chiusi procession is probably a good guide to what the well-dressed 600-551 BC warrior from Chiusi was wearing.  I would hesitate to draw conclusions from it about any other Etruscans.

If we keep this up, we might be able to arrive at tentative orders of battle for each major Etruscan city for each century (and maybe half-century).  Previous studies have tended to lump all Etruscans together as a single and perhaps unified military system, but I think our evidence is increasingly showing this not to be the case.  What do others think?

Perhaps also worth a look is this ship (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15123080@N03/6041613444).  Yes, it is Etruscan, not Viking ... but note the 'sea service' shields.  (I suspect this is intended to depict Odysseus and the sirens.)

OK, here's another talking point :

http://www.antika.it/008981_oinochoe-di-tragliatella.html

A Trojan War theme (Etruscans loved Trojan War stories, on the evidence of their art).  A group of warriors with no helmet, overlapping argive shield and three javelins.  Ignore the two couples having sex and the cavalryman with monkey. Dated 630-600BC.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2014, 11:14:54 AM

Perhaps also worth a look is this ship (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15123080@N03/6041613444).  Yes, it is Etruscan, not Viking ... but note the 'sea service' shields.  (I suspect this is intended to depict Odysseus and the sirens.)

I think these are a genuine type - they appear a lot in various art.  The main distinguishing feature is the boss-like centre, often with radiating lines or petals as a pattern.  The central piece is sometimes painted red.  Size may vary - some with this concentric pattern are the size a a Greek hoplite aspis, others seem smaller like these.  They appear to be a later period feature, incidentally, from my limited survey.

Andrew,
Your video comes up as private when i try to view it

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 11, 2014, 08:04:10 PM
There is an interesting relief of three-horse chariots (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7945858@N08/12666346274) in the collection.

Trigae were used for racing; I know of no evidence for their combat use in Italy.

Quote from: Dionysios of Halicarnassus VII.73.2In the chariot races two very ancient customs continue to be observed by the Romans down to my time in the same manner as they were first instituted. The first relates to the chariots drawn by three horses, a custom now fallen into disuse among the Greeks, though it was an ancient institution of heroic times which Homer represents the Greeks as using in battle. For running beside two horses yoked together in the same manner as in the case of a two-horse chariot was a third horse attached by a trace; this trace-horse the ancients called parêoros or "outrunner," because he was "hitched beside" and not yoked to the others.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 12, 2014, 11:31:09 AM
Ignore the two couples having sex and the cavalryman with monkey.

As one does ... interesting to note the infantrymen's apparently hoplite-type shields all carrying the same animal device while the cavalry shields (similarly-sized?) have an avian motif.  Two spears seem to be the infantry norm, as one might expect in 630-600 BC, but it is noticeable that the cavalryman with a spear has just the one, and it is long enough to suggest a lance.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 12, 2014, 11:49:40 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2014, 11:14:54 AM

Perhaps also worth a look is this ship (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15123080@N03/6041613444).  Yes, it is Etruscan, not Viking ... but note the 'sea service' shields.  (I suspect this is intended to depict Odysseus and the sirens.)

I think these are a genuine type - they appear a lot in various art.  The main distinguishing feature is the boss-like centre, often with radiating lines or petals as a pattern.  The central piece is sometimes painted red.  Size may vary - some with this concentric pattern are the size a a Greek hoplite aspis, others seem smaller like these.  They appear to be a later period feature, incidentally, from my limited survey.

Just trying to cast my mind back to Duncan's round-shield tomb engraving from 310 BC ...

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2014, 11:14:54 AMIf we keep this up, we might be able to arrive at tentative orders of battle for each major Etruscan city for each century (and maybe half-century).  Previous studies have tended to lump all Etruscans together as a single and perhaps unified military system, but I think our evidence is increasingly showing this not to be the case.

There are some interesting pictures in this article (https://www.academia.edu/1188802/Armati_e_tombe_con_armi_nella_societa_dellEtruria_padana_analisi_di_alcuni_documenti) on the Etruscans in the Po Valley. (The text may be interesting as well, but I haven't struggled with it yet.) Of course not all the illustrations are Etruscan, some of them are comparative.

Quote from: Mark G on August 12, 2014, 12:50:38 PM
Andrew,
Your video comes up as private when i try to view it

try again now. Problem solved.

I'm not so sure this fits the descriptions
.
And the Sparta s are far too passive

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 12, 2014, 11:01:18 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2014, 11:14:54 AMIf we keep this up, we might be able to arrive at tentative orders of battle for each major Etruscan city for each century (and maybe half-century).  Previous studies have tended to lump all Etruscans together as a single and perhaps unified military system, but I think our evidence is increasingly showing this not to be the case.

There are some interesting pictures in this article (https://www.academia.edu/1188802/Armati_e_tombe_con_armi_nella_societa_dellEtruria_padana_analisi_di_alcuni_documenti) on the Etruscans in the Po Valley. (The text may be interesting as well, but I haven't struggled with it yet.) Of course not all the illustrations are Etruscan, some of them are comparative.

Excellent find, Duncan.  I attempted to run the text through Google Translate in quest of dates, but it locked me out.  C'est la vie ...

Quote from: Mark G on August 13, 2014, 06:32:20 AM
I'm not so sure this fits the descriptions
.
And the Sparta s are far too passive

yep I should have made athens/etruscans charge, maybe together with Spartans. They would have us4d swords more, too (I tried in another game). But playing against artificial intelligence has its own problems. Anyway I have noticed that at least some of the real tactical problems are noticeable even playing (for example, phalanx good in defense but moving slow, not flexible, breaking the line easily when there are obstacles in the ground...). Even the lower arm vs upper arm problem is Clearly visible. My idea is that in close order upper arm is better because the angle of the spear does not create problems for the guys behind, otherwise lower arm is better in single duels, no doubt.

That also doesn't fit with the evidence though.

This idea that the phalanx was defensive and slow is not born out by the evidence, such as sources describing the phalanx charging, and attacking at a run.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 12, 2014, 11:01:18 PM

There are some interesting pictures in this article (https://www.academia.edu/1188802/Armati_e_tombe_con_armi_nella_societa_dellEtruria_padana_analisi_di_alcuni_documenti) on the Etruscans in the Po Valley. (The text may be interesting as well, but I haven't struggled with it yet.) Of course not all the illustrations are Etruscan, some of them are comparative.

There seem to be plenty of oval and rectangular shields in there.  It is a shame the captions aren't fuller - presumably, the details are buried in the text.  Some are probably chaseable through internet search if you know where they came from e.g.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museo_archeologico_di_Rosignano_Marittimo,_stele_di_guerriero_da_castiglioncello,_fine_IV_inizio_III_sec._ac..JPG

Late 4th - early 3rd century, as the file title says.

Quote from: Mark G on August 13, 2014, 10:57:15 AM
That also doesn't fit with the evidence though.

This idea that the phalanx was defensive and slow is not born out by the evidence, such as sources describing the phalanx charging, and attacking at a run.

I remember I have read somewhere that Spartans attacked marching slowly in silence. Not running or charging.

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 13, 2014, 01:55:11 PM

Quote from: Mark G on August 13, 2014, 10:57:15 AMThis idea that the phalanx was defensive and slow is not born out by the evidence, such as sources describing the phalanx charging, and attacking at a run.

I remember I have read somewhere that Spartans attacked marching slowly in silence. Not running or charging.

Yes, but that is in contrast with the way that other Greek phalanxes behaved - it doesn't mean that the hoplite phalanx as such was slow:

Quote from: Xenophon, Hellenica, describing the battle of CoroneaAs they drew together, for a while deep silence reigned on either side; but when they were not more than a stade apart, with the loud hurrah the Thebans, quickening to a run, rushed furiously to close quarters; and now there was barely a hundred yards breadth between the two armies, when Herippidas with his foreign brigade, and with them the Ionians, Aeolians, and Hellespontines, darted out from the Spartans' battle-lines to greet their onset. One and all of the above played their part in the first rush forward; in another instant they were within spear-thrust of the enemy, and had routed the section immediately before them...

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 13, 2014, 02:13:07 PM

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 13, 2014, 01:55:11 PM

Quote from: Mark G on August 13, 2014, 10:57:15 AMThis idea that the phalanx was defensive and slow is not born out by the evidence, such as sources describing the phalanx charging, and attacking at a run.

I remember I have read somewhere that Spartans attacked marching slowly in silence. Not running or charging.

Yes, but that is in contrast with the way that other Greek phalanxes behaved - it doesn't mean that the hoplite phalanx as such was slow:

Quote from: Xenophon, Hellenica, describing the battle of CoroneaAs they drew together, for a while deep silence reigned on either side; but when they were not more than a stade apart, with the loud hurrah the Thebans, quickening to a run, rushed furiously to close quarters; and now there was barely a hundred yards breadth between the two armies, when Herippidas with his foreign brigade, and with them the Ionians, Aeolians, and Hellespontines, darted out from the Spartans' battle-lines to greet their onset. One and all of the above played their part in the first rush forward; in another instant they were within spear-thrust of the enemy, and had routed the section immediately before them...

ok, i could even make them running and charging and even yelling when close, not a problem, it was only a first attempt. Anyway I find the possibility to recreate somehow historical battles, even with same numbers, and warriors (there are mods who recreate armors very historically accurate, not that one I have used anyway) with modern graphical "games"/simulators very interesting, don't you agree?
(ok, back on topic, sorry [emoji6])

Oh yes,
Of course, you really want the processing power that weta uses for its cgi.

The goal is a good one.

I would be tempted to try some specific battles, though.  Ones for which we have a good idea of the deployment.

One interesting aspect of Etruscan warfare which certainly isn't Greek is use of the axe.  The paper Duncan shared showed a quite distinctive set of images of men with single handed axes and there are others.  These are single headed axes but there was an image with a double-headed axe and an example of what I take to be an all-iron example.  There is a famous image of a hoplite-type with one of these.  I suspect that these two-headed axes might have a symbolic rather than just a combat function - cf fasces - perhaps symbolizing authority?  What I haven't found so far is an an image of a two-handed axe in combat, although they feature in wargames figure ranges and computer games.  Is there a literary basis for this weapon, or have a missed some obvious images?

See here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2Ofa_0Y5Iu8C&pg=PA755&lpg=PA755&dq=etruscan+axe+battle&source=bl&ots=U48Ulvdyz6&sig=1PCENGOGygRqLZ7TtcmUzZ5aeRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cYjrU73vGu-v7Aar14HACw&ved=0CGoQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=etruscan%20axe%20battle&f=false) for a suggestion that the Etruscan use of the Greek aspis didn't make them Greek-style hoplites - using the axe as one example of why they weren't.

(There is some evidence for Phoenician-Punic use of two-headed axes, as well, but I suspect them of being emblems of rank.)

Quote from: Erpingham on August 13, 2014, 11:36:26 AM

Late 4th - early 3rd century, as the file title says.

Just when the Romans effectively subdued Etruria (311-280 BC).  Are we seeing Roman influence here?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 13, 2014, 07:13:58 PMJust when the Romans effectively subdued Etruria (311-280 BC).  Are we seeing Roman influence here?

Or vice versa? Maule & Smith in Votive Religion at Caere reckon that some of the Caere statuettes with Montefortino helmet, muscle cuirass, oval scutum, and sword on the right may predate the Roman adoption of the scutum (which they date to Camillus, a chronology with which not everyone may agree - and to be honest, the dating of the statuettes isn't all that firm, either!).

Or Samnite-Oscan influence, perhaps?

Quote from: Erpingham on August 13, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
One interesting aspect of Etruscan warfare which certainly isn't Greek is use of the axe.  The paper Duncan shared showed a quite distinctive set of images of men with single handed axes and there are others.  These are single headed axes but there was an image with a double-headed axe and an example of what I take to be an all-iron example.  There is a famous image of a hoplite-type with one of these.  I suspect that these two-headed axes might have a symbolic rather than just a combat function - cf fasces - perhaps symbolizing authority?  What I haven't found so far is an an image of a two-handed axe in combat, although they feature in wargames figure ranges and computer games.  Is there a literary basis for this weapon, or have a missed some obvious images?

I remember from school art classes that minoic civilization often used the 2 heads axe in many painting. Since its use in battle is scarcely effective, the idea is that it was a symbol of authority and power. Look at Roman lictori who accompanied consul. They brought this 2 head axe together with many wooden shafts packed. Symbol of the punitive or killing power of the consul. So Romans inherited this symbol from etruscans who inherited it from Greek civilization who inherited it from minoic civilization. More or less. This is only what I remember.
Anyway, it was not a battle axe.

Even if the double-headed axe was never a practical weapon, there are so many other axes from Etruscan and other Italian sources with single blades that it is hard to dismiss them all. For example, the four axemen at the end of the Certosa Situla procession (Veneti?); the Umbrian axehead from the Castellonchio tomb at http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/armor/c-panoplies.html (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/armor/c-panoplies.html); the stele of Larthi Aninies.

the axes inside the fasces always intrigued me. 

clearly symbolic, they seem a lot more so if the axe was a symbol of the Etruscan cities, which Rome banded together to be stronger than.

if the etruscans did limit their political power to those 12 cities, and Rome was an Etruscan colony which wanted to be bigger than just a town under the 12...

something we can never now, of course, or even test a little.

Quote from: Mark G on August 14, 2014, 04:53:20 PM
the axes inside the fasces always intrigued me. 

clearly symbolic, they seem a lot more so if the axe was a symbol of the Etruscan cities, which Rome banded together to be stronger than.

if the etruscans did limit their political power to those 12 cities, and Rome was an Etruscan colony which wanted to be bigger than just a town under the 12...

something we can never now, of course, or even test a little.

I guess there are already many interpretations of that symbol, there are many books over there  that me and you will never read or hear about. Etrusco Roman society is rather well known even if there are very few dubious points.

Quote from: Mark G on August 14, 2014, 04:53:20 PM
the axes inside the fasces always intrigued me. 

clearly symbolic ...

I think it is more to do with the Roman 'old-style execution' (see Caesar, Gallic War VI.44, where Acco the Gaul is condemned to this fate), which if I remember correctly involved fastening the naked victim to a forked stick, thrashing him within an inch (2.54 cm) of his life with the rods and then cutting off his head with the axe.

The lictors carrying their bundles behind the consul were thus a stark reminder to all who saw them that you obey the consul's authority or we shall beat you to a quivering pulp and then cut off your head.  That seems to have been the only symbolism involved before Mussolini got hold of the idea of using them for his insignia.

As technology advanced and the empire succeeded the republic, this process was replaced by the scourge plus crucifixion, a process which broke fewer bones but nevertheless hurt more.  Human ingenuity should not be underestimated.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 13, 2014, 04:54:27 PM
See here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2Ofa_0Y5Iu8C&pg=PA755&lpg=PA755&dq=etruscan+axe+battle&source=bl&ots=U48Ulvdyz6&sig=1PCENGOGygRqLZ7TtcmUzZ5aeRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cYjrU73vGu-v7Aar14HACw&ved=0CGoQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=etruscan%20axe%20battle&f=false) for a suggestion that the Etruscan use of the Greek aspis didn't make them Greek-style hoplites - using the axe as one example of why they weren't.

I've just noticed that the chapter in question is available in full, including illustrations, here (https://www.academia.edu/5957978/The_Art_of_the_Etruscan_Armourer).

Andrew,

You might like to scan thucidides on Mantinea for some inspiration for revising your hoplite battle video.

Thuc. 5.70

QuoteAfter this they joined battle, the Argives and their allies advancing with haste and fury, the Lacedaemonians slowly and to the music of many flute-players—a standing institution in their army, that has nothing to do with religion, but is meant to make them advance evenly, stepping in time, without breaking their order, as large armies are apt to do in the moment of engaging.

he goes on to talk about the lines inclining to the right as well.

Thank you for the Ross Cowan article Duncan,  He comes down decisively on the side of Etruscans being looser order than Greeks and using missiles and then vertical cutting sidearms. His summary of their style is Livy 9:39 5-11 which I take to be :
9.39]The following day, after fresh auspices had been taken, the Dictator was invested with his official powers. He took command of the legions which were raised during the scare connected with the expedition through the Ciminian forest, and led them to Longula. Here he took over the consul's troops, and with the united force went into the field. The enemy showed no disposition to shirk battle, but while the two armies stood facing each other fully prepared for action, yet neither anxious to begin, they were overtaken by night. Their standing camps were within a short distance of each other, and for some days they remained quiet, not, however, through any distrust of their own strength or any feeling of contempt for the enemy. Meantime the Romans were meeting with success in Etruria, for in an engagement with the Umbrians the enemy were unable to keep up the fight with the spirit with which they began it, and, without any great loss, were completely routed. An engagement also took place at Lake Vadimonis, where the Etruscans had concentrated an army raised under a lex sacrata, in which each man chose his comrade. As their army was more numerous than any they had previously raised, so they exhibited a higher courage than they had ever shown before. So savage was the feeling on both sides that, without discharging a single missile, they began the fight at once with swords. The fury displayed in the combat, which long hung in the balance, was such that it seemed as though it was not the Etruscans who had been so often defeated that we were fighting with, but some new, unknown people. There was not the slightest sign of yielding anywhere; as the men in the first line fell, those in the second took their places, to defend the standards. At length the last reserves had to be brought up, and to such an extremity of toil and danger had matters come that the Roman cavalry dismounted, and, leaving their horses in charge, made their way over piles of armour and heaps of slain to the front ranks of the infantry. They appeared like a fresh army amongst the exhausted combatants, and at once threw the Etruscan standards into confusion. The rest of the men, worn out as they were, nevertheless followed up the cavalry attack, and at last broke through the enemy's ranks. Their determined resistance was now overcome, and when once their maniples began to give way, they soon took to actual flight. That day broke for the first time the power of the Etruscans after their long-continued and abundant prosperity. The main strength of their army was left on the field, and their camp was taken and plundered.

Whilst the tenor of the above is maniples and missiles I would not claim that it is absolute  confirmation . I was a little concerned at the point at which Ross Cowan was explaining that Etruscan armour was fitted to a looser style than hoplite armour when the only necessity for hoplite style was the aspis and helmet as Duncan showed in AMPW.  I don't think that Cowan deals with the issue if Etruscan long shields, either, but over all, I am heartened by his view on Etruscans as not being some sort  of imitation hoplite, but an Italian fighting style, in Greek and imitation Greek and Italian kit.
Roy

One of my reservations about the Cowan thesis and similar suggestions is: precisely how far is the suggested style "non-hoplite"? Hans van Wees argued that the fully-developed close-order Greek hoplite phalanx was a phenomenon only of the fifth century, and that earlier hoplites fought in a looser style, some using throwing-spears and sometimes mixed in with light troops. Adam Krentz, I think it was, argued for hoplites normally fighting on a four-cubit/six foot frontage, whicih would be loose enough for individual combat.

If you accept either of these (and I am not inclined to accept Krentz, not so sure about van Wees) then the difference between Greek and Etruscan-Italian combat may not be as great as we might think. Though even a loose vanWeesian Greek phalanx is not articulated into maniples.

I think to an extent it is partially how rigidly you define your picture of a phalanx.  Mark and to an extent Roy have a definition which is not just about combat style but social organisation.  Clearly, Etruscans can't be a phalanx because they have the wrong social organisation.  If we talk about troops moving around in close order with similar armour to the Greeks, the Etruscans might have a phalanx.  We know that the "true" phalanx could fight with throwing spears in its early development (for at least a couple of hundred years, as I understand it) then type of spear isn't the critical issue.  Phalanxes didn't just scuttle slowly forward, shields locked either.  We have classical phalanxes running at the enemy over a couple of hundred metres.  So, what is the big difference postulated about Etruscans that makes any kind of phalanx impossible?  Is it that they fight in an Italian Way of War, which is more missile skirmishing than any self-respecting phalanx?

What I was reacting to, at the beginning of this daughter thread was the portrayal of Etruscans as being like the phalanx of the Greeks in the period of Thucydides because they are wearing Greek or Greek inspired equipment.

If I had a thesis about the Etruscans it would be that:
1) They have different classes in the army , top chaps have aspires, Greek kit, lower classes have scuta and lesser armour in an Italian belt and disc style.
2) All Etruscans fight with two throwing or a throwing and dual purpose spear.
3) Etruscan organisation is probably cohorts rather than maniples, made of the different classes by city.
4) Roman methods are developments of Etruscan methods and the Roman revolution, if there is one, is to give the triarii spears as well as their top class Greek inspired kit.

I just think that leaping to the idea that the Etruscans are copying the Greeks tactically because the armour they wear looks Greek is a poor line of logic.
That the Greeks start out with hoplite kit and yet use javelins is an interesting twist and conforms to the view that there is an overall Mediterranean way of War in using the javelin, though I doubt that anyone in hoplite kit is running back and forth with them.....one run into combat is allowed.


I could buy on item 2 that its a large area with lots of cities (12 mothers and their daughters) so there may have been spear armed troops too. By spear I mean a spear that does more of the job of a doru rather than a longche.

Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 15, 2014, 11:41:28 AM2) All Etruscans fight with two throwing or a throwing and dual purpose spear.
... I could buy on item 2 that its a large area with lots of cities (12 mothers and their daughters) so there may have been spear armed troops too. By spear I mean a spear that does more of the job of a doru rather than a longche.

It is interesting that on the Aristonothos krater's scene of naval combat, the weapons of Greeks and Etruscans seem to be identical - both have a single spear that looks to me to be levelled in an overarm thrust rather than prepared to throw (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/AristonothosKrater.html (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/AristonothosKrater.html); see also this article (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L-VmL59CfkcC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=aristonothos+krater&source=bl&ots=pHhCECLOZJ&sig=y6isAQfjbwE_hKC0O20dr86Tffg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EObtU9iSMurD7AaxtYHQAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=aristonothos%20krater&f=false)).

Do we have any other artistic sources for actually Etruscans in battle  - preferably on land, and other than heroic single combats in mythological scenes, that is? Is there anything that indicates, or alternatively that rules out, a phalanx, or that throws light on spear usage?

QuoteI just think that leaping to the idea that the Etruscans are copying the Greeks tactically because the armour they wear looks Greek is a poor line of logic.

Of course the later Romans seem to have thought so, as well:

Quote from: Ineditum VaticanumThe Etruscans used to wage war against us armed with bronze shields and arrayed in a phalanx, not arranged in maniples. We changed our equipment and adopted theirs, and arraying ourselves in battle against them overcame them, though they had long experience of fighting in a phalanx formation.

Quote from: aligern on August 15, 2014, 11:41:28 AM

He [Cowan] comes down decisively on the side of Etruscans being looser order than Greeks and using missiles and then vertical cutting sidearms. His summary of their style is Livy 9:39 5-11

Two observations here.

1) The combat mentioned is in 310 BC; it is applicable to late 4th century Etruscans (who now, belatedly, seem to be getting together as a federation) but not necessarily to earlier Etruscans.

2) Cowan assumes that "The javelin is a weapon of fluid open order combat. The kopis and axe, being weapons of individual combat, were not appropriate to the close-order phalanx of the Greek hoplite."

This is a flawed set of assumptions.  The javelin, kopis-equivalent and axe were all used by late-Roman legionaries, cf. Ammianus' account of Adrianople (Ammianus XXXI.13 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D31%3Achapter%3D13)).  We also see close-order Egyptian infantry with javelin and khopesh or hand axe.  I would advise ignoring this conclusion of Cowan's as it simply does not hold water.

To be fair though, you might also advise ignoring it just because it was written within the last two thousand years, eh pat.

(joking)

Which is the best van wees to look out for his thesis on that aspect of hoplite warfare?
it sounds intetesting

Quote from: Mark G on August 15, 2014, 07:53:12 AM
Andrew,

You might like to scan thucidides on Mantinea for some inspiration for revising your hoplite battle video.

Thuc. 5.70

QuoteAfter this they joined battle, the Argives and their allies advancing with haste and fury, the Lacedaemonians slowly and to the music of many flute-players—a standing institution in their army, that has nothing to do with religion, but is meant to make them advance evenly, stepping in time, without breaking their order, as large armies are apt to do in the moment of engaging.

he goes on to talk about the lines inclining to the right as well.

thanks for the source, I will try to make something more historical, that was only a first attempt. I was playing as Athenian against Ai as Spartans so I could not make Spartans advance. I put Ai to defensive mode so it stayed where it was, otherwise if it was offensive it would have probably done some caothic mess, not advancing in line as it should. If you have the game and want to play with  me I could make something better for sure, maybe using more historical armors.
For the flute thing, I knew that, but could you find me some spartan flute music (pyrrhic songs, I guess that was the name?)? it would be very cool indeed to recreate a phalanx battle in all details with real sounds and music. I have always loved the idea.

Quote from: Mark G on August 15, 2014, 12:42:05 PMWhich is the best van wees to look out for his thesis on that aspect of hoplite warfare?
it sounds intetesting

Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities (Bristol UP 2004).

The main response to vW, re-arguing for hoplites in close order from the start, is Adam Schwartz, Reinstating the hoplite: Arms, armour and phalanx fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2009). Both books are well worth reading.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 15, 2014, 12:27:39 PM2) Cowan assumes that "The javelin is a weapon of fluid open order combat. The kopis and axe, being weapons of individual combat, were not appropriate to the close-order phalanx of the Greek hoplite."

This is a flawed set of assumptions.  The javelin, kopis-equivalent and axe were all used by late-Roman legionaries, cf. Ammianus' account of Adrianople (Ammianus XXXI.13 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D31%3Achapter%3D13)).

Well, I don't know if that's as cut-and-dried as one might think, though I agree that the javelin certainly isn't limited to "fluid open-order combat". Someone's supposedly using axes on both sides at Adrianople, but there's no telling that the Roman axes are the weapons of legionaries and not auxiliaries or cavalrymen. (The only Late Roman illustration of an axe I can think of, apart from those in the Notitia drawings, is carried by a  mounted officer.)

And if you are saying that kopides, javelins and axes are compatible with a Roman tradition of spear-throwing legionary swordsmen, then I suspect Cowan would agree, and would situate the Etruscans in precisely that tradition: heavy infantry but nonetheless more individual than the hoplite phalanx. Although he doesn't explicitly say so, he seems to be placing them as forerunners of the Roman tactical style rather than as Greek copyists.

I'm currently undecided. What I would love to see is a good nunmerical analysis of Etruscan spearheads - can we, as Roy envisages, see javelins or proto-pila or some sort of throwing-spear in most surving panoplies, or are hoplite-style thrusting-spears common? But I don't think you can rule out Cowan's idea as easily as Patrick suggests.

QuoteWe also see close-order Egyptian infantry with javelin and khopesh or hand axe.  I would advise ignoring this conclusion of Cowan's as it simply does not hold water.

I'm not sure we really know how close an order the Egyptians usually operated in.

Thanks Duncan,

We should update that thread on recommended readings on...

Patrick, it all depends upon the closeness of your close order.
If we imagine the classic Greek aspis and doru phalanx as being such that the men can obtain protection from the shield of the man to their right and that the back ranks  are literally pushing their aspides into the backs of the men in front than that is close, perhaps dense order. If the men are standing with their shields flat to the front with a space between each man in which he can fence around a bit then that is close order, or loose order if the first order is close.

I see Etruscans normally in an order that enables them to move around, but still with shield rims  within a few inches of each other. However, I wouldn't preclude Greeks operating in a looser order or Etruscans closer.

The Ineditum Vaticanum cite which Ross Cowan dismisses has the Romans adopting Etruscan methods in order to defeat them. That would make Roman Republican deployment like Etruscan deployment!!  That would make there Etruscans a non classic phalanx?

I'd also like to draw attention to the other 'classes' on the Certosa situla.  Etruscan social structure of lords and dependents sounds apt for an army that has lords in Greek imported gear and followers in Italian traditional kit with scuta. That rather sits well with there being lots of Etruscans and cohort like formations fits with the point that Jim made about multiple standards.
If we could look at spear heads then could we tell a doru head from an longche point?

Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 15, 2014, 03:01:39 PM
If we imagine the classic Greek asps and dour phalanx

The predictive text gets better and better - these are the serious-looking guys with snakes on their shields, I presume?

Quote from: aligern on August 15, 2014, 03:01:39 PMI'd also like to draw attention to the other 'classes' on the Certosa situla.  Etruscan social structure of lords and dependents sounds apt for an army that has lords in Greek imported gear and followers in Italian traditional kit with scuta. That rather sits well with there being lots of Etruscans and cohort like formations fits with the point that Jim made about multiple standards.

The problem with the situla evidence is that the Certosa situla is surely Venetic, not Etruscan. (See eg this (http://www.ubiquitypress.com/files/009-writingasmaterialpractice-ch13.pdf).}When we do see scuta in Po Valley Etruscan art, we may be looking at influences from neighbours or local subjects that are not felt in metropolitan Etruria. While there are scuta in Etrurian homeland art, they don't seem to be all that numerous and may not fit into the military system in the same way that the Certosa situla implies.

Thank you for pointing that out Duncan :-)

Corrected I hope.

We should perhaps note that the text says situla art starts in Etruria and moves north.  7th century examples could easily represent Etruscan motifs and practices, with the connection weakening through time.

It does though raise a puzzle.  Most of our square scutum "Etruscans" come from situla art.  We assume this shield is an early indigenous Italian peninsular style.  What if it is a northern style?  When we get later Etruscan carvings and art of scuta, lots seem to be Celtic style ovals, not rounded edged rectangles.  Has contact with Celts introduced a new long shield type?  It certainly seems to have affected helmet design.  Did they adopt mail, like the Romans?

It may also be worth considering that we seem to have had Etruscans and Etruscans, i.e. some of the city-states may have been less hoplite-oriented than others.  My own feeling is that unless we keep dates and cities of origin clearly in mind when considering Etruscan artwork, we shall simply end up confusing ourselves.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 15, 2014, 01:34:30 PM

I'm not sure we really know how close an order the Egyptians usually operated in.

Anyone with Breasted's History of Egypt (2nd Edition) can look at Fig 104 facing page 234 for an answer to this.  The relief depicts some of Hatshepsut's escort, and they are definitely in close formation (3' or less per man).  Owners of Velikovsky's Ramses II and his Time can flip through the plates therein, notably Champollion's Plate 33 and Kuentz's Egyptian soldiery from his La Bataille de Kadesh.  Champollions's is a drawing but Kuentz' is a photograph.  Champollion's illustration depicts Egyptian infantry with spears and large shields while Kuentz's shows them with axes and large shields; both show the Egyptian infantry in unmistakeable close formation of the 3' (or less) per man variety.  I am sure there are other volumes with depictions of relevant reliefs; the internet however seems devoid of them, at least as far as my search engines are concerned.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YEptNfFiA

could this represent more or less a hoplite battle?

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 16, 2014, 09:31:48 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YEptNfFiA

could this represent more or less a hoplite battle?

Very nicely done, Andrew. I suspect that the othismos was done with more organised files, i.e. the men in the rear ranks were directly lined up behind the hoplite in the front and pushed together with him.

It makes sense that the two armies might have stood apart a couple of feet whilst sparring with spears, at least some of the time.

How did you make the movie? I have RTW2 but still have to figure out how to get a video like that out of it.

Here is Xenophon's account of a hoplite battle (in 394 BC). 

Quote
Now as the opposing armies were coming together, there was deep silence for a time in both lines; but when they were distant from one another about a stadium, the Thebans raised the war-cry and rushed to close quarters on the run. When, however, the distance between the armies was still about three plethra, the troops whom Herippidas commanded, and with them the Ionians, Aeolians, and Hellespontines, ran forth in their turn from the phalanx of Agesilaus, and the whole mass joined in the charge and, when they came within spear thrust, put to flight the force in their front. As for the Argives, they did not await the attack of the forces of Agesilaus, but fled to Mount Helicon. [18] Thereupon some of the mercenaries were already garlanding Agesilaus, when a man brought him word that the Thebans had cut their way through the Orchomenians and were in among the baggage train. And he immediately wheeled his phalanx and led the advance against them; but the Thebans on their side, when they saw that their allies had taken refuge at Mount Helicon, wishing to break through to join their own friends, massed themselves together and came on stoutly. [19]

At this point one may unquestionably call Agesilaus courageous; at least he certainly did not choose the safest course. For while he might have let the men pass by who were trying to break through and then have followed them and overcome those in the rear, he did not do this, but crashed against the Thebans front to front; and setting shields against shields they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed. Finally, some of the Thebans broke through and reached Mount Helicon, but many were killed while making their way thither.

I do admire the video (really good work, Andrew), but I think the hoplites need to crash and shove against each other rather than stand and thrust their spears into empty air - if it is possible to make this happen with RTW2.  (If not, just ignore my comments. :) )

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 16, 2014, 09:31:48 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YEptNfFiA

could this represent more or less a hoplite battle?

Impressive Andrew.  I liked the music - early medieval?  Very atmospheric.  I think I'd lose the GI Joe shouting, though.  I know you're trying to show that a lot of orders are flying about, but I found it a bit distracting.  Incidentally, did Spartans sing the paean as they advanced?

As to the fighting, perhaps a few less casualties in the front ranks?  Less dramatic but perhaps a better recreation.  I'm sure you are working on the rout.  It would be good to see some throwing away of shields and perhaps some fighting clumps backing off the field?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2014, 10:49:56 AM

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 16, 2014, 09:31:48 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YEptNfFiA

could this represent more or less a hoplite battle?

Very nicely done, Andrew. I suspect that the othismos was done with more organised files, i.e. the men in the rear ranks were directly lined up behind the hoplite in the front and pushed together with him.

It makes sense that the two armies might have stood apart a couple of feet whilst sparring with spears, at least some of the time.

How did you make the movie? I have RTW2 but still have to figure out how to get a video like that out of it.

if you have r2tw you can add me on steam, my nickname is Drtruman. I used some mods to recreate that effect but playing against a player I could make better things. For example a proper charge from both sides . Maybe a better othysmos. [emoji6] Add me, I only need one fast battle so I will put the replay after and record.
We could try to remake some etruscan/early manipular formations too.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2014, 11:55:36 AM

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 16, 2014, 09:31:48 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YEptNfFiA

could this represent more or less a hoplite battle?

Impressive Andrew.  I liked the music - early medieval?  Very atmospheric.  I think I'd lose the GI Joe shouting, though.  I know you're trying to show that a lot of orders are flying about, but I found it a bit distracting.  Incidentally, did Spartans sing the paean as they advanced?

As to the fighting, perhaps a few less casualties in the front ranks?  Less dramatic but perhaps a better recreation.  I'm sure you are working on the rout.  It would be good to see some throwing away of shields and perhaps some fighting clumps backing off the field?

Spartans played pyrrhic songs during march but I have no idea why I only remembered it after making the video. For the video I have used some real ancient greek music but it is not a proper war song.  I was wondering if moder greek  music called Pyrrich (you can find it on YouTube under this name) was the same played by Spartans in the March because the rhythm seems to me a bit to fast.
As for the animations of throwing away Shields, it would be cool and realistic but I am not able to change animations... I would need to recruit some good programmer. There are few guys in total war center who are able to do that, I am sure, but do not on request. Maybe if you pay? [emoji1]  [emoji6]

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 15, 2014, 06:15:45 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 15, 2014, 01:34:30 PM
I'm not sure we really know how close an order the Egyptians usually operated in.

Anyone with Breasted's History of Egypt (2nd Edition) can look at Fig 104 facing page 234 for an answer to this.  The relief depicts some of Hatshepsut's escort, and they are definitely in close formation (3' or less per man).

This one (http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/bb7/c10/soldiers-hatshepsut-temple-luxor.jpg) - also here (http://www.myartprints.co.uk/kunst/egyptian/relief_depicting_soldiers_sen_hi.jpg)?  They certainly seem to be marching in pretty close formation, but how this relates to combat styles is less clear.

As for Qadesh, this one (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f6pYVWOXkuo/T43ErqiqsLI/AAAAAAAACa0/pXLjCKi4mH4/s1600/The+Battle+of+Kadesh12.jpg) has shielded Egyptian infantry at lower left, and there's this (http://www.kemet.nl/wp-content/uploads/Slag-bij-Kadesj-3-foto-1.jpg). But the same reservation applies.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 17, 2014, 06:29:54 PM

This one (http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/bb7/c10/soldiers-hatshepsut-temple-luxor.jpg) - also here (http://www.myartprints.co.uk/kunst/egyptian/relief_depicting_soldiers_sen_hi.jpg)?  They certainly seem to be marching in pretty close formation, but how this relates to combat styles is less clear.

Yes, that is the one.  I am assuming (based on what other armies seem to do) that marchers will not be in a closer formation than troops in combat, particularly when considering orderly types like Egyptians.

Quote
As for Qadesh, this one (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f6pYVWOXkuo/T43ErqiqsLI/AAAAAAAACa0/pXLjCKi4mH4/s1600/The+Battle+of+Kadesh12.jpg) has shielded Egyptian infantry at lower left,

And not just Egyptians: those round-shield troops look interesting, though at this resolution it is hard to make out relevant details.  As there does seem to be fighting going on, might it be valid to surmise that the infantry would be shown in battle formation, or at least battle closeness?

Quote
and there's this (http://www.kemet.nl/wp-content/uploads/Slag-bij-Kadesj-3-foto-1.jpg). But the same reservation applies.

Yes, they do look like a close, large-shield formation: almost a phalanx (note the 'almost'  ;)).  Again, do we know of any cultures which marched in tighter formations than those in which they fought?

Another contribution to the Italian/early Roman warfare discussion is Tomczak, "Roman military equipment in the 4th century BC" (http://folia.archeologia.uni.lodz.pl/folia_archaeologica_29/folia29_tomczak.pdf). Much of it has been said before, of course. One interesting illustration (figure 4) is another Praenestine cista, dated "c.325-275", this one featuring a warrior with Argive hoplite shield and thonged throwing spear.

I don't suppose you know how to get hold of Koons thesis, do you?

Quote from: Mark G on August 18, 2014, 05:41:43 PM
I don't suppose you know how to get hold of Koons thesis, do you?

It's been published as a book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Infantry-Narratives-British-Archaeological-International/dp/1407306324/ (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Infantry-Narratives-British-Archaeological-International/dp/1407306324/)

I published a review in Slingshot, probably late 2012.

Or if you're an academia.edu member, you could try messaging him from https://manchester.academia.edu/SamKoon (https://manchester.academia.edu/SamKoon) and beg....