Hello, after having a very nice discussion in my introduction thread, I decided to start a new one here on the various peoples surrounding Rome in Italy. I'd like to go as far north as Etruria/Umbria and as far south as Bruttium/Magna Graecia from the time frame of 280 BC - after the 2nd Punic War. I basically want to know what the allies of rome looked like, and at what point did they start looking like the Polybian Legionaries?
From my understanding the Oscans (Lucani, Samnites, Brutii, and Sabelli) basically had the same troops (Spearmen with Javelins and an Italian Scutum like shield, equipped with a helmet, breast plates, and greaves). Were swordsmen ever featured much? What about units with the round aspis like shield (clipeus?) Also for the Cavalry, from my understanding, most of them were light and carried javelins with a sword? Or did they use a spear? Also, did they feature a shield? It doesn't seem like they did. Also, I am guessing archers and slingers were not a common sight, but were there regular javelinmen? I suspect their main infantry served two roles in skirmishing and holding the line (which made them a dual threat, plus a valuable unit to Hannibal.) With these Oscan tribes, did any of them have any units or types that stood out amongst the rest?
Next the Campanians, I always have had the impression that they fought with javelins and a clipeus (I hope I am spelling that right) with a thrusting spear (both over hand and underhand) and sword. I know that they probably didn't fight as a phalanx like the Greek hoplite, but instead more individualistic.
On to the Cavalry, most mods seem to peg them as Heavy Cavalry or Lancers. One mod, RTR VII has them as light javelin cavalry, and that has always thrown me off. What do you guys believe?
Heading South-East, the Apulians: Messapii, Dauni and Peuceti. I honestly know nothing on these troops, but I know they are not as much Italic/Oscan as they are Illyrian. Any knowledge on these mysterious tribes?
Going North-West, we cross into Etruria. Most mods portray them as basically the same definition I used for the Campanian Infantry above. However, I read a good article by Ross Cowan on how they fought in a Roman style Panoply as well. I believe only the high ranking elites were able to wear the old school panoply, but what did the regulars look like and what about their cavalry?
Heading, just east and we face the Umbrians and Picentes. Like the Apulians, I know almost nothing, except they were the oldest Italians, having their own culture.
Most of these cultures were still strong, even though the Roman Shadow was about to engulf all of them within the next 30 years. So I'd like to have an accurate image of them before I portray them in our next version of RTR.
Finally, the extraordinarii. What the heck did they look like? I know of an infantry division and cavalry division, but what were they equipped with?
Thanks for all your help and knowledge in advance!
I think this is mainly going to be Duncan's territory, because my exiguous knowledge of these peoples does not extend to appearance.
Regarding Roman allies, Livy's description in VIII.9-10 indicates they were the very image of Romans as of 340 BC, except that they probably did not field accensi. Accensi are Roman 'additional' troops, not normally conscripted but raised in an emergency to flesh out legions to a strength of about 5,000 infantry. They were equipped exactly as triarii (we can tell because in the 340 BC battle at Mount Vesuvius described in Livy VIII.9-10 the Latins, intimately familiar with Roman troop types and using an identical organisation, cannot tell that the Roman accensi are not in fact triarii, so their triarii blunt their edge defeating them and are then overwhelmed by the fresh Roman triarii).
Non-Latin allies probably varied a bit more in appearance, although equipment seems to have standardised along Roman lines pretty quickly: at least our sources do not seem to distinguish the appearance of Roman infantry from those of their allies. There would have been obvious advantages to having a common tactical doctrine and weaponry with similar effect, but practically everything on this subject is surmise.
I give the following surmise as my own deductions; feel free to use them, but with the understanding they are deduction not source information except where given.
The allied ala (legion equivalent) had an establishment of 5,000 infantry (known figure) and was accompanied by 900 cavalry (also known). Of these, 1,000 infantry were extraordinarii as were 300 cavalry (known figures). Now we get to my deductions. These concern the 'Polybian' period, which I take as 311-c.107 BC. (The War of the Allies aka 'Social War' of 91-88 BC turned the allies into citizens and hence legionaries in every respect, so all bets are off from that juncture.)
I deduce that the 5,000-strong ala consisted of:
> 10 maniples of hastati or hastati-equivalents, each of 160 heavy hastati and 40 velites, as with the corresponding 'emergency strength' legion (total 2,000).
> 10 maniples of principes or principes-equivalents (there is no evidence that allies used this Roman age/quality division between the first and second lines, but it seems likely), each of 160 heavy principes and 40 velites, as per the 'emergency strength' Roman legion (total 2,000).
> 10 maniples of extraordinarii, each consisting of 60 heavy extraordinarii and 40 velites total 1,000).
Duncan found a tombstone picture dating to 310 BC of an allied soldier with what looks like a spear and a round shield (perhaps a parma). I would suggest he is an extraordinarius or a velite, perhaps even a velite from the extraordinarii.
Roman allies probably had different standards and may have worn different-coloured tunics. Some of their cardiophylakes/pectorales may have been of the triple-lobed type. That apart, and with the significant unknown of shield designs, overall appearance was probably quite similar to that of Roman legions during the Polybian period. Less sure this would be true for allies other than Latins before then.
During the Second Punic War, the legion increasingly fielded 5,000 infantry as the norm rather than the exception. The legion and ala would each have fought on a frontage of 200 men occupying 200 yards (my calculation rather than an explicit source statement). Each maniple of 160 heavy infantry and 40 velites, with the latter occupying the two back ranks, would have fought on a 20-yard frontage, and been deployed 10 deep. Triarii, and by extension extraordinarii in a set-piece battle, would deploy as a third line five deep (three triarii backed by two velites or three heavy backed by two light extraordinarii). Lines would fight without gaps (Scipio's Zama deployment was a specifically-adjusted anti-elephant exception) and line relief would be carried out by files passing backwards between the files of the next line (implied by Polybius II.33 - he is explicit about the backwards movement, as is Livy in VIII.8 so we can assume that aspect did not change; files passing between files is a deduction).
Cavalry is slightly trickier: I shall do a bit of looking up and endeavour to address this in a separate post.
For the appearance, fighting style and general characteristics of Rome's enemies in Italy I hand over to others. There are a few passages in Dionysius of Halicarnassus which provide hints about technique, and I shall endeavour to refresh my memory about those.
Re tunic colours, I don't believe there is good evidence that the Romans themselves were uniform, so for allies it's probably anything goes.
Thank you patrick, those numbers are useful. My main interest here is the style that the troops fought in. I have a pretty good idea and I know that the sources don't say a lot but it seems like it'd be better to fashion the allies in native dress, but roman panoply, since they acted like legions. However I can't see the enemies looking the same..
I think Duncan is your man for how the enemies looked: if he does not know, then probably nobody does.
Native dress and Roman panoply seems logical for the allies (especially given Andreas' observation) ; their fighting style was probably very similar to that of the legions, not least because the commanding consul would want everyone doing much the same things at much the same time and for much the same duration. This becomes critical for such things as timing of deployment and line relief, because if your allies have a radically different fighting style they are going to need relieving earlier (or later) than your own troops, which gives the enemy something to exploit.
For Rome's various opponents, hints on fighting style will require a good hunt through Dionysius and a boring search of Livy. I shall get back to you on this. :)
Andrew,
Big subject! We had one previous long thread on this area - http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1376.0. It starts with Rome and can be a bit heavy going in places, but pulled in a lot of useful references.
http://www.sanniti.info/ is good on the Samnites (though not all of it is in English). At https://www.academia.edu/5957991/The_Samnite_Pilum is a recent article suggesting that the Samnites and some of their neighbours did in fact use a form of proto-pilum.
QuoteFrom my understanding the Oscans (Lucani, Samnites, Brutii, and Sabelli) basically had the same troops (Spearmen with Javelins and an Italian Scutum like shield, equipped with a helmet, breast plates, and greaves). Were swordsmen ever featured much?
Not "swordsmen" as a separate troop-type. The issue is probably whether the Samnite javelin-throwers were swordsmen in the same sense as the Roman heavy-javelin-throwers. Certainly they had some sort of swords, but my impression is that they didn't emphasise it in the way the Romans did.
QuoteWhat about units with the round aspis like shield (clipeus?)
There are a lot of men with aspides in Oscan art, especially but not exclusively Campanian. I did originally think that the Campanians, and they alone, fielded Greek-style hoplites with aspis and single long spear, but (heaving recently read this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samnites-Depicted-Campanian-Artforms-Supplement/dp/0900587644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484561324)) it's now clear that the 5th-4th century vases feature a lot of guys with aspis and a pair of not-especially-long spears. So maybe they're all tactically much the same, regardless of shield type.
QuoteAlso for the Cavalry, from my understanding, most of them were light and carried javelins with a sword? Or did they use a spear? Also, did they feature a shield? It doesn't seem like they did.[/url]
The main source of the idea that the cavalry lacked shields is tomb-paintings from Paestum and similar sites, which are mostly 5th-4th centuries. Shields are much commoner in the fewer later sources that we have.
QuoteAlso, I am guessing archers and slingers were not a common sight, but were there regular javelinmen? I suspect their main infantry served two roles in skirmishing and holding the line (which made them a dual threat, plus a valuable unit to Hannibal.)
No identifiable units of velites or similar in Oscan armies, really. One vase-painting showing a man with two spears and a feathered javelin, no shield, identified as a warrior's arms-bearing servant.
Sorry for late reply, but that was quite a lot to read!
I'm at work so I'll make a detailed summary of my conclusions when I get home, but in the time being there's still a few topics we haven't touched on. Remember this is for 280BC and beyond, though I'm sure they equipped similarly in 310Bc if that's the closest source..
Anyways here's what's left:
1) Campanians - there was a northern campania that adopted Roman ways and were friends of Rome, and a southern campania that sided with the samnites. Should campanians be equipped in a roman kit or should they reveal a sabellic look? If the latter, aspis or scutum? Also their cavalry, should they be a heavy lancer type or a light javelin type? Were they their own entity or just intermingled with the extraordinarii?
2) Apulians - Dauni, Peuceti, Messapii.. anything on them?
3) Umbrians and Picentes - Whay about them?
4) Latins - should they have their own unit or no?
I'm trying to figure out what units our mod should include. Unfortunately we are limited to 500 units so I want to include the best and be smart about the ones I do include. However at the same time I want to be able to represent the different cultures and their kits. That's all for now, will come back later for more.
Okay so my conclusions from that 14 page thread are the following:
1) That the Etruscans most elite unit were it's cavalry
2) The higher ups in society were able to afford a greek style kit, but fought with javelins and swords.
3) The others fought similarly to the romans in equipment with a breastplate and scutum with javs and swords.
This makes sense to me, especially since I have read 'The Art of the Etruscan Armorer' by Ross Cowan.
Anyways, I have some images to share of some units that we may or may not include into our mod, I was hoping I could get your guys opinion on them!
Etruscan Unit types
http://imgur.com/a/nvgaH
Italian/Ligurian/Sicilian Unit Types
http://imgur.com/a/s0uSp
Veneti Unit Types
http://imgur.com/Ezc64Wd
Again this is for 280 BC, if it seems ahistorical, please let me know!
That looks like an impressive selection.
I see nothing that stands out as particularly wrong or unlikely. Ekdromoi (younger men who run out to catch and deal with skirmishers) appear to have been a Spartan development, and invariably to have operated in conjunction with cavalry. As such, I am not sure their equipment, as opposed to their apparent age, would differ from that of their 'parent' unit, but please do not take that as gospel as to the best of my knowledge we have no firm information on that point.
Is there a functional difference between your pedites osci and Oscan infantry? If so, I would be interested to know what it is: social status, experience, assumed location in the line of battle?
Duncan, any thoughts? You are our premier (make that 'real') expert on the kind of detail seen here.
I'm not sure there is much of a difference but I didn't make the mod that they're in. I'm just using those images as examples of what we are looking at adding. And yes, it'd be nice to get Duncan's input on these.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 25, 2017, 07:00:27 PM
Duncan, any thoughts?
Sorry, haven't really had the time to sit down and consider this properly. Maybe at the weekend.
Thanks Duncan :)
Quote from: ahowl11 on January 22, 2017, 04:46:49 PM
1) Campanians - there was a northern campania that adopted Roman ways and were friends of Rome, and a southern campania that sided with the samnites. Should campanians be equipped in a roman kit or should they reveal a sabellic look? If the latter, aspis or scutum? Also their cavalry, should they be a heavy lancer type or a light javelin type? Were they their own entity or just intermingled with the extraordinarii?
At the time of the Samnite Wars, Nola and other southern Campanian towns did side with the Samnites, yes. But that's a couple of generations before the timeframe you said you were looking at. During Hannibal's War, after all, it was the northern centre of Capua that defected to Carthage while Cumae further south stayed loyal to Rome. I don't see any pressing evidence to distinguish between Campanians in terms of equipment or appearance.
There is a lot of 4th-century Campanian art which shows classic Oscan decorated tunics, 3-disc cuirasses, feathered helmets, etc. After that, not so much. I presume assimilation to Roman styles, but at what speed is unclear. There was a unit of 1,000 Campanian cavalry at Sentinum in 295 who are still "extra" to the legionary organisation even though the Campanian upper classes have been Roman citizens for 40 years by then (Livy X.26.14, 29.12), and a "Campanian legion" in the Pyrrhic wars (Livy Periochae XII), so how closely they were integrated is unclear, but by the time of Polybius' list of Italian manpower in Book 2 in the 220s, "Romans and Campanians" are inextricably linked and would probably be indistinguishable. And I would think definitely scuta for infantry by 300 BC.
All Italian cavalry are probably "medium". Romans are perhaps more likely to carry a single spear and Oscans a pair, and so perhaps Campanians transition from one to the other, don't really know; but I'm not entirely convinced it's a tactical difference.
Quote from: ahowl11 on January 22, 2017, 04:46:49 PM
2) Apulians - Dauni, Peuceti, Messapii.. anything on them?
I have some figures in Armies of the
Macedonian and Punic Wars, there are several illustrations from Apulian vases in Schneider-Herrmann (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samnites-Depicted-Campanian-Artforms-Supplement/dp/0900587644/) and in other books on South Italian vases, but again these are 4th century. Basically decorated tunics with a tendency to vertical patterns, pilos headgear both metallic and non-, mostly no body-armour (though there is some in some of the richer graves), pair of spears, various shields including Argive shields, smallish round ones, and an odd pointed type that might be round or an oval scutum seen in strict profile. For instance:
https://www.getty.edu/museum/programs/lectures/imagery_and_identity.html
http://classics.uc.edu/apulia/small.html
However we also have some later Apulian terracottas from Canosa and thereabouts that are probably 3rd century, including a group in the Louvre that Rostovtzeff thought showed Hannibal's Gauls and Numidians fighting against local Apulians allied with Rome. In this school, we see Montefortino helmets;
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=7728&langue=en
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=7726&langue=en
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=7730&langue=en
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/248736
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5c/8b/fd/5c8bfdf0034e5e75688416094d001d10.jpg
This might be a generic "Roman Italian ally" look. See also the attached pic from a paper by Fabio Colivicchi,
The long good-bye: the local élites of Daunia between continuity and change (3rd-1st c. B.C.) - used to be at academia.edu.
Quote from: ahowl11 on January 22, 2017, 04:46:49 PM
3) Umbrians and Picentes - Whay about them?
i'd just treat Umbrians as Etruscans. In 295 the Gauls, Samnites, Etruscans and Umbrians combined to fight a battle, in Umbria, against Rome. The Gauls and Samnites fought, the Etruscans went off to deal with diversionary raids, and nobody bothers to say what became of the Umbrians. This may be symbolic: I can find very little about them.
One of the masterpieces of Etruscan art, the Mars of Todi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_of_Todi), was found in Umbria and has an Umbrian inscription (saying it was dedicated by a man with what is described as Celtic name). Other "Etruscan" warrior-figurines were actually found in Umbria such as http://risdmuseum.org/art_design/objects/125_warrior
Whether these are imports or local copies, it seems clear that the Umbrians were happy to represent themselves as Etruscan warriors, so there were probably few visible differences.
Thank you so much for your help Duncan, I think I have a very clear idea now of what I want to do for units in the Italian peninsula.
When preparing figures for painting then I like to ensure the javelin armed foot have more than a single javelin, so tend to add extra javelins in the left hand.
I was doing this to some Samnite foot when I realised the figures had a curved Scutum shield so the javelins weren't going to fit if I added them going through the hand. This lead me to wonder how troops with a Scutum held an extra javelin.
Did they hold them in their left hand using their thumb to press the javelin into the back of the Scutum? Did they carry them in their right hand and plant them in the ground (similar to way archers sometimes did with arrows)?
I spotted a similar discussion about Roman pila (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1287.msg14331#msg14331) but couldn't see an answer.
Any views? Help!
Not aware of any further information.
This pic has always intrigued me, if only because it is not completely clear what sort of shield it is.
Paestum duel.jpg
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 16, 2023, 02:31:25 PMNot aware of any further information.
This pic has always intrigued me, if only because it is not completely clear what sort of shield it is.
Paestum duel.jpg
I have always thought that, IF (big if) the painting is at all realistic, that the shields must be on the forearm a) because they seem to be close to the bicep, not extended; and b) to allow the javelins to be gripped.
True. But as you say, big "if"; and does it mean that there is a hollow behind that central "point", over the forearm? What would be the, err, point of that construction?
Thanks Duncan. Any reason why javelins couldn't be held by a strap behind the shield? Possibly similar to how plumbata were carried (all I know is they were, somehow, carried behind a shield)?
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 16, 2023, 05:02:56 PMTrue. But as you say, big "if"; and does it mean that there is a hollow behind that central "point", over the forearm? What would be the, err, point of that construction?
The hollow could be a crumple zone to reduce impact on the arm. If they are woven, I think there is a tendency for the centre to bulge anyway, so it could make a virtue out of a feature.
The figure on the right does look like he has the shield on his arm so that his hand is free. I'm not sure if the one on the left is also supposed to have javelins, the lines which I think are the shafts don't line up and they would have to be strapped to his elbow. If that one isn't a good guide then perhaps the other isn't either.
Quote from: gavindbm on November 16, 2023, 08:29:07 PMAny reason why javelins couldn't be held by a strap behind the shield?
The problem I suspect is that any strapping tight enough to secure weapons without the aid of a hand would then make it v difficult to get them free for use, which would be a bore in the middle of a battle.
Quote from: gavindbm on November 16, 2023, 08:29:07 PMAny reason why javelins couldn't be held by a strap behind the shield? Possibly similar to how plumbata were carried (all I know is they were, somehow, carried behind a shield)?
And that's all we know, that they were held or carried "in the hollow of the shield" - the various strap or rack arrangements seen are all more or less guesswork. Like David, I am a little sceptical of any strapping arrangement that would allow you to remove a javelin quickly and easily, yet not fall apart.
Thought I would post this here for convenience.
https://www.academia.edu/99125472/Weapons_Combatants_and_Combat_in_the_Parietal_and_Vascular_Funerary_Paintings_of_Campania_and_Lucania_late_5th_early_3rd_century_BC_
Another paper (in French) covering mostly Campania and Lucania but with more general discussion as well. Includes thoughts on the adoption of the pilum* across Italy, the transition from clipeus to scutum including the Roman experience.
*Or similar. Pilumoids? Hyssoids?
Thanks for that, Peter, looks like quite a bit of interesting stuff in there, though amongst quite a bit of meandering verbiage. Shame all those hyperlinks to online illustrations don't work.
Note the slinger in figure 137 - a Campanian vase possibly showing Apulians - lacking in the DBMM list!
Thank you. I think, on balance, that I will keep painting rather than try to resurrect my rusty French.
Quote from: Keraunos on February 08, 2024, 11:03:00 PMThank you. I think, on balance, that I will keep painting rather than try to resurrect my rusty French.
Some of the pictures are ones I hadn't seen before, so more ideas for painting.
Nice thread revival and a reminder of what we have missed with Patrick's passing :(
Absolutely