Triarii as Camp Guards

[aligern]

What then would Large Portion's army look like? There is an answer there to Robert's question of How should he construct an Etruscan army. If we assume that the standard Etruscan army is always going to have. either or both of a complement of Italian allies and mercenaries plus some Etruscan states with pila/tela , though early pila might be subsumed in tela and some with doru spears. Plus some cavalry and skirmishing infantry.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Indeed: this 509 BC Etruscan army (which may be somewhat different to a 311 or 310 BC Etruscan army) has a mix of the following:

> Melee troops without missiles (would it be a fairly safe guess to consider these hoplites)?

> Melee troops with missiles

> Missile troops, perhaps light (and perhaps not very many?)

> Melee cavalry (6th-5th century depictions of Etruscan cavalry show a lance rather than javelins, and duels feature 'cuspides', lances)

Identities and proportions are somewhat more nebulous, so it is best guess time.

Best Guess Etruscan Army, 509 BC (Lars Porsena), First Prototype

Centre - Hoplites (Etruscan), with Lars.  Small but capable cavalry force and screen of javelin/sling/archer skirmishers, number unknown

Right - Latins, with Mamilius.  Anyone's guess here is probably as good as mine.  (Do we have anything to suggest what the Latins used at this period?)

Left - Roman exiles (cavalry and presumably rich young hoplites); men from Gabii (hoplites??); mercenaries and foreigners.  'Foreigners' (akmaitoton xenon = prime-condition 'strangers', almost certainly Greeks) and 'mercenaries' (misthophoroi) may or may not be hoplites - the Greeks, if Greeks they be, are very likely to be but the 'misthophoroi' (mercenaries) could be anything from Etruscans to Gauls.

In Dionysius V.23.4 Horatius Cocles and his companions at the bridge (who happened to be the two commanders of the Roman right) were the targets of "pollōn pantodapois belesi", many missiles of all sorts, which in V.24.2 are listed as "logkhais te kai sauniois kai lithois," i.e. logkhe/hasta, saunion/pilum and the ever-handy stone.  It is possible that the stones were shot by slingers, although if so the continued survival of their targets is puzzling.  Finally, in V.24.3, Horatius (by now alone and much-wounded) takes a 'logkhe' through the 'glouton' and, hearing that his comrades have broken down the bridge, decides enough is enough and jumps into the river.

The question that arises is: which part of the Etruscan army is he fighting?  The Roman left folded first, so in theory the Etruscan right, with its Latin complement, should have arrived first at the bridge.  Horatius Cocles' companions, however, are the commanders of the Roman right, suggesting that the Etruscan right helped to roll up the Roman centre and right rather than heading directly for the bridge.  Lars Porsena is conspicuous by his absence, making me wonder if it is in fact the Etruscan left, with its mix of mercenaries, foreign Greeks and Roman exiles (and the men of Gabii) which is shooting at Cocles.  The Roman exiles would have most reason to press pursuit strongly.

If we assume, or presume, that the motley Etruscan left was the principal force trying to seize the bridge (an assumption which may or may not be correct), then we can suggest that the Greek 'xenoi' would be hoplites, possibly with one throwing and one thrusting spear (this was standard configuration for everyone except Spartans at the time); the Roman exiles would most probably be mainly 'first class' type infantry, i.e. missile-less hoplites, with some melee cavalry; the men of Gabii might be hoplite types and would almost certainly be close-fighting infantry, probably with a preliminary missile (unless used earlier in the battle and not retrieved) while the mercenaries could be anything.  Someone in this mix would have used the 'saunion', a pilum-equivalent in both function and literature, and some possessed the 'logkhe'.

Some had neither, and used swords and shields taken from the dead.  This suggests that at least some shields were of a size and type that permitted throwing, i.e. probably not scuta and maybe not the hoplon type, although quite probably round.

This webpage has a selection of Etruscan armour, shields and helmets (and can you spot the Sumerian helmet?).  More accurately, there are some shields (small, bronze) and some shield bosses (round).  Gratifyingly, the various shield, armour and helmet types are dated (for once).

[Jim Webster]

Thinking about the triarii
I confess that I've  now got very comfortably to the Triarii age bracket. So when it comes to running enthusiastically about on battlefields in the summer sun wearing full kit, me and the rest of the old lads will hang about here and if the midden hits the windmill and the enemy break through all you enthusiastic young madmen, we'll stand here and stop them.
But don't expect us to run around too much, OK?

Jim

[aligern]

Thinking about your page of Etruscan helmets Patrick, there is one from a modern Greek souvenir shop. Was that posted April1st.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Provided they have the date and type correct, that is fine by me.  A decent modern reproduction gives at least as good an idea of the real thing as a corroded museum specimen.

[aligern]

Er no its a complete bastardisation into a cheap tourist souvenir. We ought to have some standards in accepting a  substitute when there are plenty of the real thing about.

Roy

[Mark G]

Reproductions are a but uninspiring, i walked the armour hall at pgaue castle last week, all reproductions in clean new steel, hardly any context at all, and quite uninteresting.  So dull i even passed up playing with a repro crossbow there.

Its presentation in context that makes genuine finds interesting.

No doubt if they had been wearing the kit it would have grabbed my attention far more.

[Jim Webster]

Yes, wearing the kit would have brought it to life

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Er no its a complete bastardisation into a cheap tourist souvenir.

Well worth pinpointing - and ignoring, then.  It looked a bit recent in date to me, not to mention slightly adjusted from the original pictured next to it.  However the point of the Society is that we have people like Roy and Duncan (and others) who can spot the ringers.

Its presentation in context that makes genuine finds interesting.

Have to agree here.