The Proto-Manipular Legion

[aligern]

Except that Livy does sound very like all those writing history who, to write a new version of the past, must first discredit the old one!
Roy

[Mark G]

And he is a bit unreliable, as we know

[Patrick Waterson]

And he is a bit unreliable, as we know

But provided it is only 'a bit', still useful.

Duncan, Robert, thank you.  (Robert, the page attached and displayed perfectly).

The first and most obvious comment to make is that the Paestum scene does not depict Romans, and Praeneste's inhabitants did not attain Roman citizenship until 90 BC.  I would suggest that the Paestum scene depicts Greeks, Neapolis being within easy reach.  The 'heroically nude' figure seems to be configured more like a sunbathing peltast (with a helmet that may be more Samnite than Greek, though I am no real judge of these things) than a hoplite but is within what I understand to be the acceptable canons of Greek art.  This may tell us something about the Greek armies of the locale and period, but alas nothing about Romans (and no Republican Roman would appear in nude portraiture or sculpture - they did not even permit male relatives to undress in the same room as each other).

The Praeneste cist presumably represents an inhabitant of Praeneste rather than, say, an exiled Roman.  If so, this would give us a rare glimpse into the equipment of a Roman ally, possibly even an extraordinarius.  The spear is a bit short for hoplite use, but that could be just the artist fitting it into the frame (or having trouble with it generally: note how in the right hand frame the shaft is displaced where it leaves the hand).  Or it could be a dual-use spear habitually employed by the extraordinarii or Praenestine troops generally, conceivably the Praenestine version of the hasta.  I am (obviously) guessing here: the only reasonably firm conclusion seems to be that this does not actually tell us anything about Romans per se.  The greaves and armour would seem to rule out any possibility of him being a velite.

[Duncan Head]

The Paestum scene (a few pages down in the book I linked to, for those who haven't found it yet) was the subject of an article in Ancient Warfare,  at a guess some time last year. The author - perhaps Ross Cowan? - was commenting, IIRC, on a theory by an Italian academic linking this scene to a specific action described by Livy, involving cattle and a mountain (memory hazy here!). The troops to the right, led by the heroic nude, would be Lucanians (Paestum/Poseidonia was a Greek settlement taken over by the Oscans at the end ofthe C5th, so politically they'd be Lucanian not Greek, ethnically and culturally I suppose a Greek-Oscan mix) allied to the Samnites; the hoplites to the left would be the Romans. An interesting theory but a bit speculative, I thought at the time.

The Praenestines are Latins, so one would at first sight expect them to be armed in exactly the same way as the Romans - judging from Livy VIII, anyway. I get the impression that Praenestine cistae are an under-explored source. Sekunda uses a couple, and there's an interesting one showing a census or recruitment scene (in Holliday's Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration... ?) which is on my list of artworks to include if I ever start the article on representations of Rome's Italian allies.

I'm not sure if extraordinarii are ever mentioned before the 2nd century, so I would be wary of citing them in a 4th-century context.

I would very much recommend the Sekunda/Northwood Osprey for anyone looking into the early Roman army. As ever with Nick Sekunda, you may not agree with all his conclusions, but he does dig up some very interesting evidence.

[Patrick Waterson]

I'm not sure if extraordinarii are ever mentioned before the 2nd century, so I would be wary of citing them in a 4th-century context.

Good point.  One would assume that as they seem to be part and parcel of the system described by Polybius they would be around from the inception of that system.  If we ascribe that particular system to post-314 BC but not taking too long in the post they might just scrape into the 4th century BC, for whatever that is worth.

The Wikipedia entry for extraordinarii mentions a couple of interesting points:

Franz Fröhlich, in his work on the Guard troops of the Roman Republic, speculates that they were created shortly after the Latin War which ended in 338 BC. Livy mentions delectae cohortes (chosen cohorts) of the Socii in an episode as early as 310 BC; this is assumed to be the first mention of the extraordinarii [Livy IX.37]. Livy's description of the campaign leading up to the Battle of Sentinum in 295 BC also references both Campanian equites delecti as well as the use of allied troops to defend against an assault on the headquarters tents of a Roman camp, consistent with the description of the camp layout given by Polybius [Livy X.26].

The mentions of cohortes delectae in Livy would be consistent with extraordinarii coming into being as part of the Polybian system shortly after 314 BC.  Whether it helps with the Praeneste cist is another matter.  Good hunting with the subject material: there may be more to be discovered. 

[Duncan Head]

As far as I can see the delectae cohortes of IX.37 are not actually said to be allies, desppite Wikipedia. Fröhlich is perhaps arguing from the view that Roman citizen troops at this early date were not organised in cohorts, which is fair enough. The Campanian cavalry at Sentinum, though, were surely Roman citizens (civitas sine suffragio since 338).

It seems to me that the extraordinarii as a regular institution, the systematic use of allied troops in such important roles, fits better with a Rome that is beginning to equate itself with Italy, rather than a Rome that is one of several Italian powers - which means a period after the Pyrrhic Wars. But I have no evidence for that at all, just instinct.

[Patrick Waterson]

One might add to the observation about Roman troops not being organised in cohorts (which to me seems a less solid supposition than is widely assumed) that Roman regulars would stick with their respective legions and not be detached to guard the camp exits.  Velites perhaps (Polybius has these on camp guard duty), but velites were not organised in cohorts, at least not in Polybius' line-up, and could hardly be regarded as 'delecti'.  Extraordinarii however seem to have been in line for special duties and would be the logical choice for such a role.

The thousand Campanian cavalry (Campanisque mille equitibus delectis) are listed apart from the 'strong body of Roman cavalry' (magno equitatu Romano) but as part of the Roman contingent rather than the 'army of allies and Latins that outnumbered the Romans', so yes, they are associated with the Roman horse but they are not apparently part of it.  This would be consistent with extraordinarii being grouped with Roman cavalry on the battlefield to equalise the strength of the cavalry wings - a procedure nowhere explicitly stated but inferrable from various actions.  Hence I would be reluctant to classify the Campanian cavalry as 'Roman', and suspect the Romans themselves may have left them sine suffragio as part of a package which retained their military status as allies.  One possible indicator might be: if we can find any Campanians going through the Roman system of promotion via various offices (cursus honorum) in this period we shall know the Campanians were counted as Romans.

[Duncan Head]

The Praeneste cist presumably represents an inhabitant of Praeneste rather than, say, an exiled Roman.  If so, this would give us a rare glimpse into the equipment of a Roman ally...

By chance I've just found this French article which discusses the Praenestine cist in question. It is concerned with rejecting the idea that the cist depicts a Latin triumph (as argued by Larissa Bonfante Warren among others). Drawings at the end of the article show how Robert's hoplite-equipped figures fit into the scene. Warren argued for the cista being dated at c.100 BC (!); Richard Adam puts it around 340 BC. On the conventional viewpoint that hoplite equipment gave way to the scutum somewhen between the siege of Veii and the Samnite Wars, the hoplite armament might be anachronistic, depending exactly which date within that range one favours, but not wildly so - showing perhaps the equipment of the artist's father's generation. Latin hoplites in the 4th century seem to be a bit more problematic for Patrick's interpretation of the legion, unless we are to think that the Latin allies remained differently armed to the Romans until just before the war of 340-338.

[Mark G]

I would be happy with that point, i don't think the Latin legions conformed immediately.