Early Italian Warfare

[andrew881runner]

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)

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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!    (That was a joke!)

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.

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! 

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.

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?

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. 

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?

[Mark G]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[aligern]

As usual, a good idea!
Roy

[Erpingham]

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

[aligern]

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

[andrew881runner]

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.

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

Slightly off the beaten track, a paper 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.