Early Italian Warfare

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[RobertGargan]

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

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[Mark G]

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

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.   

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

[Mark G]

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.

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.

[Mark G]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

I cannot agree that if it looks like a hoplite it is a hoplite.

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

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?

  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.

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?

[aligern]

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

[RobertGargan]

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