Early Italian Warfare

[andrew881runner]

since I am Italian myself, I would like to point out that italic warfare did not exist since the same idea of italia is very much modern. Italy was born in 1861. Before there were many different populations each one with its own language and traditions. This especially before Roman age and romamization. You cannot talk of Italian traditions. Etruscans were //a thing Romans another samnites another same for vulsci umbri and all other populations completely different, like veneti and celts who were in the peninsula.
Same idea of Italy with its modern borders is medieval. in Roman age beyond Rubicon river there was Gaul, while today there is Northern Italy.
Even today if I hear a inhabitant of neaples talking his own language I hardly understand some words not to talk of phisical differences between a typical southern and a Northern Italian, generally speaking. We are separate populations forced to live together, forced to speak same language (the one of Tuscany) and obey same law.
I know that this is hard to believe for a guy who lives in USA or England because the way we are shown as stereotypes in movies is always the same and refers to the stereotypical Napolitan or Sicilian.

[Mark G]

Livy book 2

[aligern]

Andrew I have been to Italy many times, both mainland and Sicily and Sardinia.  i venture to suggest that it is no more different in its parts than Britain... Scotland Wales N. Ireland and N. and S. England Is Spain not very different within itself, Castilians, Catalans Basques. Even France with Languedoc and Brittany has substantial regional differences.
I don't think it is wrong to talk of Italian military systems as having a degree of similarity with cohort sized units, long shields and paired javelins and different classes of troops in the same army .
If we have a picture of Greeks in the sixth century it is pretty uniformly of hoplites (though areas in Greece maintain a light infantry tradition right through until Hellenistic times as the are still maintaining the Mediterranean Way of War :-)).
I accept that Greek states in Italy have, presumably Greek based military systems, but see a commonality between the others.  Patrick very helpfully quoted a battle between Romans and Hernici ( or was it Volsci) which showed both as having very similar systems.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I discovered a book: The Search for the Etruscans by James Wellard in my stockpile and leafed through in the hope of acquiring a bit of information.  Although one learns how to read the Etruscan alphabet, it is very thin on military material but might be helpful; on a couple of points.

Twelve Cities: as the author points out, the true figure for operative Etruscan cities at any one time was nearer fifty (this incidentally makes the capture of 38 standards in a single engagement understandable if each city had sent a contingent; in 311 BC they probably did).  Of these, Tarquinii, Caere, Vulci, Rusellae, Vetulonia, Populonia, Volsinii, Clusium, Arretium, Perusia, Volaterrae, Faesulae and Cortona seem to have been the most noteworthy.

Holding a Hoplon: on p.141 the author reproduces (in black and white) a wall painting from the Tomb of Orcus in Tarquinia.  The painting depicts Hades ('Aita') and Persephone ('Persignvi') conversing with Geryon (Gerun).  The latter is equipped with a classic mail thorax including shoulder-strips that attach at the front, greaves, a spear (hasta or doru, about his height) and hoplon held by an upper arm band, a forearm band (porpax) and a side hand grip (antilabe).  (The artist apparently shirked any consideration of a helmet for this triple-headed subject.)

The Regiolini-Galassi patera: pp.122 and 123 have a colour photograph of part of the golden goblet from the Barberini tomb at Palestrina (7th century BC: items within are dated 620-675 BC) which has very similar subject material.  The chariot visible has an eight-spoked wheel and, in addition to the unhelmeted round-shield warriors each carrying two spears, there is a depiction of two helmeted warriors fighting with swords.  These both have round shields shown in side view, so one can see they are hoplon-type, but one is distinctly larger and its user wears a different style of helm, almost Italo-Corinthian, and uses a short sword with a leaf-shaped blade.  His opponent, who appears to be fighting left-handed, has a smaller shield and longer, slenderer, slightly asymmetric sword (one thinks: machaira).  He has a crested Attic-looking helm but with a neck-guard which looks very Early Imperial Roman.  I have tried to hunt down depictions of this goblet on the internet but so far without success.

So much for the book.  Andrew's point that "... there were many different populations, each one with its own language and traditions" is important, because it suggests that it may be a mistake to assume that all Etruscans used the same equipment and fighting style.  (They certainly did not all use exactly the same letters in their script!)  I would however expect a high degree of commonality with the Roman kingdom and perhaps the early Republic, although not for long.

I don't think it is wrong to talk of Italian military systems as having a degree of similarity with cohort sized units, long shields and paired javelins and different classes of troops in the same army .

While keeping this in mind as a basic model, I would be cautious about attempting universal application.  Italy did have numerous different cultures, and a sea power like the Etruscans would have had a different heritage and different army from the Aequi, who were centred in the mountains.  What may be true is that Italian armies seemed to develop towards a common pattern over time, particularly as Roman influence spread.

If we have a picture of Greeks in the sixth century it is pretty uniformly of hoplites (though areas in Greece maintain a light infantry tradition right through until Hellenistic times as the are still maintaining the Mediterranean Way of War :-)).

This could be quite similar to Etruria.

I accept that Greek states in Italy have, presumably Greek based military systems, but see a commonality between the others.

As mentioned, I am less sure about this.  The Aequi and Hernici were mountain-dwelling peoples; the Volsci inhabited hills and marshlands; the Etruscans were mostly plains-dwellers with some occupying more elevated topography (hills and mountains, e.g. Veii).  Any commonality probably increased with time, but as of the 6th century BC is unlikely to have been significant.

  Patrick very helpfully quoted a battle between Romans and Hernici ( or was it Volsci) which showed both as having very similar systems.

The battle with the Hernici had both sides using piecemeal reserves (sending up a maniple here and there from the reserve line to patch up weakened parts of the battle line).

The Volsci and Romans did have very similar systems - once Coriolanus had taught the Volsci to fight using the Roman system.  Their previous system evidently differed, otherwise his instruction would have been pointless.

[andrew881runner]

Andrew I have been to Italy many times, both mainland and Sicily and Sardinia.  i venture to suggest that it is no more different in its parts than Britain... Scotland Wales N. Ireland and N. and S. England Is Spain not very different within itself, Castilians, Catalans Basques. Even France with Languedoc and Brittany has substantial regional differences.
I don't think it is wrong to talk of Italian military systems as having a degree of similarity with cohort sized units, long shields and paired javelins and different classes of troops in the same army .
If we have a picture of Greeks in the sixth century it is pretty uniformly of hoplites (though areas in Greece maintain a light infantry tradition right through until Hellenistic times as the are still maintaining the Mediterranean Way of War :-)).
I accept that Greek states in Italy have, presumably Greek based military systems, but see a commonality between the others.  Patrick very helpfully quoted a battle between Romans and Hernici ( or was it Volsci) which showed both as having very similar systems.

Roy

Well I suppose you have not really been both in South, central and Northern Italy otherwise you would have seen enormous, incredibly big differences. Differences which exist today and are visible, after 150 years of forced coexistence and cwntral government.  In the past these differences would have been even bigger. I can assure you that inhabitants of Sardinia share very little as tradition and from a genetical point of view with the rest of Italians, for example. I could understand some words of Spanish talked while I could understand nothing of Sardinia n language talked. Same for many other parts of Italy. I have travelled in almost all Italy from north to South and I can assure you that the difference from a inhabitant of Trentino and a inhabitant of Sicily are the same between a Swedish and an African. It is not the matter of accent or some traditions as it can be between Northern France and southern.
I am not saying that in early Roman time there were not similarities between populations maybe even living near. I am sure that some traditions and Gods and military system could be similar. But you cannot confuse this with the idea of an Italian population with same tradition, same language, same warfare, because even withouth any source, simply watching Italy as it is today, I can tell you that probably there were more differences than similarities. I don't know if you have ever come to Northern Italy, or even central, then to Southern Italy. I live in Tuscany, Florence/Firenze, so central upper Italy, and When I go into the South I have always the deep feeling of going into some other nation with its proper tradition, language and way of living. More than when I went into France, or Austria or Switzerland, which if not for the language share a lot of lifestyle and dna with Northern Italy.
You cannot know this very well if you have not lived years in Italy as I have. Anyway we should not forget that Northern Italy was occupied by celts who had little in common with Vulsci, Etruscan, Samnites, Romans, et cetera, no doubt about it.
You cannot compare Italian regional differences and English or French ones.
French and England have been kingdoms since high (beginning of low for England) middle age with substantial uniform population, celtic/anglosaxon/Norman for English and celtic/Frank for french.
In Italy there have been so many invasors conquerors and populations melted together that you can see much more variability. And Italy is a uniform Kingdom only since 150 years ago, not 1000 years. You have no idea how many political movements going towards autonomy are growing today. One of this called Lega (league) was one of major political parties until some time ago and asked secession of North Italy from South (for assumed deep racial and economic differences).
The same idea of Italian language is deeply arbitrary, since as I said before, it was only one of the several existing languages chosen to be the language for the raising nation 150 years ago. 

[Mark G]

I think you misunderstand what we are saying, Andrew.
We ar nit saying that they were all the same.
We are saying they all had similarities.
Greeks fought with a single line if battle.  The argument here is that in Italy, this is different, with successive lines if fighting troops .
Greeks based their army around one basic type, a spear armed hoplite.
Italians seem to have had different types of equipment for the different lines.
For those Italians we have descriptions or images of, that equipment channge suggests each line was better equipped thaan the line before it.
But within that broad description, the equipment itself had local and regional variation, the number of lines of battle might vary (3, 4, 5).

Also, a lot of sorces suggest that most Italians seem to gave had one or more throwing javelins as well as a main hand to hand weapon (spear or sword).

That is also different from Greeks.

Similarities, not uniformity, but all different from Greece

[andrew881runner]

 only one question: how would these separate line, behind the first, join the battle?

[Mark G]

Good question.

As you know, we cannot even agree on how romans did it.

But they did.

Whichever answer you like for them is probably similar to the answer you will like for the others.

[aligern]

Andrew, you obviously live n Italy and feel that is different and disunited . That is your privilege as a resident. That I can point to Catalonians in Pain who want out and have a different, albeit Latin language from Castilian, let alone Basques dies not influence you a jot. In the UK there are four languages, English, Broad Scots, Gaelic and Welsh. Irish too if you include the province. Only English and Broad Scots are mutually intelligible (well just about) .
Having been there I'd say to an outsider that Sicily feels more Italian than say Spanish or French.

The Celts in Northern Italy seem to fight differently and I would accept that theirs is a non Italic system. However, they are invaders. I would see the Ligurians and Veneti whom the Celts pushed out, as operating in an Italian method. Which is just as Mark says it is.

Patrick I wonder if you are making too much of alleged reforms where a general changes what an army does.  Reforming tactics or kit is a trope in ancient accounts, especially Livy. There is no doubt a genre of stories such as the replacement of one pin in a pilum with wood, Marius chaps having to carry alo their own kit, someone fitting cloth covers on helmets, alleged use of borrowed spears to blunt Celtic swords.  Small changes are  bigged up to add lustre to a hero or ancestor. This is rather like a general making a pre battle speech, the commonplace such as Marius'' instructions before the battle with the Teutones is elevated to show the hero in a flattering light, no doubt, with more than his share of virtus. Hence I think these peopkes such as the Volsci, Aequi, Samnites, Lucanians, Veneti, Ligurians fight in a broadly similar manner, though many will have their own peculuarities within the mainly loose order javelin throwing culture.

Andrew, If an army does not  have formal rank replacement then we should envisage units sent up as support as adding in to a mixed melee that their side is losing. That would give them greater numbers  and a morale boost to the men being pushed back.

Roy

[Erpingham]

That I can point to Catalonians in Pain who want out and have a different, albeit Latin language from Castilian,

Yes, the despair of the Catalans does seem to reach a crescendo of anguish at times

[Erpingham]

Ok, I'm going to display my fundamental ignorance again.

We seem to have a consensus that Etruscans fought in multiple lines.  We assume that they have a fighting class system like the Romans (is this more than argument from their similarity to Romans - independent evidence?).

There seems to be some dispute about the nature of the classes in the Etruscan army.  Are they wealth classes or age classes or a bit of both?  Also, we seem to have a dispute about where the best troops were - did they lead with their best equipped and use the worse equipped as reserves or did the best stand at the back, waiting for the poorer classes to wear down the enemy?  Or, given the discussion of each city contingent having a standard above, were the lines made up of contingents of all classes with their position determined by e.g. seniority/importance of city or overall level of eqippedness of the contingent?

[Patrick Waterson]

There seems to be some dispute about the nature of the classes in the Etruscan army.  Are they wealth classes or age classes or a bit of both? 

The honest answer would seem to be: we do not know.  Given 50+ Etruscan cities and perhaps 100 major towns, each of which seems to have had its own way of doing things, we are reduced to guessing games based on scenes on metalwork, tomb paintings and sculpture.  I do not really think we are at the stage where we can draw conclusions and say that Etruscan armies fought in any particular manner.

We may however note that armour in Etruscan art seems to be heavily hoplite-oriented, particularly in the earlier centuries, but armament seems to be more eclectic: spears and missile weapons seem to overlap to an extent.  This gives plenty of opportunities for guesswork but none for certainty.

The question of wealth classes seems to arise exclusively from Servius Tullius' Roman army.  The impression one gets is that this was Servius' own particular creation, previous Roman rulers (and incidentally his successor Lucius Tarquinius Superbus) levying a flat rate tax or contribution from every citizen irrespective of 'means testing'.  I am not aware of any source which describes the Etruscan norm.  (Anyone?)

Also, we seem to have a dispute about where the best troops were - did they lead with their best equipped and use the worse equipped as reserves or did the best stand at the back, waiting for the poorer classes to wear down the enemy?  Or, given the discussion of each city contingent having a standard above, were the lines made up of contingents of all classes with their position determined by e.g. seniority/importance of city or overall level of equippedness of the contingent?

Among Etruscans the cavalry seem to have been the best troops; exactly what they did with the infantry with regard to organising men of differing quality I leave to others to assert or conjecture.

That I can point to Catalonians in Pain who want out and have a different, albeit Latin language from Castilian,

Yes, the despair of the Catalans does seem to reach a crescendo of anguish at times

That was very hard to resist. 

[Patrick Waterson]

A useful link for which periods various Etruscan tombs belong to is here.

It also conveniently lists a considerable number of tombs and has links describing several of them.  Note that not all pictures in each tomb are shown - and they seem to miss out most of the warrior pictures, which is a pity.

Do scroll down the page - it is quite extensive.  Try all the links to the various tombs and you too can become an instant Etruscan art expert. 

[aligern]

Or are you to become A Greek art .

Two other examples of attributing possibly spurious tactical innovation to great men are :
Anna Comnena who seems to think that her father invented the marching square formation to be used in the face of horse archers.
Gesta Regis Ricardi which has The Lionheart inventing a  formation where crossbowmen stand behind spearmen to face off the army of Saladin. Both if these are in Erpingham's bailiwick, but I believe they are examples if the same tendency to credit great men with tactical innovations which, if they are true at all, may only be teensy tweaks rather than major reforms.

Roy

[Erpingham]

Richard I is a bit more in my patch.  I think the consensus on the crossbowmen at Jaffa (I think it was) is that the tactics are Italian.  Richard is also credited by one French chronicler of having introduced the crossbow to France, which goes to show just being closer in date to something doesn't necessarily mean you are a better source.

I personally tend to think a lot of these "innovations" did happen in some form, which is why they were remembered, even if they became embellished later.  If the army was successful, the story became the explanation for victory and a sign of the heroic ancestors wisdom or skill, when they may have had no real effect and it was really all down to good, old fashioned discipline and training.  With some of the Roman innovations, you do wonder. If, say, it was so much better to stab Gauls with your pilum why did they returned to throwing the things?  And the counter is also true - if the Gallic swords were rubbish and caused such exhaustion in the user that they led him to be easily killed by a noble Roman, why did they use them for hundreds of years?