Early Italian Warfare

[Patrick Waterson]

Two other examples of attributing possibly spurious tactical innovation to great men are :

There is no reason to consider Servius Tullius' innovations 'spurious'.  They lasted only for his reign and had a defined political object: increasing contentment by reducing the financial burdens on the lower classes (= poorer citizens) and increasing the influence of the first class (= wealthier citizens).  They were promptly dismantled by his successor and never repeated.

[Erpingham]

I have to say I've been enjoying my tomb raiding thanks to Patrick's list.  I've fallen in love with one - The Tomb of the Reliefs (Tomba dei Relievi).  This is late (4th or even 3rd century) but it both a remarkable work of art and has lots of weaponry on display - swords, shields, helmets (Coolus and Hellenistic types) - but no spears (the thing that looks like one is a staff).  Anyway, have a look here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxH8OuRzwl8

[Erpingham]

OK, having followed Patrick's injunction to become an DIY Etruscan art expert, I've had some fun searching images of Etruscan hoplites (or men with hoplite panoply, if we prefer).  I've found plenty of images of men with spears, especially in the late period (4th/3rd century).  As a caveat, I would say many are in Greek mythological scenes or represent Greek heroes.  Two interesting points

1. Shields remain argive aspis style but embossed versions seem to become common, with a central circle, although the plain type continue.
2. Spears seem short by dory standards - no more than six feet - and don't have clear butt-spikes.  This could be artistic convention or it could represent them being more dual purpose (warning - speculation).  Most have ordinary iron leaf-shaped points but there is another sort with a triangular head and longer shaft.

Good example of these trends here, from the Francois Tomb

http://www.instoria.it/home/FrancoisV.htm

If you view the picture separately you'll find it is big and detailed.  Note the right hand hoplite's spear.

So, wild speculation time.  The Etruscans got in early on the developing phalanx, at the time it was still in transition and hoplites had throwing or dual purpose spears.  They didn't follow the Greek evolution to a single longer spear but kept the missile component because it fitted better the type of battles they were fighting.  Over time, they developed/adopted the proto-pilum, which was used alongside the dual purpose spear in place of a javelin or second light spear.

[aligern]

Perhaps to combine Erpingham's thoughts with those of PW the changes that the hero makes are small ones, but in an era when change was very slow they are exaggerated because daring to think s quite a big deal. There is certainly motive for claiming innovation for a great man and there is motivation in claiming that Gallic swords are soft, that  barbarians are only good in the first rush, that traditional ways are best, that we have declined from a golden age and that we are loyally upholding ancient traditions.
Even today writing of history is riddled with prejudice and with topoi, just look at a lot if the stuff about the first world war.  What would we think about hat if only Oh What a Lovely War , Guardian editorials and an anthology of War poets had survived?

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

So, wild speculation time.  The Etruscans got in early on the developing phalanx, at the time it was still in transition and hoplites had throwing or dual purpose spears.  They didn't follow the Greek evolution to a single longer spear but kept the missile component because it fitted better the type of battles they were fighting.  Over time, they developed/adopted the proto-pilum, which was used alongside the dual purpose spear in place of a javelin or second light spear.

I think this is a sensible speculation.  The one caveat I would have would be the tendency of artists to depict single spears as opposed to two spears in a grip.  We would need to consider how much of this is artistic convention, or convenience, how much of it a likelihood that the second spear is, at the notional time of the scene depicted, assumed to be left quivering in the ground or in someone's shield or body, and how much of it is an actual a representation of a belated Etruscan switch, in whole or in part, to the single-spear hoplite.

In the Francois Tomb scene, the man wielding the shortsword is identified as 'Achlv', probably 'Achilles'.  This would presumablyt make the scene Achilles slaughtering prisoners at Patroclus' tomb but, as ever with such depictions, presented in 'modern dress'.  The blue-skinned individual with the hammer is Charun, the Etruscan death-god.  The winged figure would be Athena.

Even today writing of history is riddled with prejudice and with topoi ...

Which is why we of the SoA try to get at the essence of the matter. 

[Erpingham]

In the Francois Tomb scene, the man wielding the shortsword is identified as 'Achlv', probably 'Achilles'.  This would presumablyt make the scene Achilles slaughtering prisoners at Patroclus' tomb but, as ever with such depictions, presented in 'modern dress'.  The blue-skinned individual with the hammer is Charun, the Etruscan death-god.  The winged figure would be Athena.

The Italian webpage agrees with you about the scene.  It reckons it comes from The Iliad, XXIII, 175-176; 181-182.

[Mark G]

I don't think you can divorce the phalanx from the society that begat it.

Which is why i think the stratification of Italian armies is quite significant, and may well reflect a similar stratification within the cities themselves

[andrew881runner]

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.

problem is that phalanx for how it works can be only on one line. So, if we assume different ranks, we must assume a different thing from phalanx. Maybe a manipular system with gaps between manipula? But this would be strange since we know that etruscans for example used the Greek war style, with Greek equipment, and very likely the simple phalanx used by Greeks. Now since I don't know well sources I am asking you: are you sure that etruscans fought with the different classes on different ranks? because if this was the case it would be a real mistery how the classes beyond first joined the battle. Only when all the first class was entirely killed would seem a bit unlikely [emoji6]. Maybe there was only one line with all different classes one next to the other? but this would create a powerful side where first class was and a weak side where others were. Problem is that same idea of phalanx is based upon uniformity, equality, so you cannot have places with different levels of equipment, weapons and training (unless you put more rows of men less equipped and fewer rows of men more equipped to overcome someway the problem, but it would be a weak explanation) How do nowadays' authors explain this? I am even sure that I read somewhere between your posts that a source told that etruscans fought with no reserves while Romans did and won for that reason.
Only one solution comes to my mind: etruscans fought in a phalanx style, so with only one "rank" but on many rows, the rows a phalanx was usually made of, from 4 to 8. And we know that etruscan model army, for example that of servian reform, had exactly 5 classes.  So solution could be that each class is on one row, not on different "ranks" with maybe gaps in between. In this way first 3 classes/rows participate almost for sure to the battle, first class more than second and second more than third, according the idea of "privilege gives duties" while 4th/5th ranks can eventually join battle. This idea saves both the idea of phalanx and the idea of different classes together with different levels of participation. Can it be? I am sorry if I am repeating things already told which I did not read.

[Jim Webster]

This is an interesting comment Andrew

Let's stop and think about it. If the First Class formed the front rank of the phalanx, then in battle they would take the main of the casualties.
In combat they're the hard edge of the phalanx, the bit that gets hit and whilst they are better armoured, they are the ones who have to die before their social inferiors get to fight.

When the phalanx breaks, the survivors of the First class are the heavily armoured slow ones who are nearest the pursuing enemy whilst their social inferiors cast away their shields and skip lightly away, unencumbered by body armour etc.

So when you stop and think about it, a defeat is a social revolution in an Etruscan city, because the casualties fall mainly on the rich.
The end of a military campaign would be marked by wealthy families frantically adopting new sons into the family and marrying each other's widows.

I'm sorry but something is amiss here. A Greek phalanx had more experienced citizens in the front rank, the more reliable men. The lack of a class grading within the 'heavy infantry' means that casualties were probably reasonably evenly distributed through a very broad hoplite class.

Whereas the Etruscans and Romans set up a system which must warrant being described as the most brutal form of redistribution of wealth and social status in the ancient world!
No wonder the Romans switched so rapidly to maniples, it's the only way the wealthy could have survived bar adopting pacifism as a state religion

Jim

[Erpingham]

Let's stop and think about it. If the First Class formed the front rank of the phalanx, then in battle they would take the main of the casualties.
In combat they're the hard edge of the phalanx, the bit that gets hit and whilst they are better armoured, they are the ones who have to die before their social inferiors get to fight.

When the phalanx breaks, the survivors of the First class are the heavily armoured slow ones who are nearest the pursuing enemy whilst their social inferiors cast away their shields and skip lightly away, unencumbered by body armour etc.

Before we stop and think, a quick reminder that we aren't sure the Etruscans had a 5 class structure.  We can safely assume they had a wealthy class who fought but our evidence for multiple class gradations has been presented here.  For all we know, the Etruscan army had an elite of cavalry, a body of hoplite equipped citizens (albeit probably with the missile option) and some light infantry types.   Perhaps the Roman innovation was classes 2-4, beefing up some of the psiloi types into second-class close combat troops?

Now stopping to think, what is so surprising about a society in which the elite, who have the best kit and the most time for pursuing military pursuits, stand at the front?  An elite that stands back and lets lesser men take all the casualties is taking a risk that the masses will tire of leaders who don't lead.  Or maybe that's too medieval a perspective?

[Jim Webster]

We have throughout the ancient world in this period a general belief that only those prosperous enough to afford kit will have the incentive to fight for their city/state

Indeed military service seems to have been a combination of tax liability and privilege.

Setting aside that the very wealthiest are out there on horseback, I'd still be wary about the rich allowing themselves, as a class, to be out in the front.
Remember that it isn't about experience, and it isn't about fitness or equipment, (although the rich are probably equipped better on average, there are doubtless combat veterans who've built up a better panoply than many rich kids, but again Hoplites moved to a lighter phase with less panoply anyway) but purely about income.

Indeed I can see the advantage of the Roman system where you formalise service from the other classes and stick them out in front of the rich guys to break up the charge which means that when your heavy infantry hits, it has an advantage.
But I can see no advantage to the rich who are the people who actually run the place, of putting the less wealthy in ranks behind them.
We have to stop thinking as wargamers and seeing the advantage of deepening the phalanx, getting more weight etc and think more like those in charge for whom more weight just means that they get butchered for longer because they cannot pull back

Jim

[andrew881runner]

We have throughout the ancient world in this period a general belief that only those prosperous enough to afford kit will have the incentive to fight for their city/state

Indeed military service seems to have been a combination of tax liability and privilege.

Setting aside that the very wealthiest are out there on horseback, I'd still be wary about the rich allowing themselves, as a class, to be out in the front.
Remember that it isn't about experience, and it isn't about fitness or equipment, (although the rich are probably equipped better on average, there are doubtless combat veterans who've built up a better panoply than many rich kids, but again Hoplites moved to a lighter phase with less panoply anyway) but purely about income.

Indeed I can see the advantage of the Roman system where you formalise service from the other classes and stick them out in front of the rich guys to break up the charge which means that when your heavy infantry hits, it has an advantage.
But I can see no advantage to the rich who are the people who actually run the place, of putting the less wealthy in ranks behind them.
We have to stop thinking as wargamers and seeing the advantage of deepening the phalanx, getting more weight etc and think more like those in charge for whom more weight just means that they get butchered for longer because they cannot pull back

Jim

wealthier class was not only the one with best armor and weapons, it was the one who had most time in the day to train, so it was the best trained. Probably they were noblemen or anyway land owners. So why should they not stay in the front? in the ancient time there was a deep relationship between being warriors, in first line, and being elite. You were elite in your society cause you were in first line in battle. Same for medieval knights until firepower was invented.
So what is the problem in this? they take most casualties? first, they have best armor, secondly they are the best trained so they take less casualties of their social inferior, less trained. Third, in ancient battles, especially phalanx battles, there were usually few casualties. It was more a psychological thing, to keep formation before the enemies lose theirs. And anyway, they can run away exactely as the others, since they have a shield which is the first to be left if they run away, a body armor, probably in pressed linen or a more etruscan bronze plate, a helmet, a spear and a sword. They don't have this equipment so heavier than the other classes. It is more a fact of quality and role in the deployed Line. And when escaping they are with all the others, remember in a phalanx there are only few meters between the first row and last, so I don't see why they should be in a much worse condition than all others escaping, when formation is broken.
Surely in a defeat and consequent routing the first class Would suffer a lot of casualties but exactely as all the others. In a mass routing it is not a fact of if you were in the first or last row, it is a matter of how fast you are in leaving all your armor (eventually, if heavy) your shield and spear and run as fast as possible. I guess that a young well trained hoplite was fast enough to go in front of some weak, old guy of the last row. I don't see the problem in hoplites with simple bronze plates or linen, maybe if they wore a bronze full chest plate there was some added problem, but who knows, maybe they add some system to open the chest armor and leave it fast in the ground. In the end, it was 2 pieces of bronze linked together with a cord, nothing more. Open the link and job is done.

[Patrick Waterson]

Before we stop and think, a quick reminder that we aren't sure the Etruscans had a 5 class structure.  We can safely assume they had a wealthy class who fought but our evidence for multiple class gradations has been presented here.  For all we know, the Etruscan army had an elite of cavalry, a body of hoplite equipped citizens (albeit probably with the missile option) and some light infantry types.   Perhaps the Roman innovation was classes 2-4, beefing up some of the psiloi types into second-class close combat troops?

This is a good observation.  Servius Tullius inherited a situation which he reformed as follows:

"Hear from me now the benefits I myself have arranged to confer upon you and the reasons that induced me to summon this assembly. Those among you who already have debts which through poverty they are unable to discharge, I am eager to help, since they are citizens and have undergone many hardships in the service of their country; hence, in order that these men who have securely established the common liberty may not be deprived of their own, I am giving them from my own means enough to pay their debts. 7 And those who shall hereafter borrow I will not permit to be haled to prison on account of their debts, but will make a law that no one shall lend money on the security of the persons of free men; for I hold that it is enough for the lenders to possess the property of those who contracted the debts. And in order to lighten for the future the burden also of the war taxes you pay to the public treasury, by which the poor are oppressed and obliged to borrow, I will order all the citizens to give in a valuation of their property and everyone to pay his share of the taxes according to that valuation, as I learn is done in the greatest and best governed cities; for I regard it as both just and advantageous to the public that those who possess much should pay much in taxes and those who have little should pay little. 8 I also believe that the public lands, which you have obtained by your arms and now enjoy, should not, as at present, be held by those who are the most shameless, whether they got them by favour or acquired them by purchase, but by those among you who have no allotment of land, to the end that you, being free men, may not be serfs to others or cultivate others' lands instead of your own; for a noble spirit cannot dwell in the breasts of men who are in want of the necessaries of daily life. 9 But, above all these things, I have determined to make the government fair and impartial and justice the same for all and towards all. For some have reached that degree of presumption that they take upon themselves to maltreat the common people and do not look upon the poor among you as being even free men. To the end, therefore, that the more powerful may both receive justice from and do justice to their inferior impartially, I will establish such laws as shall prevent violence and preserve justice, and I myself will never cease to take thought for the equality of all the citizens." - Dionysius IV.6-9

The situation he inherited may or may not have been typical of city-states of the time, but his reforms seem to have been unique: the civil reforms are noted in Dionysius Book IV; the military reforms are quoted here:

After all had given in their valuations, Tullius took the registers and the size of their estates, introduced the wisest of all measures, and one which has been the source of the greatest advantages to the Romans, as the results have shown. 2 The measure was this: He selected from the whole number of the citizens one part, consisting of those whose property was rated the highest and amounted to no less than one hundred minae. Of these he formed eighty centuries, whom he ordered to be armed with Argolic bucklers, with spears, brazen helmets, corselets, greaves and swords. Dividing these centuries into two groups, he made forty centuries of younger men, whom he appointed to take the field in time of war, and forty of older men, whose duty it was, when the youth went forth to war, to remain in the city and guard everything inside the walls. 3 This was the first class; in wars it occupied a position in the forefront of the whole army. Next, from those who were left he took another part whose rating was under ten thousand drachmae but not less than seventy-five minae. Of these he formed twenty centuries and ordered them to wear the same armour as those of the first class, except that he took from them the corselets, and instead of the bucklers gave them shields. Here also he distinguished between those who were over forty-five years old and those who were of military age, constituting ten centuries of the younger men, whose duty it was to serve their country in the field, and ten of the older, to whom he committed the defence of the walls. This was the second class; in engagements they were drawn up behind those fighting in the front ranks. 4 The third class he constituted out of those who were left, taking such as had a rating of less than seven thousand five hundred drachmae but not less than fifty minae. The armour of these he diminished not only by taking away the corselets, as from the second class, but also the greaves. 5 He formed likewise twenty centuries of these, dividing them, like the former, according to their age and assigning ten centuries to the younger men and ten to the older. In battles the post and station of these centuries was in the third line from the front.

Again taking from the remainder those whose property amounted to less than five thousand drachmae but was as much as twenty-five minae, he formed a fourth class. This he also divided into twenty centuries, ten of which he composed of such as were in the vigour of their age, and the other ten of those who were just past it, in the same manner as with the former classes. He ordered the arms of these to be shields, swords and spears, and their post in engagements to be in the last line. 2 The fifth class, consisting of those whose property was between twenty-five minae and twelve minae and a half, he divided into thirty centuries. These were also distinguished according to their age, fifteen of the centuries being composed of the older men and fifteen of the younger. These he armed with javelins and slings, and placed outside the line of battle. 3 He ordered four unarmed centuries to follow those that were armed, two of them consisting of armourers and carpenters and of those whose business it was to prepare everything that might be of use in time of war, and the other two of trumpeters and horn-blowers and such as sounded the various calls with any other instruments. The artisans were attached to the second class and divided according to their age, one of their centuries following the older centuries, and the other the younger centuries; 4 the trumpeters and horn-blowers were added to the fourth class, and one of their centuries also consisted of the older men and the other of the younger.36 Out of all the centuries the bravest men were chosen as centurions, and each of these commanders took care p327that his century should yield a ready obedience to orders.

18 1 This was the arrangement he made of the entire infantry, consisting of both the heavy-armed and light-armed troops. As for the cavalry, he chose them out of such as had the highest rating and were of distinguished birth, forming eighteen centuries of them, and added them to the first eighty centuries of the heavy-armed infantry; these centuries of cavalry were also commanded by persons of the greatest distinction. 2 The rest of the citizens, who had a rating of less than twelve minae and a half but were more numerous than those already mentioned, he put into a single century and exempted them from service in the army and from every sort of tax. - Dionysius IV.16-18

Whatever the pre-existing system was, he evidently changed it.  I would therefore suggest that a system based on classes by wealth is very much the exception, not the norm, and may well have been unique to Rome during Servius Tullius' reign.

Dionysius' involved explanation also suggests this system was unique to Servius Tullius' Rome:

In pursuance of this arrangement he levied troops according to the division of the centuries, and imposed taxes in proportion to the valuation of their possessions. For instance, whenever he had occasion to raise ten thousand men, or, if it should so happen, twenty thousand, he would divide that number among the hundred and ninety-three centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its share. As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating. 2 Thus it happened that those who had the largest possessions, being fewer in number but distributed into more centuries, were obliged to serve oftener and without any intermission, and to pay greater taxes than the rest; that those who had small and moderate possessions, being more numerous but distributed into fewer centuries, serve seldom and in rotation and paid small taxes, and that those whose possessions were not sufficient to maintain them were exempt from all burdens. 3 Tullius made none of these regulations without reason, but from the conviction that all men look upon their possessions as the prizes at stake in war and that it is for the sake of retaining these that they all endure its hardships; he thought it right, therefore, that those who had greater prizes at stake should suffer greater hardships, both with their persons and with their possessions, that those who had less at stake should be less burdened in respect to both, and that those who had no loss to fear should endure no hardships, but be exempt from taxes by reason of their poverty and from military service because they paid no tax. For at that time the Romans received no pay as soldiers from the public treasury but served at their own expense.

This arrangement may also have improved the quality and elan of the Roman army during his reign, as it would have reduced to a minimum the number of reluctant soldiers.  There may even have been an element of deliberately configuring his army to fight a specific opponent:

His military operations were directed against one nation only, that of the Tyrrhenians; of these I shall now give an account. - Dionysius IV.26.6

And, true to his word, Dionysius does:

After the death of Tarquinius those cities which had yielded the sovereignty to him refused to observe the terms of their treaties any longer, disdaining to submit to Tullius, since he was a man of lowly birth, and anticipating great advantages for themselves from the discord that had arisen between the patricians and their ruler. 2 The people called the Veientes were the leaders of this revolt; and when Tullius sent ambassadors they replied that they had no treaty with him either concerning their yielding the sovereignty or concerning friendship and an alliance. These having set the example, the people of Caere and Tarquinii followed it, and at last all Tyrrhenia was in arms. 3 This war lasted for twenty years without intermission, during which time both sides made many irruptions into one another's territories with great armies and fought one pitched battle after another. But Tullius, after being successful in all the battles in which he engaged, both against the several cities and against the whole nation, and after being honoured with three most splendid triumphs, at last forced those who refused to be ruled to accept the yoke against their will. 4 In the twentieth year, therefore, the twelve cities, having become exhausted by the war both in men and in money, again met together and decided to yield the sovereignty to the Romans upon the same terms as previously. - Dionysius IV.27.1-4

Because Servius Tullius was always victorious in his engagements, losses to his 'first class' were never a problem.  Naturally, had he lost any number of significant battles, we might never have heard of him.  Nevertheless he did not lose, and that may be because he seems to have deliberately crafted his army to achieve an ascendancy over a specific opponent: the Etruscans.

[Mark G]

It is a bit medieval.
I keep coming back to conceptions of war and culture.

Hoplites are part of a specific city culture from Greece, right down to the shared shield.

We don't see that elsewhere, just Greece.

Additionally, the Greeks focussed on clear defined agreed battle, with a swift conclusion. What we have from italy is quite different.

Greeks were quite happy to win victory and claim hegemony. Italians want land and conquest.

The demands of warfare are quite different.

So it makes sense to open the battle with lighter intensity warfare, and progressively increase the stages, to ensure an opponent is fully committed and exhausted when you send in your battle winning troops to complete a total victory.

[aligern]

There is plenty of reason to doubt  the literal truth of Livy's account of the Servian reforms and even if he was one or two people.
I think we would need someone expert on Livy and on Early Roman history to guide us here and we do not have that person.

Wikipedia says of the Servian Military reforms The Roman army's centuria system and its order of battle are thought to be based on the civilian classifications established by the census. The military selection process picked men from civilian centuriae and slipped them into military ones. Their function depended on their age, experience, and the equipment they could afford. The wealthiest class of iuniores (aged 17 – 45) were armed as hoplites, heavy infantry with helmet, greaves, breastplate, shields (clipeus), and spears (hastae). Each battle line in the phalanx formation was composed of a single class.[33] Military specialists, such as trumpeters, were chosen from the 5th class. The highest officers were of aristocratic origin until the early Republic, when the first plebeian tribunes were elected by the plebeians from their own number. Cornell suggests that this centuriate system made the equites, who "consisted mainly, if not exclusively, of patricians" but voted after infantry of the first class, subordinate to the relatively low-status infantry.[34]'

I am not certain whether Cornell's description of each class referring to each line in the phalanx formation is meant to mean that the scutatoi formed  separate sequential lines of units or that they formed lines of one phalanx unit, with hoplites in front. Hoplites fork in close order and the ranks behind push from the back. Italian scutatoi are armed with throwing weapons and  do not push, but move around using a sword or spear after they have thrown their first weapon(s) .  It does not seem logical to have spear armed men in front of javelin armed men. 
We appear here to have moved to seeing the Etruscan hoplites as having throwing spears, perhaps a combination of throwing and thrusting spears.  I still feel more comfortable in each class providing units  that fight with others in the same kit surrounding them, round shields in units with round shields. and long with long.
I see Rome as being an Etruscan city following Etruscan tactics. That Livy and Dionysius buy into a legendary Roman past with one hero founder should not surprise us. What should be a surprise is that Livy etc do not describe differences between the Romans , the Hernici ,the Etruscans and the Samnites. This is not because they do not describe difference.  When the Gauls arrive who are different the differences are described. When the Romans encounter Spaniards they are different and described as such. The other inhabitants of Italy seem so relatively similar that they are not differentiated. Surely, if the Etruscans are operating as a single line phalanx with spears, not  javelins, then that would be worthy of mention. If the Etruscans moved later from spear use to javelin use then  would not this be commented upon. I am unaware that this suppised change is mentioned.
So I see the sense that the Certosa situla shows a class based army in an Etruscan area and that the organisation of Roman armies with Triarii in reserve and with classes of javelin armed men in flexible units in lines to the front is very likely based upon the Etruscan system of early Rome when it was an Etruscan city.

Patrick, in the description of the battle with Manlius, the Etruscans are cited as having mercenaries  in the army which you adumbrate as Greeks. Is there a reason why these are not Italian mercenaries? In the Wiki entry for Servius T there is a suggestion that he may have been an Etruscan mercenary called Mastarna. Mayhap the Etruscan mercenaries  are Etruscans from other cities that have not joined an alliance to resist Rome, but have allowed their citizens to serve, or maybe they are hill tribe Italians. If they are Greek mercenaries then you will no doubt have a specific reference to this.


Roy