Early Italian Warfare

[Patrick Waterson]

I do love you for your debating style Patrick. You quote two examples of leaders dressing up their men as hoplites ...

No, one case of Illyrians using sets of hoplite equipment sent by Dionysius I of Syracuse and one of Croesus creating his own hoplite corps.  We may note in the latter case that:

"Cyrus' men, who were unaccustomed to Greek weapons, were at a loss how either to attack, or to guard against them."

This shows that Croesus' troops were actual hoplites, not just temporary human mannequins outfitted to give credibility to a deception, as in Orontes' case.  And I shall forbear to make mention of a debating style that deliberately confuses the two. 

However, there is no further evidence posted for such a conversion for the Etruscans, save that they too adopt Greek style greaves, helmets, shields....another case of dressing up?

But ... since most of this dressing up seems to have occurred in their tombs and on their vases, one wonders exactly whom they would be fooling.  For centuries, their armour and shields - and to an extent helmets - are consistent with contemporary Greek patterns, and overwhelmingly so.  Somehow I do not think 'dressing up' serves as an explanation.  Conversely, a quintessentially hoplite (or, if we like, hoplite-style) army would.

Put simply, the Greeks don't seen to ever have stratified into many classes in the same way that the romans and i think other Italians also have.
Greeks seem to gave had citizens and slaves, citizens must all provide hoplite panoply.

by comparison
Italians have different equipment requirements for the different classes.

But we have no evidence for these imagined 'different classes' in Italian society - do we?

An interesting point Steven James mentions in his RAT post is that:

"The Etruscan social structure was divided into a powerful aristocracy (domini) with an immense body of clients (etera), serfs and slaves (servi) with no middle class. Although this seems unique for a Mediterranean society, epigraphic evidence does support a two class society, the wealthy aristocrats and the serfs and slaves."

One sees much the same arrangement in Sparta.  There it is the conquerors (armed) at the top and the conquered (unarmed) below.  Question: do we know if the Etruscans were ethnically identical at all levels of society or whether the servi were the vanquished survivors, and the domini and etera the dominant descendants, of a migrant conquest settling in as the top echelon of a stratified two-class society?

[Jim Webster]

One sees much the same arrangement in Sparta.  There it is the conquerors (armed) at the top and the conquered (unarmed) below.  Question: do we know if the Etruscans were ethnically identical at all levels of society or whether the servi were the vanquished survivors, and the domini and etera the dominant descendants, of a migrant conquest settling in as the top echelon of a stratified two-class society?

I can see the similarities, in Sparta you have  Spartiates,   Mothakes (  free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (those 'living about'), and Helots 

From the point of view of the army, the first two groups were probably identical. The Perioikoi were 'second class' in Spartan eyes, but provided hoplites, whilst the Helots, if used, were either baggage handlers, nominal light infantry throwing stones or javelins, or if they were going to be used properly, Hoplites.

It's interesting that within a Greek context, all four classes provided the same troop type

In Athens those who didn't have to fight on land because they didn't meet the property qualification could still scrounge the equipment and fight as hoplites (Socrates). There was obviously a small demand for archers (if only for the fleet) and light infantry. It was only in the 4th century (?) that the Athenians started raising peltasts from their own citizens.

What I'm driving at is that in a Greek context, if you expected the lower classes to fight, you generally expected them to be hoplites

Jim

[andrew881runner]

I'm not talking specifically about democracy, but rather the uniform city culture which contributed to democracy arising.

Put simply, the Greeks don't seen to ever have stratified into many classes in the same way that the romans and i think other Italians also have.
Greeks seem to gave had citizens and slaves, citizens must all provide hoplite panoply.

by comparison
Italians have different equipment requirements for the different classes.

exactly. Athens for example for a democracy and all inhabitants were "citizens" firstly then hoplites when necessary. Having all same political rights they had same position (more or less, a first line was needed anwyhow) in the deployed army.
This did not happen in Italy and etruscan city States in particular. These were city States but they had kings and a strong aristocracy and then different social classes, from productive class to the servants and slaves (not treated bad as slaves in Rome though: they were still a precious resource, not like in Roman imperial age, and usually shared almost same language or same habits as their masters, so friendship bonds could raise between master and slaves).  So there could be not a unique role of citizen/warrior like in Greek city States. They re adapted Greek war style to the different social context of Etruria back then, with different roles and lines according the social status. In front, leading all others as in the age of heroes (with chariots probably, back then) the Aristoi, then all others in correct order. More social status, more privilege, more duty and risk on the battlefield. So in daily life they could probably explain to social inferiors their privileges with the fact that they were in the first line defending homeland (the town) in battle.
But this is worth only for etruscans. Not generally "italians". For what I have read, neighbours samnites had a different social structure and used a different model for armies, though probably still in a some type of re adapted phalanx. They recruited in the "districts" and I have never read of different lines or social classes. In fact samnites were generally poor, rough cattle farmers and sheep breeders. If there was some upper class, it was not so rich (so powerful) as etruscan one.
Then there were other populations like Umbri, living in dense forests, so probably with armies useful on that type of terrain.
There were no "italians" back then. Same word Italia was invented much later (90ac bellum Cum sociis) and has probably a samnitic origin.
The idea of Italy being a nation with a unique population is very modern indeed. When Rome managed to conquer all Italy, there was absolutely not the idea of a single population, but rather the opposite, Romans were the leaders of coalition of nations (which tried to rebel quite often). So please don't talk of "Italians".
Even today I can assure you that many people hardly feel themselves" italians" but they feel firstly veneti/campani/pugliesi/siciliani/et cetera. It is full, still in 2014, of political autonomistic movements, mostly in the South and in the North. Many people living in the South still see Italy as a far concept and them as submitted to an external state (like they were de facto in 1861 after unity).

[andrew881runner]

I do love you for your debating style Patrick. You quote two examples of leaders dressing up their men as hoplites ...

No, one case of Illyrians using sets of hoplite equipment sent by Dionysius I of Syracuse and one of Croesus creating his own hoplite corps.  We may note in the latter case that:

"Cyrus' men, who were unaccustomed to Greek weapons, were at a loss how either to attack, or to guard against them."

This shows that Croesus' troops were actual hoplites, not just temporary human mannequins outfitted to give credibility to a deception, as in Orontes' case.  And I shall forbear to make mention of a debating style that deliberately confuses the two. 

However, there is no further evidence posted for such a conversion for the Etruscans, save that they too adopt Greek style greaves, helmets, shields....another case of dressing up?

there have been many hypothesis on origin of misterrious etruscans, basically any possible idea has been tempted, for example Erodotus says they come from Lydia (Turkey) but most modern studies say they are the descendants of Villanova society who was spread in bronze age throughout the northern Italy. So no migration and no ethnical difference.

Put simply, the Greeks don't seen to ever have stratified into many classes in the same way that the romans and i think other Italians also have.
Greeks seem to gave had citizens and slaves, citizens must all provide hoplite panoply.

by comparison
Italians have different equipment requirements for the different classes.

But we have no evidence for these imagined 'different classes' in Italian society - do we?

An interesting point Steven James mentions in his RAT post is that:

"The Etruscan social structure was divided into a powerful aristocracy (domini) with an immense body of clients (etera), serfs and slaves (servi) with no middle class. Although this seems unique for a Mediterranean society, epigraphic evidence does support a two class society, the wealthy aristocrats and the serfs and slaves."

One sees much the same arrangement in Sparta.  There it is the conquerors (armed) at the top and the conquered (unarmed) below.  Question: do we know if the Etruscans were ethnically identical at all levels of society or whether the servi were the vanquished survivors, and the domini and etera the dominant descendants, of a migrant conquest settling in as the top echelon of a stratified two-class society?

most recent studied show that etruscan have no oriental ancestors as we had thought in the past following Erodotus who made them migrating from Lydia, Turkey to modern Tuscany . Etruscans are descendants of Villanova society whixh was born in Italy. Modern scientists have shown that people living in Volterra and other typical etruscan towns share a lot of DNA with ancient etruscans. Having ancestors all born in Tuscany and a surname which is spread only in tuacany, I am probably an etruscan descendent somehow. Same typical Italian speaking here has a peculiar accent which is said to come from etruscan language.

[aligern]

And Andrew is, of course, correct. Studies of Etruscan DNA from tombs show them to be local Italians.  This is important because it shows them as developing their own civilisation and buying in what they choose from abroad, rather than culture having ti be implanted in Italy via Greeks!!

Roy

[Mark G]

The Etruscan phalanx was mainly made up of clients serving under the command of their aristocrats. One tradition amongst scholars is that after their encounter with the Greeks during the early seventh century (650 BC or a little later), the Etruscans had supplanted their military system with Greek hoplite tactics. A number of archaeologist and historian's state there is not enough evidence, archaeological or literary to support this view.

Using evidence from graves to verify the Etruscans fought in hoplite phalanx is misleading. The grave finds that contained hoplite panoplies such as the Corinthian-style helmet does not authenticate hoplite warfare but the evidence suggests hoplite equipment was restricted to high ranking aristocrats or princes. Archaeological evidence shows that in the sixth century Etruscan farmers could not equip themselves in hoplite panoply. The common Etruscan soldier did not provide his own armour; it was supplied to him by the gens. Many of the hoplite arms and armour found in graves are for ritual purposes to designate rank and status and some items found are impractical for combat purposes. One example of a bronze corselet is so thin that its function in battle is less useful than a hide of thick leather. Another of a shield shows the sheet of bronze is so thin that it has been penetrated by the embossing of the decoration.

Dionysius (VII. 4) description of the battle between the Etruscans and their allies against the Cumeans in 524 BC, has the Etruscan cavalry intermingled with the infantry and suggests the Etruscan phalanx was in an open formation that allowed individual mobility and the choice of weapons. An open formation would allow the cavalry to make their way through the gaps between the combatants. Later descriptions of battles indicate the Etruscans fought in a massed phalanx with no true rank and file organization and the nature of some Etruscan weapons such as the axe and the double-bladed axe support the fact they would not be suitable for fighting in a close arrayed phalanx formation, but would be well suited to the mass array phalanx (no rank and file organization). For further information; see "the phalanx" in the archaic warfare chapter.

Infantry Reserves
The Etruscans had no reserves to support their first line, and all fell in front of their standards or around them." Livy (IX. 32)

Although the above statement by Livy is not conclusive evidence, the literary sources describing Etruscan battles would indicate the Etruscans did not use infantry reserve tactics. The Etruscans are mentioned using reserves (cavalry) to capture a Roman camp and as the Romans claim they copied the phalanx from the Etruscans, this would strongly indicate the Etruscans, like the Romans had a second line of infantry made up of older troops.

To save folk from following Roy's link.

interesting to note the evidence clearly shows that the 'Hoplite' shield used y the Etruscans is simply not up to the job it is assigned too if they are to be hoplites.

[Erpingham]

It does depend on what you mean by "buy in".  There was certainly a lot of buying of material culture.  What is more difficult to sort out is what other influences did they have?  For example, lots of art features Greek legendary and religious themes, which suggests some engagement with/fashionability of Greek culture among the wealthy.  It is not clear what impact this may have had militarily (if any)

One thing I noted in Steven's essay was he states the Argive shield fades and the Scutum takes over in the later period.  This does not seem to be bourne out in my very basic survey of art.  I think I only noted two situlae (correct plural?) with rectangular or oval shields and they were quite early.  Most sculpture and painting shows the aspis, right down to the 3rd century.  But then, most sculpture represents the elite.  Is there another corpus of art showing lots of scuta, or literary descriptions not yet mined in this discussion describing widespread Etruscan use?

[Erpingham]

interesting to note the evidence clearly shows that the 'Hoplite' shield used y the Etruscans is simply not up to the job it is assigned too if they are to be hoplites.

Interesting.  I think Steven identified an embossed shield where the craftman had gone through the metal?  Multiple issues here, like was this a combat shield?  This embossed shield type is a Hellenistic fashion, I think.  Were they used in combat back East?  Also, the main strength of an argive shield is the wood - the bronze facing is very thin (3mms?)  and acts like the leather facing on a scutum or medieval shield, preventing splitting.

However, it is possible that our Etruscan quasi-hoplite only has an argive shield for parades and funerals and goes to war with a sturdy and disposable scutum.  Any evidence for this?  Because we have a lot of images of people fighting with Argive shields, and we know first class Romans used them.

[aligern]

I am reluctant to criticise the Steven James article because he is not putting it up as finished work. However, I would suggest that his quote on the  Etruscans having no reserves is at odds with his 'two lines' and that most likely they absence of a reserve is unusual in an Italian context and that therefore this battle is an exception because the Etruscans have extended the front line in order to outflank or are themselves fewer in number and thus have bolstered the first line.
Secondly I think he leaves a question unresolved, which is the numbers of the Etruscans. A system which is broadly a few aristocrats and their clients does not suggest mass armies and yet Livy and Dionysius describe there being a lot of Etruscans.  That might be resolved by clientage being very wide and by  the lower class Etruscans coming along in numbers, perhaps with lesser weaponry requirements, or by the Ertuscans having small elite armies by city and needing a large number of cities to make up a sensible force.  As they are often shown fighting as one city or a few I would go for them having armies in which there are core units of well equipped rich people and then units of lesser equipped scutatoi. I would suggest this because the situlae show uniformly equipped warriors in a disciplined formation and with that interesting difference that there are better armoured round shielded men and lesser armoured men with long shields.
I do not see evidence for mixed mobs led by a few hoplite kitted nobles and including axe men and scutatoi in the same units.

Roy

[aligern]

'The Etruscan Phalanx
When the barbarians (Etruscans) learned that they (Cumeans) were ready to fight, they uttered their war-cry and came to close quarters, in the barbarian fashion, without any order, the horse and the foot intermingled.Dionysius (VII. 4)"

An interesting cite from Steven.  If we believe it then either the Etruscans are chaotic or perhaps they had a structure of smaller infantry units with units of cavalry able to move though gaps and thus not an infantry phalanx at all. I'd say that Dionysius is imagining away here, but there are a quite a few examples in Livy where Roman cavalry appear to charge the opponent's battle line and be deployed centrally, not on the flanks. As the Romans are  descended from the Etruscans it may be we see there an echo of a genuine Etruscan tactic??
Roy

[Mark G]

As for chaotic, i think both secunda (osprey, early roman armies), and lendon, and maybe one other early period osprey (nic fields, im not sure) all have early Etruscan and roman armies as unformedish, more clustering around a central standard, than using formations and ranks .

That could easily be described as chaotic, despite it not really being as messy as the adjective suggests

[aligern]

That could fit with them being sort of like the Iberians?  However, I am deeply suspicious of depicting early  Italians, or anyone as  unformed. It smacks of the period when scholars claimed that pre the Greeks pretty well everything Western was Homeric, Heroic Warfare consisting of clumps led by nobles.  Generally I suggest they are in  ranks and files and have some ability to manoeuvre, particularly in advance and retreat . When we meet Celts and Germans they are certainly not in clumps.

Roy

[Mark G]

I tend to agree, Roy.
The first time I saw the illustration in lendon, i thought he was badly wrong, but the text leads me to think he just interpreted the text quoted.

We might be able to prove this point through art - are there any early depictions of musical instruments in a military context?

Flutes, and later percussion, are the early form of cadence marching, and strongly indicate (if not even prove) formations

[andrew881runner]

'The Etruscan Phalanx
When the barbarians (Etruscans) learned that they (Cumeans) were ready to fight, they uttered their war-cry and came to close quarters, in the barbarian fashion, without any order, the horse and the foot intermingled.Dionysius (VII. 4)"

An interesting cite from Steven.  If we believe it then either the Etruscans are chaotic or perhaps they had a structure of smaller infantry units with units of cavalry able to move though gaps and thus not an infantry phalanx at all. I'd say that Dionysius is imagining away here, but there are a quite a few examples in Livy where Roman cavalry appear to charge the opponent's battle line and be deployed centrally, not on the flanks. As the Romans are  descended from the Etruscans it may be we see there an echo of a genuine Etruscan tactic??
Roy

I would not follow Dionysus literally. He was Greek, etruscans were enemies of Greeks since etruscans were sea Raiders and found themselves very often in conflict with Greeks. Then, Greeks had this peculiar idea that everyone out of Greece was a "barbarian". Probably they emphasised this idea of caothic charge in the German style to give a barbarian look to their old enemies etruscans.
I would not doubt that, at least in 6th century, etruscans used proper, ordered phalanx. Even because the hoplite equipment we sea in all those paintings is almost useless unless it is used in a phalanx. An argive shield is bulky in individual combat and is made to cover the guy to your left, so to create a wall of overlapping Shields.
As for the idea of few noblemen with clients being incompatible with phalanx, we should not forget that clients could be of different wealth. The few real aristocracy formed probably the cavalry. Being a complex and rich society it surely had its own merchants, wealthy land owners and farmers (Tuscany produces wine among the others, which can be quite expensive) and other people able to afford hoplite kit even if not being nobles. Even considering that not all hoplite kits costed the same, and a linen corslet as we usually see in paintings was surely less expensive than an ancient bronze armor fitted on single man. Same for oplon shield and sword, they could be of different quality and cost.
Maybe it is off topic but I made this video of how I imagine the etruscan phalanx act in battle. Notice that differently by how we usually imagine, the 2 phalanxes don't close totally one with the other but they leave a small Gap between, enough to hit with Spears while having some protection. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tunwOI5O-Pg
Othysmos on my opinion was the exception not the rule, because finding shield vs shield against a man who wanted to kill you was very dangerous on my opinion. Same for the charge which could not have stopped inertia in last seconds so it would have created the shield on shield situation and would have made first ranks being pressed very much from enemies in front and friends behind.  I have even liked how the Spartans  hoplites keep spears overarm as in painting (probably to make the enemies feel like they could throw it any moments) but they hit with underarm strikes, both low/middle and high/from above. 

[Patrick Waterson]

Studies of Etruscan DNA from tombs show them to be local Italians. 

*Sigh*  If one were to take DNA studies of Englishmen in the South or Midlands and compare them with Saxons from the same areas one could just as easily reach the conclusion that Saxons were 'local English' and any supposed connection with the Saxons of Germany is just a myth.

Come to think of it, I believe this has already been achieved at least once.

Much more to the point: what DNA studies comparing Etruscans and Lydians have been performed, and with what result?

In fact, we can answer that question: see this page.

Now, the most accurate approach, the DNA analysis, was applied. A team led by Professor Piazza has investigated genetic samples from three present-day Tuscany (central Italy) populations from in Murlo, Volterra, and Casentino. "We already knew that people living in this area were genetically different from those in the surrounding regions. Murlo and Volterra are among the most archaeologically important Etruscan sites in a region of Tuscany also known for having Etruscan-derived place names and local dialects. The Casentino valley sample was taken from an area bordering the area where Etruscan influence has been preserved."

This DNA samples were compared to those coming from healthy males from Northern Italy, the Southern Balkans, the island of Lemnos (Greece), Turkey, and the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia.

The Tuscan samples came from individuals living in the area for at least three generations, based on their surnames, having a geographical distribution limited to the linguistic area of sampling. "We found that the DNA samples from individuals from Murlo and Volterra were more closely related those from near Eastern people than those of the other Italian samples. In Murlo particularly, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey, and, of the samples we obtained, the Tuscan ones also show the closest affinity with those from Lemnos", Piazza said.

Previously, the same relationship had been found for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the female lineages. Another mtDNA of local ancient breeds of cattle still living in Tuscany and other areas found a close link to those from Anatolia ...

... In 1885, an inscription in a pre-Greek language discovered in the island of Lemnos, dated to about the 6th century BC, presented many similarities with the Etruscan language both in its form and structure and its vocabulary. Herodotus' theory, criticized by many historians, claimed that the Etruscans emigrated from the ancient region of Lydia (now western Turkey). Half the population sailed from Smyrna (now Izmir) until they reached Umbria in Italy.

Indeed, tombs discovered in ancient Lydia are extremely similar to those of the Etruscans. The Etruscans were also skilled sailors, who traded with the Greeks and Cartagena and the God of the Sea, Neptunus, was important in their religion.

So it looks as if DNA testing confirms Herodotus' account after all, or at least indicates that Etruscans were originally Lydian migrants.

I am deeply suspicious of depicting early  Italians, or anyone as  unformed. It smacks of the period when scholars claimed that pre the Greeks pretty well everything Western was Homeric, Heroic Warfare consisting of clumps led by nobles.  Generally I suggest they are in  ranks and files and have some ability to manoeuvre, particularly in advance and retreat . When we meet Celts and Germans they are certainly not in clumps.

Agreed: I think this instance [the helter-skelter cavalry-infantry charge against the Cumaeans] is an exception, as other accounts have the Etruscans fighting it out for much of the day in what seem to be close, compact bodies.  Rather than taking it to be a Dionysian conceit, noting that he does not repeat it on other occasions when Etruscans are mentioned, might we do better to put it down to the presumed unique circumstances of this particular engagement?