SoA Forums

Well, not exactly the same argument that was put forward by Paul M-S on the ancmed list a few years ago; but similar in that it suggests a Western Mediterranean "military koinē" based around infantry fighting in "clouds" with various javelins and long shields, and established before Roman ascendancy.

https://www.academia.edu/26292605/Ante_bella_punica_Western_Mediterranean_Military_Development_350-264_BC

Specific points made vary from the interesting to the inaccurate.

Not that again.

And from a university on the the inferior island too.

I had a quick flick and will return when I have read it more deepky.mHowever, there does appear to be a flaw in his ligic.  Soldiers  adopt a panoply that suits their skirmishing tactics, later they are adopting skirmishing tactics because they are using arms and armour that are suitable for skirmishing. I'm confess I have a problem with large armies of footsoldiers operating in clouds as I cannot see them having any solidity and thus being aboe to deal with hoplites or similar foot except in rough ground ( and Sphacteria is rough ground).  Nor am I happy that we can just ignore the written sources and follow an extreme 'function follows form' argument against solid infantry lines  when the form of the weaponry fits equally well with a denser formation. Perhaps later on the author gives some back- up evidence, but the first part of the argument, which should have referred to such evidence relies on the author's own inagined construction of an argument from the presence of Italic style armours in N Africa and Spain.
Roy

His secondary sources list was a bit thin for an M.A, I thought. (lesser island, shouldn't be surprised)

Including bar kochva also raises questions for me too, so much of his military analysis keeps falling apart now that it is no longer the main English language book on Seleucids, as it was in the 70s.

And a bit too reliant on prof Q.S and his Spanish work.

Not yet able to face the task of seeing whether that is evident in the text though.


The thing about QS that stood out for me, was that he was mostly interested in defeating a 19th century notion that the Spanish could only fight as irregulars and skirmishers.  Basically, some prusdian Junker's only bothered to read back to corunna, and missed tertios, the Reconquista, and basically the entire Spanish imperial phase.

Extrapolating that simple argument into a parallel system across the western med is problematic.

Recognising that Spain and Italy have lots of hilly bits is not hard, so there are obviously going to be similarities in tactics that work in hills and forests.  Greeks called the same thing peltasts., and there are only so many ways you can shape a spear, sword , helmet of shield if you excluded decoration.

I could easily hear a case for similarity between Spanish and Samnite's.  It would be like comparing apples and oranges on the basis of shape though.  What matters is how they taste, and there is no link there.

Not so sure I can accept an argument that social legions were unchanged by fighting for Rome.

Nothing on gaul stood out from the first skim.  The thesis is pointless if it avoids the Celtic connecting lands.

And a lot on the Carthaginians, it seems.  It will be interesting to see whether he classes them as western med, Hellenistic, or north african.

But frighteningly for me, we had a broader bibliography for our sling shot piece.  There seemed very little modern work on roman fighting methods, and if he has indeed focussed on a received wisdom about Rome, a lot of detail on Spain, and a theory that social legions were unchanged until well into the pubic wars, i would be reluctant to grant a masters.

But that's just from a first skim.

And I am already biased against because he went to Auckland uni.

Quote from: Mark G on March 31, 2017, 07:11:28 AMNothing on gaul stood out from the first skim.  The thesis is pointless if it avoids the Celtic connecting lands.

Actually for me it was some of the ideas about the Gauls that did stand out. Nothing new as such, but it did remind me:

- That there are so many shanked pilum-like javelins from Montefortino and other Italian-Gallic sites;
- That the classic long Gallic slashing-sword developed from c.250 BC, so earlier Gauls are using mid-length pointed swords;
- That as Lumsden points out this throws serious doubt on some of the classic written accounts of Roman responses to the Gauls, such as Plutarch's Camillus, which describes innovations intended to counter weapons that don't exist yet.

It does make me wonder if 4th-century Italian Gauls might be significantly tactically different from later Gauls. And if so, why?

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 31, 2017, 08:47:19 AM

Quote from: Mark G on March 31, 2017, 07:11:28 AMNothing on gaul stood out from the first skim.  The thesis is pointless if it avoids the Celtic connecting lands.

Actually for me it was some of the ideas about the Gauls that did stand out. Nothing new as such, but it did remind me:

- That there are so many shanked pilum-like javelins from Montefortino and other Italian-Gallic sites;
- That the classic long Gallic slashing-sword developed from c.250 BC, so earlier Gauls are using mid-length pointed swords;
- That as Lumsden points out this throws serious doubt on some of the classic written accounts of Roman responses to the Gauls, such as Plutarch's Camillus, which describes innovations intended to counter weapons that don't exist yet.

It does make me wonder if 4th-century Italian Gauls might be significantly tactically different from later Gauls. And if so, who changes, and when and why?

Mark,   

which book has replaced Bar Kochva?   I could not find any listing in the forum book section.

Regards,
bill

Thanks for sharing, Duncan. It's an interesting thesis, but it strikes me that there are a few problems with the argument.

1) He proceeds from the assumption that the Romans were not really that different from anyone else and that when Livy and Polybius say they were different it is because they were in fact propagating a myth of 'Roman exceptionalism'. Roman allies are not really any different from Carthaginian mercenaries or subject peoples and Roman fighters are not really any different from Carthaginians, Iberians, Celts, etc...

This is a built-in assumption, not one that is arrived at.

2) He reinforces his argument with argumentation rather than evidence.

Preparation: "This thesis will show that x fought in a cloud formation."
Evidence: "It seems that x fought in cloud formation [A, 2001]."
Reinforcement: "As this thesis has shown, x fought in cloud formation and y probably did too [A, 2001]."
Conclusion: "Therefore, x and y were not really that different, and in fact utilised a broadly similar system [A, 2001]."

3) He does not properly take into account the complementary battlefield functions of different types of troops. He argues that the Roman line structure is only what everyone else was doing. The Romans were only different in that they clearly delineated who was doing what, and this is probably being attributed backwards anachronistically anyway. Therefore, he contends, Roman tactics were not really exceptional.

Actually, for wargamers at least, this recognition and institutionalisation of complementary function is one of the things that made them exceptional!

4) He hedges his bets with equipment. In one section he asserts that only the rich used swords; at other points in the argument swords of various types are well attested, and indeed corroborate the correlation between x and y. The possible ceremonial function of arms and armour is enlisted only in support of his argument, when it can be used the other way as well.

5) He ignores or dismisses contrary evidence. As one example, he argues at one point that because Roman officers are recorded as being hit by javelins that warfare was primarily skirmish-based. Surely the obvious sword damage that so unnerved Philip's Macedonians should be taken into account as well?

It's interesting stuff but I'm unconvinced by his theory as a whole. I find certain aspects of his argument persuasive at times, and it will be interesting where he takes things from here. He promises to pursue this further in doctoral studies, so he will be able to further refine his ideas then and address criticisms. I certainly wish him all the best and it's great to see a new generation taking such an interest in ancient warfare.

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 31, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Actually for me it was some of the ideas about the Gauls that did stand out. Nothing new as such, but it did remind me:

- That there are so many shanked pilum-like javelins from Montefortino and other Italian-Gallic sites;
- That the classic long Gallic slashing-sword developed from c.250 BC, so earlier Gauls are using mid-length pointed swords;
- That as Lumsden points out this throws serious doubt on some of the classic written accounts of Roman responses to the Gauls, such as Plutarch's Camillus, which describes innovations intended to counter weapons that don't exist yet.

I thought the Gauls under Brennus were not Italian-based Gauls; might they have been using different weaponry and possibly even a differing tactical repertoire?

Quote
It does make me wonder if 4th-century Italian Gauls might be significantly tactically different from later Gauls. And if so, why?

WMWW - sorry, proximity of 1st April ...

Actually, that is a point worth pursuing.  How best to pursue it?

Bill,

Book? No idea, but his conclusions keep showing as dubious as time progresses. 

Most notably for me, his magnesia is very dodgy (and was seen as controversial at publication, but became dominant as far as I can tell because we all brought the book and wanted to validate our new army lists).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 31, 2017, 08:08:02 PM

Actually, that is a point worth pursuing.  How best to pursue it?

Well, one area would be comparative archaeology.  Duncan notes a change in weaponry slightly later.  Are there any antecedents to that to show a different "panoply" North and South of the Alps?

Quote from: Prufrock on March 31, 2017, 06:01:39 PM5) He ignores or dismisses contrary evidence. As one example, he argues at one point that because Roman officers are recorded as being hit by javelins that warfare was primarily skirmish-based. Surely the obvious sword damage that so unnerved Philip's Macedonians should be taken into account as well?

But the clashes with Philip V were well after the period covered in the thesis, and involve the Spanish sword which according to Suda/Polybios was adopted after the Second Punic War. So this can't undermine his thesis about the pre-Punic Wars period.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 31, 2017, 08:08:02 PMI thought the Gauls under Brennus were not Italian-based Gauls; might they have been using different weaponry and possibly even a differing tactical repertoire?

Livy's account of the Gallic migrations into Italy is perhaps not as clear chronologically as it might have been, but:

Quote from: Livy 5.35Then the Senones, the last to come, occupied the country from the Utis to the Aesis. It was this last tribe, I find, that came to Clusium, and from there to Rome; but it is uncertain whether they came alone or helped by contingents from all the Cisalpine peoples.

He attributes the sack of Rome principally to the Cisalpine Senones, the very nation who left us the Montefortino cemetery - though possibly with Transalpine allies.

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 01, 2017, 09:31:29 PM

Quote from: Prufrock on March 31, 2017, 06:01:39 PM5) He ignores or dismisses contrary evidence. As one example, he argues at one point that because Roman officers are recorded as being hit by javelins that warfare was primarily skirmish-based. Surely the obvious sword damage that so unnerved Philip's Macedonians should be taken into account as well?

But the clashes with Philip V were well after the period covered in the thesis, and involve the Spanish sword which according to Suda/Polybios was adopted after the Second Punic War. So this can't undermine his thesis about the pre-Punic Wars period.

Good point, Duncan. But of the examples of javelin wounds in Livy he cites (from Sabin) in order to support his contention that the sword was not the dominant weapon in the 3rd and 4th centuries, all but one (poor old Decius Mus) were themselves from the time of the 2nd Punic War or later (see p.115 in thesis).

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 01, 2017, 09:38:29 PM
Livy's account of the Gallic migrations into Italy is perhaps not as clear chronologically as it might have been, but:

Quote from: Livy 5.35Then the Senones, the last to come, occupied the country from the Utis to the Aesis. It was this last tribe, I find, that came to Clusium, and from there to Rome; but it is uncertain whether they came alone or helped by contingents from all the Cisalpine peoples.

He attributes the sack of Rome principally to the Cisalpine Senones, the very nation who left us the Montefortino cemetery - though possibly with Transalpine allies.

While that paragon of antique historical information, Geoffrey of Monmouth, brings Brennus from our very own sceptred isle.

Tradition, such as it is, does seem to favour transalpine allies (cf. Livy V.34 where the emigration from Gaul into Italy at least begins under one command) and hence could relieve us from exclusive commitment to Montefortinocentric paraphernalia.  As of 391 BC, the men of Clusium regarded the Gauls as "the unfamiliar [invisitatus = not seen before] figures of the men and their novel weapons [armorum]," [Livy V.35.4] indicating a lack of commonality with then existing Italian equipment.

According to Livy, the Gauls defeated the Romans at the Battle of the Allia in 390 BC, the year after they first invaded Italy.  This would be some time before they could have established the Montefortino cemetery, which would thus not be an accurate guide to weaponry and equipment in use at the time.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 01, 2017, 10:29:53 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 31, 2017, 08:08:02 PM
Actually, that is a point worth pursuing.  How best to pursue it?

Well, one area would be comparative archaeology.  Duncan notes a change in weaponry slightly later.  Are there any antecedents to that to show a different "panoply" North and South of the Alps?

I must confess to ignorance on this point.  La Tene weaponry (dating from c.500 BC onwards) seems to be our principal sample for north of the Alps, characterised by broad-bladed spears and long iron slashing swords.  For Montefortino weaponry I shall have to rely on Duncan as internet searches seem obsessed exclusively with the helmet type.

Being still at the educated(?) guessing stage, I would envisage the Gauls arriving in Italy with their traditional long, heavy swords as primary armament and then later, say during the 3rd century BC, the Gauls still resident in Italy might well have adapted to a more missile-oriented approach for the initial stages of a battle.