The mechanism of Roman line relief

[andrew881runner]

I'll add my two pence worth, if I may.
Having a mix of shield types organised by shape appears to be a standard Italian mode of operation. The Romans are the result of a mix of Latins and Etruscans......and Trojans if you take a very literal view of sources:-)). 
In Italy there are illustrations of soldiers in Greek inspired armour, or what we take to be Greek inspired armour , with Italian weapons, throwing spears , early pila etc.  I say Greek inspired armour because we have a very Hellenocentric view of armour styles. If something was invented in Egypt (the linothorax) or  in Caria (men of bronze) we see it as Greek.  In Italy we see a mix of styles, Celtic, native Italian, Spanish, if disc cuirasses are from there or are they from Italy to Spain or mutually independent?  That gives rise to what appears to be aspides (hoplite shields) being used by Campanians and Etruscans. however, I wonder if this indicates the adoption of a foreign shield type into an Italian context, simply  replacing the rimless Italian round shield with the aspis and keeping the Italian missile weapon. This adoption could well take place at the same time as the Greeks are using the aspis/ hoplon with a pair of javelins, perhaps interchangeably with a thrusting spear.
Generally the Greek colonies in Italy were established early.  They will have brought Greek methods of warfare, but they appear to adapt to Italian conditions, so Capuans become famous heavy cavalry, Tarantines light. Unfortunately I am unaware of Contemporary sources that show how the infantry of these Greek colonies fought. I except Sicily, though I wonder whether the sources would tell us if Sicilian Greeks were throwing or thrusting their spears (personally I would suggest that the Sicels and Sicans were not as influential on the Siciliot Greeks).
So may I suggest that the Roman situation is not some simple move from being spear armed hoplites to being javelin armed scutatoi, but simply a change of shield type for those already using a throwing a weapon.

Roy

for what I know about ancient Italian warfare, it was basically hoplite style phalanges, until Romans changed it. Surely the Etruscans (possibly my early ancestors [emoji1] since I live in Florence) used hoplite phalanx. At the time when Romans conquered the peninsula Etruscans were one of the main cultures together with Greek colonies in the South, from where they probably learnt the use of hoplite phalanx. Early Romans too used hoplite phalanx (early Romans had deep deep Etruscans influence for the only fact that they were ruled by Etruscan kings until the last king). Then there were Celts in the northern peninsula. These were the main cultures. Samnites in the South a d early italic were very influenced by these. So I don't know what you are talking about when you talk about Spanish. And the Trojan thing is only a myth invented to link the Augusta n descendence to Aeneas. Nothing more. There is no etnic link between Italians (born as indoerupeans, and especially early Romans were not the dark midgets often imagined... we know that both from bones remaining who represent tall men, 175/180 cm, and the frequency of latin names referring to being blond, to being redhead or having blue eyes) and Eastern people. Even the idea of Etruscan coming from East is very confused and is based only on obscurity of language, the most accepted opinion is that they were a result of Villanova civilization.
Then the idea of Romans using javelins from the beginning... hell not. They used Spears, they used them together with hoplite phalanx until the gallic invasions of 5th century. It was with the javelins that they managed to repell the second gallic invasion, together with new type oh helmets

[Patrick Waterson]

yes, exactly, it does not count. Wikipedia is based on published sources, if you scroll to end of the page you will notice them.

What our distinguished Wikipedia editor means is that it does not count as a Wikipedia entry.  As will undoubtedly be pointed out by others (it has been in the past), Wikipedia entries are not necessarily truth, simply what has been submitted by members of the public on the basis of attributable secondary sources and not removed.  Sometimes the two coincide ...

However if one is genuinely interested in what happened in history, Wikipedia is a useful starting-point from which to undertake one's own serious research.

[Patrick Waterson]

for what I know about ancient Italian warfare, it was basically hoplite style phalanges, until Romans changed it.

Oh, dear. 

Surely the Etruscans (possibly my early ancestors [emoji1] since I live in Florence) used hoplite phalanx.

Why 'surely'?  A statement like that needs evidence: literary source evidence, archaeological evidence, primary source evidence (a fuller decipherment of Etruscan would be a help here, though I am not expecting anyone in this group to do it!).  Without evidence such a statement has no support whatsoever.  If one  has a source for such an assertion, the least one can do is mention the source.

Actually, 'The Etruscan Military System' might make a suitable separate topic, if anyone is interested.  Material on it is not extensive, but there are sufficient tomb paintings and records of 19th century finds to give us ideas about individual equipment, and records of Rome's early campaigns against the Etruscans have descriptions of combat which do not seem to quite fit the 'hoplite' model (Horatius Cocles holding the bridge and then swimming across a river under a barrage of missiles, for example).

At the time when Romans conquered the peninsula Etruscans were one of the main cultures together with Greek colonies in the South, from where they probably learnt the use of hoplite phalanx. Early Romans too used hoplite phalanx (early Romans had deep deep Etruscans influence for the only fact that they were ruled by Etruscan kings until the last king). Then there were Celts in the northern peninsula. These were the main cultures.

This leaves out the Volsci, Hernici, Aequi and various other important Apennine peoples - who were coincidentally Rome's main opponents when the Etruscans were on holiday.

And the Trojan thing is only a myth invented to link the Augusta n descendence to Aeneas. Nothing more. There is no etnic link between Italians (born as indoerupeans, and especially early Romans were not the dark midgets often imagined... we know that both from bones remaining who represent tall men, 175/180 cm, and the frequency of latin names referring to being blond, to being redhead or having blue eyes) and Eastern people. Even the idea of Etruscan coming from East is very confused and is based only on obscurity of language, the most accepted opinion is that they were a result of Villanova civilization.

If you were to look further at Lydian and Etruscan cultures you might revise that opinion.

Then the idea of Romans using javelins from the beginning... hell not. They used Spears, they used them together with hoplite phalanx until the gallic invasions of 5th century. It was with the javelins that they managed to repell the second gallic invasion, together with new type oh helmets

This is simple misinformation.  I strongly suggest taking a good look at original sources before making any more statements on this subject.  If you find some material to support your view, quote it - simply making unsupported statements as if they were fact does not prove anything (do not worry, I was told this in the past, too ...  ).

[Erpingham]

Then the idea of Romans using javelins from the beginning... hell not. They used Spears, they used them together with hoplite phalanx until the gallic invasions of 5th century. It was with the javelins that they managed to repell the second gallic invasion, together with new type oh helmets

While the congruence of armour and shield styles between Greeks and Etruscans does suggest an adoption of similar tactics, Roy's point about the proto-phalanx having two throwing spears rather than one long thrusting spear is worth noting.  If the Greeks could fight phalanx style with throwing spears (or dual purpose spears), the Etruscans could do likewise.  Did phalanx fighting arrive in Italy before or after the Greeks switched to the dory?

[andrew881runner]

everything I said is the result of things I have read in books, or websites dedicated to history. Every one of these gives all the sources but most of times what I say is what I remember from a lot of books, newspapers or websites I have read finding them good sources of information.  So sorry but I cannot recollect exactly where I have read something in particular. For this reason you can totally not care what I write. Anyway I can assure you that is not my personal opinion. Even wikipedia is a good source of information to START since it always give all first sources, gives picturues of archeological findings and links to informative websites. So I would not despise wikipedia as somehow inferior, because it is in the Internet and not on some old book. While with most regards to you all guys, what you write here is generally your personal opinions (not the result of many opinions like in wikipedia or in books written by historians who do that as their job) made reading books or interpretating sources. Which can be wrong or not.
Anyway I noticed that most times what I read here is the opposite of what I have found not in one place, but in exactly all websites, newspapers, books I have read about that topic. Which is a bit strange to me. Either you are the only enlightened few people about history in this world and all the rest of historic research more or less agreeing about one topic is wrong, or... you could be wrong.
For example I have always read everywhere that Etruscans used hoplite phalanx. Everywhere even in school books. Now you tell me that this is false. What should I think?

[aligern]

Well Andrew , you could make a start by looking at the ancient Italian artworks that feature the Etruscans in at least one of them you will find pila in the context of Etruscan's military equipment. If you look for the appropriate battle in Livy you will find that both Etruscans and Romans jettison their weapons to get to hand strokes which strongly implies that both have throwing spears because why would a hoplite throw down his spear which should give him an advantage against a swordsman. So there is evidence that the Etruscans used throwing weapons. To an extent that evidence could also prove a case that the Etruscans used thrusting weapons and converted to pila to confront the Romans. However, they would appear to have been using pila with the aspis!

I tend to see th Etruscans as an alliance of city based colonies which covers a wide area of central and northern Italy. It is thus quite possible hat their army is not unitary , but differs in each city state, with troop types derived from Etruscan, other Italian and Greek models. Unfortunately we do not have any Etruscan literature to illuminate their way of fighting.

One of the main purposes of the Society is to explore Ancient and Mediaeval warfare.  We are quite happy to  use both original and secondary sources, but ideally we would refer to an original source, even if in translation. Naturally we seek to incorporate the evidence of archaeology and art history. We relate all this history stuff to wargaming, not necessarily with figures. I suppose you could say we seek to enhance wargaming with a knowledge of history and  the study of military history through the insights  gained through wargaming.
If we accepted Wikipedia or secondary written sources as the last word on military history then , what would be the point? where would be the fun.
I might also suggest that many secondary sources are not better than the members of the Society when it comes to looking at the military systems, tactics and battles of the Ancients than the people who debate on this site. I might also suggest that many of the points that we debate are not solveable. To take an example of the Etruscans, there is a conventional view that shows them as hoplites, however, the evidence is not conclusive.The evidence we have is partial and incomplete. It can be made into a coherent case to support different interpretations. I know of no secondary source that fully explains the interaction of Greek Etruscan and Italian warfare and gives a good line for the development both chronological and geographic of the pilum.

Roy

[aligern]

And I am not too critical of Wikipedia. It is a brilliant resource, just not one that we would usually cite at this level of discussion.

Andrew, what is your view of the warriors on the Certosa Situla?
Roy

[andrew881runner]

And I am not too critical of Wikipedia. It is a brilliant resource, just not one that we would usually cite at this level of discussion.

Andrew, what is your view of the warriors on the Certosa Situla?
Roy

yes, I read something about it. My point is that it does not represent a proto manipular system which was evolving in Upper Etruscan area so to prove that the servian reform was even a proto manipular one, but it is simply a representation of a hoplite style parade of different types of hoplites, probably different on wealth which reflected with different equipment. Something which is coherent with the idea that in 6th and 5th century or late Etruscan age main type of warrior was the hoplite (with a slightly different equipment than that of Greeks though). I don't think that the stipula shows an army marching since the order is not that of the army marching (light troops in front, as the order of battle of Arriano -i don't know the English name sorry- against the Alans shows). So stipula shows nothing more of a hoplites army in parade. If we consider different types of soldiers as belonging to different social classes we could see it as a first step into proto manipular army, since manipular army is based on different classes based on wealth. Nothing more.
Otherwise we could see it as a march of different continents of allied cities, each with its own style. Noblemen would lead the March in front, then would come the hoplites of major city, then the others. Finally the worse armored, maybe the servants of last hoplites.
This is my idea. [emoji6]

[Justin Swanton]

everything I said is the result of things I have read in books, or websites dedicated to history. Every one of these gives all the sources but most of times what I say is what I remember from a lot of books, newspapers or websites I have read finding them good sources of information.  So sorry but I cannot recollect exactly where I have read something in particular. For this reason you can totally not care what I write. Anyway I can assure you that is not my personal opinion. Even wikipedia is a good source of information to START since it always give all first sources, gives picturues of archeological findings and links to informative websites. So I would not despise wikipedia as somehow inferior, because it is in the Internet and not on some old book. While with most regards to you all guys, what you write here is generally your personal opinions (not the result of many opinions like in wikipedia or in books written by historians who do that as their job) made reading books or interpretating sources. Which can be wrong or not.
Anyway I noticed that most times what I read here is the opposite of what I have found not in one place, but in exactly all websites, newspapers, books I have read about that topic. Which is a bit strange to me. Either you are the only enlightened few people about history in this world and all the rest of historic research more or less agreeing about one topic is wrong, or... you could be wrong.
For example I have always read everywhere that Etruscans used hoplite phalanx. Everywhere even in school books. Now you tell me that this is false. What should I think?

It is important to compare the research methods of experimental scientists with those of historians. In the case of experimental scientists, numbers do count. 1000 researchers working in 1000 different labs performing different experiments with different equipment will acquire vastly more raw data than one single researcher working on his own. 1000 historians however who study the primary texts do not increase the raw data by a single word. Archaeology helps, but not that much.

In consequence, historians, who all have the same obscure and problematic texts to work from, tend (IMHO) to reach a tacit consensus on what the texts mean. In our era of hypercommunication, this consensus is transmitted rapidly through the media and becomes a Truth, reproduced in schoolbooks, movies, documetaries, articles, etc. We live in an age of repetition, where a hypothesis by one academic can easily reappear in a thousand different publications and acquire force of law. Anyone who enters the field is subjected to pretty much the same argument of authority you have reproduced in your post: "Gosh, all these distinguished dons and prestigious professors are saying the same thing. Who am I, a mere mortal, to contradict them?"

In the SoA, however, we like tilting at the goliaths, especially if their feet are made of clay. 

[Erpingham]

In the SoA, however, we like tilting at the goliaths, especially if their feet are made of clay. 

I think, to be fair, it should be said you don't have to be an out-and-out inconoclast to post here   You are allowed to believe that there is more to academic consensus than slavish copying and a plot by academe.  Not everything needs to be proven with reference to the grammar of ancient historians.   Indeed, sometimes I think we can focus in when we should widen out and bring in other disciplines (archaeology, art history and experimental reconstruction all have a part to play).  But stick with it, be prepared to defend your corner and you will emerge from here better equipped to critically approach your hobby.  As a medievalist, I will admit I have learned tons about Roman warfare from our debates.

[Patrick Waterson]

Let me tell you a story.

A couple of years ago, a member of the Society emailed me to ask whether it would be possible to examine his idea that the Roman army ceased to be hoplite-style rather earlier than is generally thought.  At the time I had not studied the matter but had absorbed the general consensus that it remained hoplite-style until it met the Samnites and then somehow developed its manipular arrangement.  Being thoroughly confident that this was the case, I looked for a gentle way to let our enquirer know his idea was wrong.

Because all academics ultimately depend upon the same primary sources, I thought the best way to show the truth of the matter was to extract some telling quotes from Livy, Dionysius etc. to demonstrate that the Roman army had kept its hoplite nature until the 4th century BC.  So I delved into these volumes, expecting vindication of the prevailing academic opinion - after all, an opinion so widely held must be based on something.

How wrong I was!  Going back to the origins of Republican Rome, its very first battle (against Tarquin, in 509 BC) looked like a hoplite battle - each side's right wing won and the battle as a whole was indecisive - but very soon after that the picture changed.  In 503 BC Romans were using 'hussois' - the Greek word for pila - and Dionysius (V.46.2) actually provides a description which matches that of a pilum.

So I looked further.

One of the landmarks in the development of the legion is Livy's (III.8.3) assertion that "The Romans had formerly used round shields [clipeis]; then, postquam stipendiarii facti sunt, they made oblong shields [scuta] instead of round ones."

'Stipendiarii facti sunt' has been taken to signify 'they began to serve for pay' but this is not Livy's meaning.  What Livy meant can be seen in a related passage in Dionysius V.47.1:

"This booty having been sold at public auction, all the citizens received back the amount of the contributions [eisphoras] which they had severally paid for the equipment of the expedition."

'Stipendiarii' would thus appear to signify 'contributors' who financed the campaign, a system still in use in Athens in Xenophon's time: he notes this in Ways and Means 3.8: 

"I am also aware that large expenditure is frequently incurred to send warships abroad, though none can tell whether the venture will be for better or worse, and the only thing certain is that the subscribers will never see their money back nor even enjoy any part of what they contribute."

Since Dionysius' 'eisphoras' (contributions) provided by the citizens relate to the First Sabine War (505-503 BC), the date for shifting from the 'clipeus' to the 'scutum' shifts with it, to the First Sabine War and not the siege of Veii.

Having seen this, I got in touch with Rodger (for it was he) and together we looked through the accounts of Roman battles in the 5th century BC.  To cut a long story short, not only were the weapons in customary use a combination of heavy javelin, light javelin (Livy's pilum and hasta; Dionysius' saunion and logkhe) and sword, but also the armies themselves showed primitive manipular behaviour characteristics, fighting in two lines one of which acted as a reserve, sending small contingents to bolster weak parts of the front line.  I had to admit that Rodger had been right.  We then traced the history of the development of the legion from clues in accounts of battles, and were able to place the appearance of the Livian legion in the 437-394 bracket and the Polybian legion in the 314-311 BC bracket.  This was an extensive though by no means prohibitive exercise, and would have been well within the capacity of a couple of academics.  Instead, the academic world has tried to muddle through with a model that rests on nothing more than a couple of misunderstandings.

It is not that academics are stupid: quite the contrary.  Those I have met are very intelligent and have a remarkable breadth of information.  What is at fault is the system by which academics build on the mistakes of other academics and use the original sources for target practice rather than information.  Curing this basic methodological fault could result in much being learned about many ancient and classical military systems (and perhaps some Dark Ages and mediaeval systems, too).  Unfortunately until the system of seeing what the sources tell us and adducing information from battlefield behaviour becomes the norm, significant discovery in these fields will probably be limited to the efforts of the Society of Ancients.

The whole episode was a good illustration of the principle that secondary sources will, sooner or later, let you down.  And I learned that, to paraphrase Socrates, an unexamined opinion is not worth having. 

Indeed, sometimes I think we can focus in when we should widen out and bring in other disciplines (archaeology, art history and experimental reconstruction all have a part to play).

Truly spoken - or rather typed - but unfortunately these tend to provide at best an incomplete picture, though the real challenge with using archaeology and to an extent art history is that of interpretation.  The Certosa Situla would like to speak for itself but it is mute, and different people see different things in it (although what is not seeable is a homogenous hoplite force).  Experimental reconstruction can provide very useful insights, particularly if based on the actual weaponry and formations of the time (and not, for example, hay bales 3' apart with sticks protruding as a supposed model of the phalanx's ability to resist missiles).  Unfortunately we never have enough of any of these elements to form a complete picture and rarely do we have enough even to fill in the outlines of a picture derived, rightly or wrongly, from literary sources.

What we do have is of course worth mentioning, and when Duncan is not on holiday it does tend to get mentioned.  More often, it seems to me, art and archaeology throw up questions rather than answering them (not a reason for not mentioning them but one indicating why they are not often able to decide the kind of questions we are currently airing.) The current question of whether or not Late Romans in muscled cuirasses and 'Attic' helmets represent palatini is a classic art-and-archaeology situation which is being resolved, or at least resolution is being attempted, by reference to period sources.

As a medievalist, I will admit I have learned tons about Roman warfare from our debates.

I am sometimes tempted to wonder how a Roman army would have fared against a mediaeval one (leaving aside Byzantines), the styles of war being so very different.  This however would be another subject for another thread.

[Erpingham]

The Certosa Situla would like to speak for itself but it is mute, and different people see different things in it (although what is not seeable is a homogenous hoplite force). 

It is a good one to raise, because it has been cited as an example of a class-based military system in the manner of the Livian legion (e.g. by Connolly).  Yet Andrew correctly points out, it could show a set of allied contingents, shown in a uniform manner so contemporaries would have picked them out by their dress.  So much is interpretation.  But it can say to us "These types of arms were used at the same time" with more conviction.

Experimental reconstruction can provide very useful insights, particularly if based on the actual weaponry and formations of the time

Indeed.  Properly designed experiments/reconstructions can help us answer questions.  Random musings of re-enactors don't fit in this category.  Roy could bring forward the underarm throwing of plumbata or the bouncing francisca at this point But even well constructed experiments can be challenged.  Paul Macdonnell-Staff, for example, is strongly opposed to the current paradigm that hoplite armour was ever made of linen and would point out that an experiment proving you could make a linen yoked cuirass doesn't mean that the Greeks ever made one.

[Justin Swanton]

In the SoA, however, we like tilting at the goliaths, especially if their feet are made of clay. 

I think, to be fair, it should be said you don't have to be an out-and-out inconoclast to post here   You are allowed to believe that there is more to academic consensus than slavish copying and a plot by academe.

True. Academics are able to bring sources together and get one to illuminate aspects of the other. Acquiring this kind of erudition (which I don't have) is full time job. The danger though is relying on the opinion of one's peers where the sources are not clear and susceptible to more than one interpretation. I do seriously think a lot of this kind of consensus-building goes on in academe - not so much a plot as a respect by one academic for the thinking of his colleagues.

Not everything needs to be proven with reference to the grammar of ancient historians.   Indeed, sometimes I think we can focus in when we should widen out and bring in other disciplines (archaeology, art history and experimental reconstruction all have a part to play).

Granted, but just how much clarification do non-textual sources bring? My own take is that at the end of the day we rely 90% on the primary textual sources for our picture of the past.

[Erpingham]

Granted, but just how much clarification do non-textual sources bring? My own take is that at the end of the day we rely 90% on the primary textual sources for our picture of the past.

Well, one factor is how many primary textual sources do we have for a period.  Take Etruscans.  We are pretty much entirely limited to sources by non-Etruscans.  So the art and artefacts of the Etruscans themselves take on a particular signifcance.

To take another example, Rodger Williams has an article in the current Slingshot about Byzantines in Spain in which he refers to the textual sources amounting to 250 words.  Archaeological finds are important in defining the extent of the Byzantine presence.

[andrew881runner]

I think you are undervaluing  the job of many academics. There are thousands, maybe hundred thousands people over there doing an analytical job comparing original sources and I cannot believe they use only secondary sources or ignore what is different from main accepted interpretation. Basically the job of every academic is exactely this, to take into account all. different interpretations, compare it and make a conclusion with deep analytical motivation. There are people very acknowledged, very clever, very much trained to do this kind of effort on a level which a common person who decides to be more informed on a subject cannot reach, exactly as a professional athlete will be always much superior to any common guys who wants to try a new sport. Simply because it is his job, he dedicated years to it, he is naturally better in that thing (otherwise it would not be his job).  So when you want to discredit a generally accepted idea, you can, but you have to do a very hard analytical job.
Surely there are some academics who don't do well their job and limit to repeat what they have learnt. But I cannot believe that there are not a good amount of academics who do their job and compare sources and find the most accurate interpretation from them.