Early Italian Warfare

[andrew881runner]

Thanks for the link Andrew. I am pleased to see that it shows 'Dorian Hoplites duelling' ...with throwing spears.
Robert, what younsay about the aspis is true. It is well designed for othismos pushing. However, that does not mean that it has to be used in a phalanx armed with thrusting spears. Early Carthaginians may well have had aspis shields, but were probably using longche throwing sprars. Greeks with a pair of javelins are shown with an aspis as are Etruscans that I provided a link to earlier. The aspis is not a guide to the useage of Greek tactics!
Roy

yes I have always agreed on that point. Maybe not all, but some hoplites surely threw their spear. For a only reason: why not? I mean, a spear is not so expensive.

[aligern]

I think that we were looking at the tactics of the Romans pre the supposed Servian reform.  The involvement of the Etruscans in this was because there were two linked assumptions in play: That the Etruscans fought in a Greek style hoplite spear phalanx and that the Romans copied this system which was then reformed.
I thank Andrew for the provision of the Italian site and Patrick for the translation. However, the author still starts from an assumption that the Etruscans are following a Greek model and that the Romans are reforming that inheritance. So far it is an assumption without much evidence.

The author cited states, without realising it, the conundrum at the heart of the argument, the Etruscans and Romans are described as operating in ranks based upon social grades that are used for recruitment and different in equipment. In the Greek system the phalanx is organised by files and the kit is homogenous.. In the Greek system the first and last man in the file are the best, is this true for an Etruscan or Early Roman system? the Greek ranks are very likely by age, all citizens in the phalanx are equal, whereas in the Etruscan it appears to be a matter of social difference.
In the Greek phalanx the soldiers all have the same equipment, this is not just about social equality, but because the kit is designed to facilitate a massed push against the opposition. The Etruscans and Early Romans have different styles of kit by social class. At the very least this varied kit is not well suited to transmitting a push. It makes much more sense if the different classes are operating separately.
You cannot have a little bit of the Greek system, because the social organisation, the armour and shield and use of the spear are all part of an integral whole.
With regard to hoplites and Carians using two javelins, I suggest that this is a different style of warfare where the formation is looser, the javelins are thrown, then it falls to sword strokes and we have plenty of depictions of hoplites in individual combat to show that this is possible, but I doubt that is the developed pushing phalanx that occurs with the thrusting spear.
Roy

[andrew881runner]

I think that we were looking at the tactics of the Romans pre the supposed Servian reform.  The involvement of the Etruscans in this was because there were two linked assumptions in play: That the Etruscans fought in a Greek style hoplite spear phalanx and that the Romans copied this system which was then reformed.
I thank Andrew for the provision of the Italian site and Patrick for the translation. However, the author still starts from an assumption that the Etruscans are following a Greek model and that the Romans are reforming that inheritance. So far it is an assumption without much evidence.

The author cited states, without realising it, the conundrum at the heart of the argument, the Etruscans and Romans are described as operating in ranks based upon social grades that are used for recruitment and different in equipment. In the Greek system the phalanx is organised by files and the kit is homogenous.. In the Greek system the first and last man in the file are the best, is this true for an Etruscan or Early Roman system? the Greek ranks are very likely by age, all citizens in the phalanx are equal, whereas in the Etruscan it appears to be a matter of social difference.
In the Greek phalanx the soldiers all have the same equipment, this is not just about social equality, but because the kit is designed to facilitate a massed push against the opposition. The Etruscans and Early Romans have different styles of kit by social class. At the very least this varied kit is not well suited to transmitting a push. It makes much more sense if the different classes are operating separately.
You cannot have a little bit of the Greek system, because the social organisation, the armour and shield and use of the spear are all part of an integral whole.
With regard to hoplites and Carians using two javelins, I suggest that this is a different style of warfare where the formation is looser, the javelins are thrown, then it falls to sword strokes and we have plenty of depictions of hoplites in individual combat to show that this is possible, but I doubt that is the developed pushing phalanx that occurs with the thrusting spear.
Roy

aligern I showed you several etruscan paintings representing basically the typical hoplite with Hoplon, linothorax and Corinthian helm,  and with spear. Everyone agrees that etruscans used phalanx. I have no idea why you don't. I think that debating can be useful but debating about things we already know very well is less useful.  Main point of interest, because it is not clear in sources and archeology is not enough, is the Roman system and its evolution, especially when it evolved.

[aligern]

 Sorry Andrew, I looked at your references and agree that they show hoplon and Greek inspired armour, but I could not find those with the spear.

By the way I do not doubt that sme Etruscans carried spears. They are found in the Bologna museum. . However, I do not see their class based army as a one line, no reserve Greek army, but as an Italic army with different divisions differently equipped and operating in lines of units.

There was a wonderful quote that I remember Patrick deploying on ancmed a couple of years back with the Romans fighting the Hernici  both sides sending in reserves to the fighting. Most Italian, most un Greek!
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I think it would be a good idea to be clear about the dates under discussion.  If the Etruscans adopted a hoplite-style system from Greek or other influences, they would have done so around a certain date, and before that approximate date they would have used a non-hoplite style.  Finding that date (to within a half-century or better) may be important.

The next question is how we would find this date.  The obvious answer in the absence of Etruscan literature would be by looking at depictions of equipment, though here we have a complication: I have the impression that Roy (Aligern) is arguing that hoplite equipment (especially the aspis shield) does not signify hoplite tactics, but a non-hoplite shield most definitely signifies non-hoplite tactics.  A more dispassionate approach would be preferable for evaluating such evidence as we have.

Another way of attempting to judge when and for how long the Etruscans would have used hoplite tactics is from battle descriptions in Livy and Dionysius, our main sources for the period, together with any hints provided by other authors.

In this connection Livy IX.32 is interesting.

First, context.

"While these events were taking place in Samnium, all the peoples of Etruria, except the Arretini, had already armed, and beginning with the siege of Sutrium, a city in alliance with the Romans, and forming as it were the key to Etruria, had set on foot a tremendous war. [2] thither the other consul, Aemilius, came with an army, to relieve the blockade of the allies. as the Romans came up, the Sutrini obligingly brought provisions to their camp, which was formed before the city. [3] The Etruscans spent the first day in deliberating whether to accelerate the war or to draw it out. [4] on the following day, their generals having decided on the swifter plan in preference to the safer, the signal for battle was displayed at sunrise and their men in fighting array marched out upon the field [armatique in aciem procedunt]."

Next, the preliminaries.

"When this was reported to the consul, he at once commanded the word to be passed round that the men should breakfast, and having recruited their strength with food, should then arm. The order was obeyed; and the consul, seeing them equipped and ready, bade advance the standards beyond the rampart, and drew up his troops a little way off from the enemy. [6] for some time both sides stood fast, observing one another closely, each waiting for the other to give a cheer and begin to fight, and the sun had begun his downward course in the heavens ere a missile was hurled on either side [quam telum hinc aut illinc emissum est]. [7] then the Etruscans, that they might not withdraw without accomplishing their purpose, set up a shout, and with sound of trumpets advanced their ensigns. [8] The Romans were equally prompt to begin the battle."

We note 'ere a missile was hurled on either side' - this presumably refers to the skirmishers.

Finally, the battle.

"The two armies rushed together with great fury, the enemy having a superiority in numbers, the Romans in bravery. [9] Victory hung in the balance and many perished on both sides, including all the bravest, and the event was not decided until the Roman second line [secunda acies Romana] came up with undiminished vigour to relieve their exhausted comrades in the first; and the Etruscans, whose fighting line was supported by no fresh reserves, all fell in front of their standards and around them. [10] there would never in any battle have been more bloodshed or less running away, but when the Etruscans were resolved to die, the darkness shielded them, so that the victors gave over fighting before the vanquished. [11] The sun had set when the recall was sounded, and in the night both armies retired to their camps."

This battle took place in 311 BC.

The significant point here seems to be that the Etruscans fought in a single line 'without reserves' [nulla subsidiis].  This feature, while not exclusive to a hoplite army, is consistent with one.  It also suggests that the Etruscans were still following their own way rather than using the main-and-reserve line approach of Latin and Oscan cultures.

There was a wonderful quote that I remember Patrick deploying on ancmed a couple of years back with the Romans fighting the Hernici  both sides sending in reserves to the fighting. Most Italian, most un Greek!

The quote follows:

"Then there was a glorious struggle as both armies fought stubbornly; and for a long time they stood firm, neither side yielding to the other the ground where they were posted. At length the Romans' line began to be in distress, this being the first occasion in a long time that they had been forced to engage in war. 3 Aquilius, observing this, ordered that the troops which were still fresh and were being reserved for this very purpose should come up to reinforce the parts of the line that were in distress and that the men who were wounded and exhausted should retire to the rear. The Hernicans, learning that their troops were being shifted, imagined that the Romans were beginning flight; and encouraging one another and closing their ranks, they fell upon those parts of the enemy's army that were in motion, and the fresh troops of the Romans received their onset. Thus once more, as both sides fought stubbornly, there was a strenuous battle all over again; for the ranks of the Hernicans were also continually reinforced with fresh troops sent up by their generals to the parts of the line that were in distress." (Dionysius VIII.65.2-3)

This battle occurred in 486 BC.  The piecemeal reinforcement of the leading line from a reserve line by both sides tells us that neither side was fighting a hoplite battle; both were using a two-line system in which not lines but individual small units were relieving and being relieved over time.  This is what Rodger and I refer to as the 'proto-manipular legion'.  It contrasts with the single line the Etruscans were apparently still using in 311 BC.

I do not see [the Etruscan] class based army as a one line, no reserve Greek army, but as an Italic army with different divisions differently equipped and operating in lines of units.

This depends upon what uses one makes of 'classes' and for that matter how one assigns them: I imagine this comment is extrapolated from Servius Tullius' system, which itself appears to be a deviation from the norm prevailing at the time.  If one wishes to field a hoplite army, one fields only those troops who can afford the equipment and/or can be equipped by the state as hoplites.  Everyone else (apart from the cavalry, who are even more expensive to equip than hoplites) can be taken to the battlefield with a sling and pouch of stones or a handful of javelins and fight as skirmishers.

[aligern]

Thank you for that Patrick. Any chance that you can find the passage where both Romans and Etruscans throw down their (missile ) weapons so as to get at each other more quickly?

Roy

[Jim Webster]

I was taken by the passage "all fell in front of their standards and around them"

Did a hoplite phalanx use standards? Maniples and Cohorts did, because they needed them as the unit maneuvered.
Similarly I don't remember many cases of hoplite phalanxes clustering round the standards, because that speaks of bunching up. With a Phalanx you kept the line and held the front and a break through was the death of the unit.

Jim

[RobertGargan]

Did the Theban phalanx use a standard? - albeit ribbons on a pole.  I'm not sure why an Etruscan phalanx should not sport a standard near the general for signalling and cultural reasons.  I haven't done the research but did Alexander's or successor phalangites have standards?
I also suspect the hoplite shield would be a hindrance to warriors who consistently fight in a loose formation.  A round shield without a rim or a thureos would give better service.  The hoplite shield probably indicates fighting in a phalanx at some point!
Robert

[Jim Webster]

But it's not 'a' standard Robert, it's 'standards', multiple standards.

That's what flagged it up to me.
What does a hoplite phalanx need multiple standards for? The leader is in the front rank, nobody leaves their place, (save for Spartans) and one standard will pretty well do for that.

I wouldn't call it definitive, I'd just say that it's a possible pointer

Jim

[RobertGargan]

Jim,
Oh yes -standards, plural!  I stand corrected.  I still think the hoplite shield is a cumbersome accompaniment for warriors fighting in a loose formation.
Robert

[andrew881runner]

even samnites used standards (representing animals, each "district"  had its animal, like Bow for the main city of Bovianum, today called Benevento) and they probably fought in phalanx since there are several oplons (together with scuta) represented in paintings and oplon is useful only in close phalanx... but even in "cohorts" of 400 men according to sources. And their armies were called legions, exactly as Roman once.
From this I begin to think that you can have several small hoplites units, differently from the idea of a single long line we got used. The same could happen for etruscans.
So there would not be only either a manipular order based on small units on more lines and a phalanx with a single line of hoplites, but phalanxes with more lines and small units could be possible.
I suppose that what etruscans and other italic tribes did was melting together different traditions, the Greek phalanx, the etruscan idea of different units for different social classes, and finally the Roman/samnites invention of relief system. As equipment both Hoplon and linothorax, typical of hoplites, and more traditional bronze decorated plates for chest together with scutum. And both Spears and javelins.
So there could be not one truth but many.
If you simply watch the position of Italy, exactly in the middle of Mediterranean Sea, you can imagine its ancient role of melting pot of different cultures and traditions.
But I strongly believe that in 6th century, the Golden etruscan age, main culture considered as source of inspiration was the Greek one.

[Jim Webster]

Jim,
Oh yes -standards, plural!  I stand corrected.  I still think the hoplite shield is a cumbersome accompaniment for warriors fighting in a loose formation.
Robert

I agree, a centre-grip shield would probably be better than a double grip shield.
Which is another interesting issue, I know some of the round shields are hoplons, but how many of these round shields are double grip and how many centre grip. If the latter they may not be hoplites

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Thank you for that Patrick. Any chance that you can find the passage where both Romans and Etruscans throw down their (missile ) weapons so as to get at each other more quickly?

Roy

That depends upon which passage is meant.

Livy II.46.3 has an action in 480 BC:

"The Etruscans had barely had time to deploy when their enemies, who in the first excitement had rather cast their javelins [pila] at random than fairly aimed them, were already come to sword-strokes at close quarters [ad gladios], where fighting is the fiercest."

This gives the impression that as of 480 BC only the Romans had pila to hurl, at least in this action.

If this is does not look like the right passage, please say. 

But it's not 'a' standard Robert, it's 'standards', multiple standards.

That's what flagged it up to me.
What does a hoplite phalanx need multiple standards for? The leader is in the front rank, nobody leaves their place, (save for Spartans) and one standard will pretty well do for that.

I wouldn't call it definitive, I'd just say that it's a possible pointer.

One reason why it might have multiple standards is that the Etruscans were a federation rather than a unitary kingdom.  Livy refers to them as the 'twelve cities' in Book VII, which deals with the 4th century BC.  They do not seem to have integrated into a unitary state during the time they were fighting the Romans.

So there could be not one truth but many.

A good observation, Andrew: forcing Italian armies into stereotypes might be more harmful than insightful.

[RobertGargan]

With regard to whether a round shield is a hoplite shield all not I shall study some vases and frescoes, because the way the shield lies on the arm is an indication of grip - although a lot must depend on the artist's awareness of military practice.
Robert

[aligern]

      Well the round shields on the Certosa Situla look very like a rimmed aspis. They have the sort of rounded depth, rim and are the right size. Hoplites in Greek representations and Italian representations , that are carrying javelins are using the aspis. So I do not by the idea that porting an aspis means that you have to operate in a very close order, carrying out othismos  and wedging up to the man to your right.In fact the whole line of argument that function follows form is highly suspect. It relies upon the concept that is already in our heads , put there by years of seeing a certain equipment set and associating it with Greek hoplites.
Patrick made a good point earlier, that the Etruscans have trade relationships with Anatolia as well as Greece. That does make me wonder if the armour that we think of as Greek might not have an Anatolian or Egyptian origin. We leap to the conclusion that  such armour is Greek in inspiration, but the aspides that are on the situla and the later 'linothorax' armour that is seen on statuettes found in Etruria may not reflect Greek influence.....and even if it does it could simply indicate the import of items of armour, not fighting style.

I like Andrew's post. That is good flexible thinking. It is entirely possible that small units in the Etruscan army were spear equipped and other small units had javelins or proto pila.  That would have them operating in a flexible Italian manner, with the other classes in the army using paired javelins?
Roy