"Early Etruscan Armies" Topic

I was just curious about how some of you are organizing your Etruscan armies for the earlier era? Say before 500 BC. It seems that there could be two interpretations based upon the sources (Livy may be the best).

1. An Etruscan army "could" be comprised of a Greek like phalanx with the first class hoplite types in the first ranks. The lesser armed classes would fill in the rest of the ranks (usually of to 8).

2. An Etruscan army "could" be seen as forming up with a phalanx of the 1st class troops in its own phalanx. The lesser (2 and 3rd classes) could form their own phalanxes behind the first.

The second option does not seem to follow the tradition of Greek style hoplite tactics and Livy's description IS of the early Roman Republican army. #1 sounds more reasonable to me for an early Etruscan army. Perhaps #2 became the formation adopted as Etruscan cities struggled for survival with their Roman neighbors?

I look forward to reading comments regarding this and I am interested how others have organized their armies.

krf

"The lesser (2 and 3rd classes) could form their own phalanxes behind the first."

Why "behind"? Where is the parallel for multiple phalanxes deployed in depth?

Allen

Like Allen, I'm not sure about the depth idea. From my own research, which is by no means exhaustive to be sure, I think it is more a matter of a battle line. Your hoplites would form the center, which is pretty typical of hoplite warfare.

If you accept that, then you have to decide where the 2nd and 3rd class spearmen deploy. Since there are certainly more of these troops, it makes sense that they'd form to the wings of the hoplite phalanx. With the lightest troops on the ends of the line, also typical of Greek battle lines.

And since the Romans adopted Etrsucan organization, it is probably safe to assume that early Roman armies also adopted the tactics of their neighbors.

Dave

Solution #1 is fairly credible, but how many wargames rules address such a formation well? But since there seems to be a fairly continuous line of development/influence from the Villanovan through the Etruscan to the early Roman and Latin systems, "Venetian", I'm inclined to agree with Dave (not that we haven't discussed this!) that organization by classes resulted in discrete bodies in the battle line.

But who's to know for sure? The Etruscans aren't saying a lot, unfortunately.

Allen

Hi

It is common in greek practice that the best armored are in front, and poorer are behind when 8 ranks. And it seems plausable that the Etruscans would do somilar, the first couple rows are 1st class, the next 4 or 6 are second and third, 4 and 5 being skirmishers.

As for the game.

Depending on the fight, we use different scales. If a stand represents the whole phalanx, then the average of the armor/equipment is the abstraction. If the scale of the game is more skirmish level where a fig is a man or a row of men, then front rows first class, 4 through 8, second and third.

Rocky

"Like Allen, I'm not sure about the depth idea. From my own research, which is by no means exhaustive to be sure, I think it is more a matter of a battle line. Your hoplites would form the center, which is pretty typical of hoplite warfare.

If you accept that, then you have to decide where the 2nd and 3rd class spearmen deploy. Since there are certainly more of these troops, it makes sense that they'd form to the wings of the hoplite phalanx. With the lightest troops on the ends of the line, also typical of Greek battle lines."

I agree with the above. I also agree with Rocky's assessment that "If a stand represents the whole phalanx, then the average of the armor/equipment is the abstraction. If the scale of the game is more skirmish level where a fig is a man or a row of men, then front rows first class, 4 through 8, second and third."

So there you go, I will organize my Etruscan army with the class I figs as the dominant figures in the 1st rank and the lesser in the rear ranks of the phalanx. Since I like to play AW, a 8 rank phalanx is represented by two ranks of miniatures. I will do mostly class I's in the front and the lesser armed in the second.

Also, I tend to agree with Dave's statment, "And since the Romans adopted Etrsucan organization, it is probably safe to assume that early Roman armies also adopted the tactics of their neighbors." This also makes sense for the early Republican army.

Cheers,

krf

"It is common in greek practice that the best armored are in front, and poorer are behind when 8 ranks."

Sorry, not following you there. Up until the ephebic reforms of 335 BCE, Athenian hoplites had to be wealthy enough to provide their own complete panoply in order to serve in the phalanx. The thetes, poorer citizens, generally accompanied the phalanx as attendants, frequently quite literally carrying the hoplites' shields. A number of military duties (border and wall guards, light infantry) have been suggested for them. Some were numbered among the field army, but not in the phalanx unless exceptional measurees were taken to equip them. For example, for the expedition to Sicily in 415 BCE, Athens outfitted 700 thetes *as hoplites* at considerable expense; in other words, bringing them up to standard to serve in the phalanx.

After 335 (as Alex the Disturbed was safely heading off to parts oriental), the thetes were issued shields and spears at state expense, but it's unclear whether they were actually included in the phalanx, or whether they were armed according to the Iphicratean model as recruited, rather than mercenary, peltasts. If included in the phalanx without additional armor, that is a late and degraded system, atypical of hoplite warfare.

So I'm inclined to believe that the Greek model supports fielding men of lesser property qualification as separate bodies rather than including them in the Etruscan, Roman, or Latin hoplite phalanx. And certainly the Italian equipment we see for the lesser classes, from Villanovan/Venetic times onward, with oblong shields resembling scuta rather than the large aspis, suggests the same.

Dave, you may be interested in the Sep 5, 2005 blog entry here, which suggests possible *Umbrian* state-issued armor:

link

We really need an Italian holiday!

Allen

"It's full of helmets…" Awesome. We really do need a field trip. Maybe Gorgon Studios will put an expedition together.

That's interesting about the Umbrian greaves and would have some significant cultural implications. You wouldn't have to necessarily be wealthy to be a well-equipped hoplite if the state was supplying you. But did the Umbrians nationalize the manufacturing? Crazy socialist Umbrians!

I'm also not aware of a phalanx formation in any army that had "mixed" troops. The phalanx worked precisely because everyone was equipped, more or less, equally.

dave

There surely can't be any connection to the fact that in the late Republic, many of the arms manufactories were in Umbria and Picenum. But then I don't remember Cicero warning his colleagues about the grave implications of the newly-arisen military-industrial complex!

Allen

Was it not standard Greek practice to put the senior or more experienced troops on the right, to reduce the tendency of a phalanx to drift right?

I would like to caveat this statement as I have a nagging suspicion that it was in fact the other way around, or even that they were often on the left cos of the right drift or right cos of left drift, but my weak google fu is not helping me confirm which of these scenarios is true!!!!

Given that I am "sure" one of these statements is true, would this not be likely to be replicated in Italian hoplite phalanx formations as well, making it unlikely that the senior 1st class would occupy a central position in a phalanx?

You are correct- a hoplite formation tended to drift slightly to the right.

But a phalanx isn't necessarily the same as a "battle line." You could have multiple phalanx formations making up your army's front.

So within each hoplite phalanx, you might keep your veterans in a position to lessen this drift, but that doesn't mean you'd put all your veterans on the end of the battle line.

I think you're maybe confusing the idea of composition of units/formations as opposed to an entire army deployment. In a similar (yet not really) way, a French Napoleonic battalion would form up with its grenadiers to the right. This means to the right of each battalion, not on the right wing of the battle line (unless possibly they were formed-up seperately, but I digress).

Typically in hoplite warfare, you wanted a strong center. Your light troops would form out on the wings, with your best equipped troops in the middle. Typically; I'm sure there are exceptions.

Dave

I was under the impression that the best unit of troops would be on the right hand side of the phalanx formation. Not only to combat the drift to the right, but because the right most unit has its right side exposed and unshielded. The next most honorable position in the phalanx battle line would be the left most position. The middle of the line would be filled in with rest of the available phalanx units.

But again, if you have your hoplite formation(s) together and your lighter troops on their wings, your 2nd and 3rd (and 4th and 5th) class troops would be deployed to either side of your phalanx.

This is where the Venetic system of classes comes into play as opposed to, say, an Athenian hoplite army. This is what makes the early Etruscan army different than its Greek contemporary.

Dave

I have no doubt that the Etruscans would place their lighter troops on the wings, as the Greeks would learn to do in later years. Fighting "uncivilized" opponents like the Celts would force the Etruscans to adapt quickly from the Athenian/Spartan model of phalanx as stylized dual.

You mean uncivilized opponents like Celts and Romans.

I'm beginning to think of early Romans as rebellious Etruscans. Still working on the rest of that thought.

Remember, in a fight the front rank could only sustain probably 15-20 minutes of fighting before they became exhausted. The second rank would then have to step forward and replace the front line. This would be repeated throughout the time of battle. There is an account during the Roman civil wars, of both sides standing back, replacing the front rank with the next rank, then going at it again. Given this need, it's highly improbable that you would want the replacing ranks less armored and less experienced than the front. It makes more sense to have the lessor armed troops on the flanks of the center phalanx than mixed within that phalanx.

Rich
(everything I learned about ancient battle I learned in the Renaissance )

"I'm beginning to think of early Romans as rebellious Etruscans."

Or as freedom fighters. Just as today, it all depends on your perspective.

Allen

Very interesting discussions.

Dave: I agree with your statement (from a Greek perspective) that Celts and Romans should be considered uncivilized!

Ran the Cid: "I'm beginning to think of early Romans as rebellious Etruscans. Still working on the rest of that thought." I think you are spot on. The early Republican army was an Etruscan army for all intents and purposes.

Rich: I don't think that the references to changing ranks during battle really applies to hoplite warfare. It was a perfidious Roman "trick" that was adopted later :)

krf

Hi Dave,

to continue this interesting thread…

Typically in hoplite warfare, you wanted a strong centre. Your light troops would form out on the wings, with your best equipped troops in the middle. Typically; I'm sure there are exceptions.

I was under the impression that the light infantry formed up in front, not the wings, harried the opposing skirmishers and, when they had the chance their phalanx, then retired (maybe to the wings i guess).

Also the cavalry skirmished with each other and waited until the opposing phalanx broke, intent on chasing them down.

Also in hoplite warfare was a phalanx and a battle line not essentially the same thing? Gaps in your phalanx facing non gaps in an opposing phalanx would be very bad. Outnumbered phalanx's would deploy in a shallower formation to avoid having a narrower frontage.

This is maybe a scale thing, polis vs polis i would assume the above, but maybe in bigger battles this proved impractical. Also against formations other than a phalanx maybe it was less of an issue, or with "medium" troops such as peltasts to act as a "glue" it was less of an issue?

These points in turn lead to the point that by the time of the Etruscans that the phalanx might well form a core of a more diverse force, not unlike the Triarii.

Not sure if a have made a point here, just enjoying shooting the breeze.

Stewbags- I agree 100% that this is an interesting discussion. I wish Lars Porsenna would've published his memoirs!

Speaking in terms of the Venetic system, there's different degrees of "light" troops. 2nd and 3rd Class spearmen operated more like the 1st Class hoplites than the 4th or 5th Class skirmishers or psiloi.

But the 2nd/3rd class troops were also more lightly equipped than their hoplite counterparts. They were also potentially not Etruscan citizens, but rather allied (or subjugated) Latin tribesmen. So both in terms of armour, training and morale, you wouldn't necessarily want them in your centre. Theoretically.

I also think there's a semantics issue here with "phalanx." I think it might be my fault. There are tactical elements within the larger battle line, I think the Macedonians had a 250 man syntagma (sp?).

So, you're 1st Class hoplites form the centre and the 2nd/3rd Class on their wings, then you can assume that the 2nd/3rd Class are also fighting in the same style as the hoplites, but would make up their own, similarly armed, elements within the battle line. I would defend this theory over having 1st and 2nd Class troops intermixed within the line. Which would be problematic for a number of reasons.

Dave

While the Etruscan "Nation" was made up of a number of cities, didn't each city field its own army – independent of the "nation"? Would all of the cities have access to allied Latins, or would the 2nd/3rd classes be made up of their own citizens?

Correct, the Etruscan League was a loose alliance of city states. When we talk about an early "Etruscan" army, what we're really saying is a city-state army, say from Veii or Clusium.

The 2nd and 3rd (and lower) classes could have included less wealthy citizens of these states or could've been made up up allied/subjugated tribes or, more probable, a combination of both types. This really isn't something that's entirely clear. But it would be safe to say that any Etruscan city-state would be able to field troops of each class.

"I was under the impression that the light infantry formed up in front, not the wings, harried the opposing skirmishers and, when they had the chance their phalanx, then retired (maybe to the wings i guess)."

-------> During the Classical period we hear of skirmishers on the wings, not in front of battle lines. The idea of skirmishers in front is development of Epaminondas, then made somewhat more standard by Alexander. During the great Hellenistic wars, and the Rise of Rome, the initial battle between skirmish lines became commonplace. After the great wars of conquest the skirmishers mostly reverted back to the wings, and in the Roman Civil Wars and early Empire, the skirmishers screen disappeared again.

For example at Plataea, the Greeks call for the Athenian archers to help the whole line, instead of being held tightly to cover the exposed Athenian right flank. At Delium the Theban and Athenian skirmshers and cavalry fight on the wings. At Cunaxa despite the growing tactical use of light troops, they simply deployed on the right of the Greek hoplites. Epaminondas used a skirmisher screen to cover his deployment, mostly with cavalry in front of the army, (a tactic that all wargames have difficulty with).
The rarity of sensational asymetrical disasters such as Lecheaum and Sphakteria are often over compensated for in game rules, which often pander to mob arguments.

Alexander put light troops and skirmishers in front of his wings, and that practice seems to have led to the eventual 'skirmisher line battle' in all his Successor's battles. Of course the Successors deployed elephants in this skirmisher screen as well (when they had an abundance of them)…something that games do not reflect the value of at all- mainly because it is difficult to see the value.

Roman armies had a embedded skirmisher screen in each legion and were mostly deployed to facilitate the deployment of the army in safety from camp… again something that wargames do not understand the need for… the camps are less than a half mile from one another, then the armies deploy up to a couple hundred meters of each other.. then the battle starts. Modern folks edumacated in the rules of modern warfare ( i.e. bushwhacking on a grand scale) cannot fathom why two armies would set up this way.

One of the most devastating issues for the Hellenistic armies occured when the Roman skirmsher screen became adept and well equipped hand to hand troops, they had no answer for this. The Seleucids at Magnesia tried to overwhelm the velites with numbers and were not up to the task, in the battles with the Macedonians, the Romans beat their allied troops on the wings and beat back their skirmisher line in most actions… of course all of this came because of hard lessons learned against Hannibal, who refined the art of war as handed down to him by Alexander and Pyrrhus.
JJ

Hi

Rich, the roman example isn't lines in the phalanx, but lines of units. One of the problems we have in these discussions.

With the Romans, most often the historian is discussing the hastati being replaced as a line of centuries each deployed 8 deep with another line of 8 deep principii as an example. Not individuals within the century.

Rocky

Guys, this is a very interesting thread!

Okay, here is another idea regarding Etruscan armies of the 6th and 5th centuries. Assuming that they adhered to Greek military practice and theory, everyone is agreement that they formed up in Greek style phalanxes.

What about the Latin "allies" or the 2nd and 3rd class citizens? If we use their distinctive shields (the scutum) as an indicator, wouldn't they form up in a looser line than the hoplites? It seems that all units that used the scutum tended to form up in looser formations than the phalanx. Polybius even states that the Roman foot (during the 2nd Punic War) formed up in much looser formations than the Macedonian phalanx.

Based upon these types of evidence, it seems to me that the 2nd and 3rd classes (Latin allies) would probably have formed a looser line on the flanks of the central Etruscan phalanx? (This would be protrayed by LMI in many rulesets.) It would also correspond to Greek military practise once peltasts became a common formation within Hellenic armies.

krf

Hi

And this, to me, is one of our other perennial problems with discussing things with gamers….filtering reality through how the rules work.

the hilltribes, the latins didn't fight in greek style phalanx. And they did throw javelins before combat which the phalanx didn't. But I am not sure that this means they were more loosly spaced and faught as 'peltasts". Remember, after the tarquinni pack up their greek phalanx and leave, the romans were still fielding close order troops in the Latin fashion, but instead of locked into a phalanx, threw javelins. But the spacing of the individals wasn't looser, just the concept that the units might go into a wider spacing.

Rocky

Rocky's point is interesting: would it make more sense to compare the Latins with Thureophoroi, rather than the phalanx? Just musing on an interesting thread…

Paul

Hi Paul, I was thinking Thureophoroi, too. I went back to read the Luke Ueda-Sarson piece about thureophoroi:

link

who he says "differed from the hoplites they replaced only in the type of shield they carried – they were heavy infantry, not skirmishers." This sounds very much like the second and third class, who had a single spear. Perhaps they might have formed up on the wings of the phalanx as thureophoroi seem to have.

He also says that "thureophoroi could replace their spear with javelins to operate in a peltast-like capacity… …When operating as light infantry, they were no longer heavy troops, but belonged to the class of troops known as euzonoi". This sounds more like the way the hill tribes fought.

Simon

Rocky – are you saying that the Romans of 500 BC did not use a Greek style phalanx as the main tactical unit? A tight formation with javelins sounds more like the manipular system which would be in use by roughly 350 BC.

Rocky:

According to Polybius and other primary sources, Roman foot did form up in looser formations than their Macedonian opponents as did thureophoroi (or peltasts). The question here is whether or not the 2/3rd class Latin troops did as well.

krf

In an Etruscan army (and similarly, a Roman hoplite or Tullian army) would probably see the 2nd and 3rd class troops form blocks of spearmen, probably not unlike later mid-Republic princeps. Not as close-ranked as the hoplite heavy infantry, but certainly not skirmish troops. The scutum-style shield is still designed for blocks of spearmen, and not light troops (4th-5th class troops who went unarmoured and usually shield-less).

Of course, this is my opinion, based on my own readings and the archeology. 600 BC doesn't lend itself to definitive statements!

But again, this is a great discussion and I'm glad for the interest.

Dave

Dave:

"In an Etruscan army (and similarly, a Roman hoplite or Tullian army) would probably see the 2nd and 3rd class troops form blocks of spearmen, probably not unlike later mid-Republic princeps. Not as close-ranked as the hoplite heavy infantry, but certainly not skirmish troops. The scutum-style shield is still designed for blocks of spearmen, and not light troops (4th-5th class troops who went unarmoured and usually shield-less."

I agree with your statements above regarding the 2nd and 3rd class foot of the 6th century. I guess what I am not sure is how to model it for gaming purposes and I suppose it would depend on the rules that a person uses. For AW I see two options to replicate these troop types, 1. Mount them the same as hoplites but give them the lesser armor and morale grades or 2. Mount them in a looser formation (like thureophoroi)with lesser morale grades. From the discussions in this thread #1 seems to be the way to do it.

"Of course, this is my opinion, based on my own readings and the archeology. 600 BC doesn't lend itself to definitive statements!"

Yeah, the 6th century is kind of on the cusp of historical references. Even the composition of the Hellenic armies of that century are debatable. Perhaps someone will discover a Latin translation of the Greek version of Lars Porsenna's memoirs one of these days!

krf

Hi

Rich, I know my polybius. What I am saying is that the "formed looser" is by maniple, not by individual.

Ran. What I am saying, which is implied in the originals, and stated in places like connoly, that the Etruscan/Tarquinii were the phalanx, after their expulsion, no phalanx.

And, I have no sources stating it, but i have felt that the Latin hill tribes and their close order infanty were the model of the Theorophori.

the samnites and others are first here. Rome is Latin, and without etruscan are "latin" like the others.

Rocky

Rocky – I see now where we have a difference of opinion. I find Rome of 500BC to be an Etruscan town with Latin immigrants. I have not read thru Polybius, working with secondary sources. One of particular interest is link "The military indebtedness of early Rome to Etruria". The author makes a linguistic connection linking nearly every thing Roman to sources in the Etruscan language. The file is nearly 100 years old, please inform me if the authors theories have since been disproved/discredited.

Given a theory of Etruscan dominance in Rome – I am of the opinion that the Romans would continue to use a Greek style phalanx until the Samnite Wars persuaded them to switch to a lighter, more tactical unit formation.

Hi

In the first place, I agree that Rome borrows heavily. The theory you mention is a form of the revisionism that happens that is sort of irrelevent here. That is, once Rome was thought about in "romantic" terms, admiration of rome from british elite to the mafia was on point. Then the revisonists started explaining that Rome copied people.

That said, the way troops were fielded even in greek cities involving the hoplite also being the rich guys. The nobility. Latin nobility isn't quite like greek nobility. When the Tarquinii, etruscans, were driven from the city, that was THE first class and therefore hoplite element.

I think part of his is seeing warfare as people making the sort of choices they didn't do. They weren't wargamers working off a list. Rather, most armies, most times are derived from local tools used as weapons and local prejudices about how to fight. The Greek Phalanx was an overlay in italy. The usual normal thing was a spear chucking latin with some armor and shield. Rome wasn't unique, but merely latin.

R

I am re awakening this thread because we are currently debating Etruscans on the Society of Ancients Forum. I seems to me that the case that the Etruscans are likeGreek hoplites with spears is unproven an that therefore much of the logic here was based upon a false premise that the Etruscans are copying Greek tactics. It may well be that they are impirting Greek armour, but that is quite different from them importing Hellenic organisation and methods, when they already have pefectly good Italian models, e.g. the Certosa situla to work from.