Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kroem wrote:
I had a question, if there are any experts on Roman military equipment here?

I was reading about the Praetorians campaigning for Otho against Vitellius during the year of the four Emperors, but couldn't find any clear guidance about their shields.
Most models and pictures show the Praetorians of this period with the oval shield, but I've read other comments about the oval shield being used for bodyguard work and that they would have used the legionary rectangular shield when on campaign?

Not an expert but have always understood that when in Rome they wore only a toga, when acting as escorts they used an oval shield and when in the field they used the same scutum as any one else. Also think they were the only unit that when on guard duty were allowed to keep their scutum, everyone else had to loose it for fear they would fall asleep when resting on it. Though I have no idea as to the truth of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

@Ingtaer- Polybius may be a Greek, but he is still a Romanophile. Secondly, it is possible HIS sources on Xanthippus were the ones throwing shade? Perhaps a stretch, but I tend to question the primary sources a bit more than others. I do not take them as gospel, but sometimes it is all we have to go on.

For sure, I do not see what they had to gain from it though and when reading about, say Hannibal Barca, most every source is pretty damn flattering where as the same sources seem a little more critical of Scipio, though how much of that is due to internal politics is hard to say (Scipio being an opponent of Cato for example). On Xanthippus we can see that the Carthaginian military did indeed shift toward a more professional, drilled force than previous, whilst this could have been a native induced thing it could also have been due to Xanthippus.
I came across a similar thing when studying the French and American campaigns in Vietnam as what you are saying, most sources from those countries played up the role of Chinese or Soviet instructors and technical help often ignoring the fact that Giap was actually a damn good commander, in fact about a third of the sources I read of it made no mention of him at all which is quiet remarkable.

 ingtaer wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
I had a question, if there are any experts on Roman military equipment here?

I was reading about the Praetorians campaigning for Otho against Vitellius during the year of the four Emperors, but couldn't find any clear guidance about their shields.
Most models and pictures show the Praetorians of this period with the oval shield, but I've read other comments about the oval shield being used for bodyguard work and that they would have used the legionary rectangular shield when on campaign?

Not an expert but have always understood that when in Rome they wore only a toga, when acting as escorts they used an oval shield and when in the field they used the same scutum as any one else. Also think they were the only unit that when on guard duty were allowed to keep their scutum, everyone else had to loose it for fear they would fall asleep when resting on it. Though I have no idea as to the truth of that.

Thanks Integer! I guess the Warlord games models need a shield swap then!
That anecdote is quite funny because, whilst the Praetorians supposedly performed well for Otho, I remember reading that at Milvian Bridge the Praetorians were rather out of practice after all that swanning about in the city instead of being on campaign. Hardly the model of Roman excellence which they embody in the popular consciousness!

 ingtaer wrote:


I came across a similar thing when studying the French and American campaigns in Vietnam as what you are saying, most sources from those countries played up the role of Chinese or Soviet instructors and technical help often ignoring the fact that Giap was actually a damn good commander, in fact about a third of the sources I read of it made no mention of him at all which is quiet remarkable.

What! Wow!

So, the Xanthipus story may be more of a reverse in explaining why Romans suddenly had an issue with Carthage (on land) when they had not had one before. Basically, the Romans hyping up the "technical advisors" from Sparta as opposed to Carthage's own military learning.

How late in the Egyptian Dynasties' were they still using chariots as a common weapon of war?

Sure, we see Persians use them and Seleucids use them on occasion, but I get the impression they are a relative novelty. Do we know when the Egyptians stopped? Was it prior to Ptolemy?

Didn’t one of the Nubian Pharaohs get his ass handed to him because he brought chariots to a cavalry fight? This would have been around 700 BCE give or take 100.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Didn’t one of the Nubian Pharaohs get his ass handed to him because he brought chariots to a cavalry fight? This would have been around 700 BCE give or take 100.

No idea, I will have to look it up!

Edit: Here is what I found, but no explicit details of the fighting yet.....

The foreign invaders who established the Twenty-fifth Dynasty over Egypt were the kings of Kush in Nubia. King Piye of Kush (747–716 BC) invaded Egypt in about 728 BC, and reached as far north as Heliopolis but then withdrew without establishing permanent control. Shabaqo (716–702 BC) succeeded his brother Piye as king of Kush and proceeded to invade Egypt and make it part of his kingdom.

The Nubian Twenty-fifth Dynasty was undoubtedly black. It made Memphis its Egyptian capital and, although they never completely stamped out all locally autonomous rulers in Egypt, the Nubian pharaohs attempted to extend Egypt’s control into Palestine and Syria as Sheshonq I had done. This action brought the Nubians into conflict with the Assyrian Empire at the height of its power.

In 701 BC Shabitqo (702–690 BC), the nephew and successor of Shabaqo, attempted to thwart Sennacherib of Assyria’s invasion of Judah. He was defeated, and furthermore he managed to draw Assyrian attention to Egypt. A series of Assyrian attacks on Egypt began in 674 BC in which control of the country see-sawed back and forth between the Nubians and the Assyrians. Finally in 663 BC Ashurbanipal of Assyria invaded Egypt and sacked Thebes, ending Nubian authority in Egypt for good.

Etruscan Axemen..... were they really a thing? Seems like the axe could have been more ceremonial in nature as part of their warrior brotherhoods, but I have also seen some discussion that the Axe could be used to pull down enemy shields and expose the enemy phalanx to attack?

Your thoughts?

I am pretty sure it was Shabaqto. I think I heard about this in a video I clicked on while browsing Kings and Generals or History with Cy. They pronounced his name like “Shabacca”...

Did Hoplites in Italy fight differently than Hoplites in Greece?

Their gear seems to have some different focus, such as open helmets, wrap around shields, lighter body armor, etc.

Perhaps these were become standard around that time in Greece as well, the timeline gets a bit fuzzy in my head?

However, do these changes potentially mean a different fighting style in Italy than Greece even amongst legacy "Greek" hoplite fighting men?

The switch to a lighter and more mobile fighting style was pretty universal wasn't it? Thinking that Rome/Socii/Latium and Etruscan fought in the Greek manner right up until they changed to manipular order after the disaster of Caudine and the Hellenic states started leaning the same way at about the same time starting with the Iphicrate reforms.
Never actually taken the two timelines together and compared them but Caudine was 30 years or so after Iphicrates died.

Yeah, since most people talk about the Greek and Roman timelines separately, it was not 100% clear in my mind. I think you are right though.

Sounds like a nice project a timeline of the Med together for technological/doctrine reforms.

I would be keen to collaborate on a project like that if someone else wanted to as well, not sure if it is how it is taught but it seems very common to separate the various culture's timelines until they actually overlap with one another.

I was wacthing this video (historian reviews films or something, rubbish I know but I've got nothing better to do lol), one thing he mentioned was that the idea of hoplite battles being something akin to a rugby scrum with extra stabbing was a bit outdated, and that the formations broke down quite quickly and the fighting was on a much more individual basis.

This seemed strange to me as it doesn't pass the eyeball test, why would you leave your strong formation which we know works well due to the later use of the phalanx and push of pike?

Yeah, that is utter nonsense. The phalanxes were totally dependent upon holding their formation and trying to steamroll over their enemy, that is why they failed against the Roman maniple system and had a really tough time against the Peltast heavy armies.

 Kroem wrote:
the idea of hoplite battles being something akin to a rugby scrum with extra stabbing was a bit outdated, and that the formations broke down quite quickly and the fighting was on a much more individual basis.

On the side note, authors of Mortal Gods ruleset express their opinion this was the case in early Greek warfare, with unit lines being very uneven and soldiers seeking individual fights instead of organized battles - essentially before "proper" phalanx. I suppose they will somehow try to elaborate on this idea in their expansion about the Trojan War.

Well..... we really do not know.

If you look at "Hoplite" battles outside of Greece, Ionia, and Persia and particularly in Italy there is a bit of truth to the fact that it may not have been as tightly woven together as you would think.

I have seen some hypothesis in Ancient Warfare magazine I believe that point out that the "phalanx" in Italy was probably more like little blobs of soldiers with support units rather than all ranked up. More like Iberian warbands in Spain than the "traditional" Greek Phalanx.

However, that is all pretty speculative and if they have Hoplite gear, then they probably fight like Hoplites in a Greek Phalanx. To do otherwise seems a bit odd. However, Italian Hoplite gear was a bit different than the traditional.

As SgtBanzai points out, warfare as depicted in Homer IS like you describe Kroem. However, that was pre-Classical Greek combat and more like Dark Age to early Achaic age Greece.

See, the timelines can get a bit wonky and cause confusion.

I think the answer "we don't really know" is the only indisputable one a historian can ever give right?
It's kinda strange how even basic pieces of information can get muddled up over time! For example, I believe the sources disagree on whether the Gothic cavalry came from the left or the right flank at Adrianople, you would have thought that would be easy to sort out!

Not actually knowing should be the first module taught in history, along with eye witnesses are as frequently wrong as right...

On what is being discussed though the earliest sources we have for ancient Greek warfare (ie. Homer where we got the term Phalanx from) describes a situation akin to what sgtBANZA mentions, the combatants formed opposing phalanxes but were happy to break the ranks to fight individual duels. Pretty doubtful that they actually broke up their phalanx to do so though as that would defeat the whole point of forming it in the first place. The hopolon (aspis) was great for protecting most of the users left hand side and thus by extension the person on the holders left. This tended to make phalanx formations shift ever right wards and why would anyone voluntarily give up this protection (let alone make themselves more likely to be flanked) by breaking the formation?
It is not logical and also goes against pretty much everything we know of ancient Greek fighting, they actually chose the majority of battle sites due to their open and flat nature just so they could operate in phalanx! Furthermore it was not until Marathon (the best part of 300 years after the phalanx was apparently first used) that a phalanx was willing to break up some cohesion in order to run and cover the ground more quickly (ref. Herodotus).

 Easy E wrote:
Mods- If you think this would be better places elsewhere, please feel free to move it. I just figured here might have the most dedicated audience.

Greetings Dakkites,

I wanted to talk a bit about some dedicated Ancient Warfare topics to help me grow my learning and understanding of the topic. It is an area that interests me a lot, but I am not an expert on it by far. There is always much to learn and more to talk about!

When talking about Ancient Warfare, I tend to bucket it into 1177BCE- The end of the Bronze Age until the Fall of Rome around 420CE. That is a lot of space and ground to cover, but also let's use discuss wide ranging topics from Sumer, Assyria, Greece, Successors, Rome, Carthage, and beyond!

I am going to throw out a couple of topics to help get discussion started:

1. Did early Romans ever use a hoplite phalanx?

2. What does it mean when Xanthippus re-organized the Carthaginian military into the "Macedonian" style?

3. What did the Roman Navy look like before the first Punic War?

4. What made Cyrus the Great of Persia so successful?

5. How did Chariot Warfare work?

Feel free to talk about any of these topics or start your own for discussion! Citations are not needed, sources are always helpful! Primary and secondary are both welcome!

I look forward to some good discussion and learning a great deal!

I think the best way to help you is to suggest some good books, which will can give you a better understanding of the topic, like the ones you could find in this page of Amazon; see the images below for some examples of the books I'm suggesting.

Kind of missing the point of having a discussion thread if you are just going to tell people to read books.

Actually not: the best way to discuss about something is study the topic and then start to discuss, because in this way you can ask more precise questions. For example Easy E asked a lot of questions, all of them about very different topics, so it could be difficult answer to all those questions, in an organic way.

In terms of ancient Greek warfare, it's interesting how the Greeks kept adapting. Starting with Hoplites and Peltasts, they then swung into favouring lighter infantry with the thureophoroi, then went into the Macedonian style phalanx and then we even get some imitation legionaries after that! So I do take your point Easy E, when talking about Greek warfare one must be quite specific.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Actually not: the best way to discuss about something is study the topic and then start to discuss, because in this way you can ask more precise questions. For example Easy E asked a lot of questions, all of them about very different topics, so it could be difficult answer to all those questions, in an organic way.

Actually yes, hence why this thread is on its second page and has not died. We have threads in other sections for recommended readings and the like. The fact that the OP was so broad is what has allowed this thread to expand and diverge without going OT or becoming a simple Q&A session. Whilst it is not an issue to recommend books as part of the discussion (I am sure Warry will come up if he hasn't already) just posting a list of books doesn.t promote conversation.

Kroem wrote:In terms of ancient Greek warfare, it's interesting how the Greeks kept adapting. Starting with Hoplites and Peltasts, they then swung into favouring lighter infantry with the thureophoroi, then went into the Macedonian style phalanx and then we even get some imitation legionaries after that! So I do take your point Easy E, when talking about Greek warfare one must be quite specific.

One of the things I love most about the Anabasis is how it shows the Ten Thousand changing and evolving as an army as they meet new challenges along the way, kind of a brief summary of Hellenic military development in a single journey.

 Kroem wrote:
In terms of ancient Greek warfare, it's interesting how the Greeks kept adapting. Starting with Hoplites and Peltasts, they then swung into favouring lighter infantry with the thureophoroi, then went into the Macedonian style phalanx and then we even get some imitation legionaries after that! So I do take your point Easy E, when talking about Greek warfare one must be quite specific.

The same happened with the Ancient Romans: they learned to use the hoplite phalanx by the Etruscan (who learned fighting with the Greeks who invaded the southern Italy), then they adopted manipular formation after the Caudine Forks Battle and they continued to change organization, equipment an tactics every time they faced new enemies, kind of terrains or they discovery new technologies.

Thanks for the book recommendations. As for Warry, I find his book Warfare in the Classical World a good introduction but ultimately leaves a lot of space for the reader to explore on their own. I have no problem with this as it is a broad survey of the topic that is trying to hit the highlights and main themes.

I purposely hit on a variety of interesting and broad subjects to drive discussion and traffic. If I just asked about how the Axe was used in Etruscan warfare..... well..... it would have been a single post thread!

This process allowed for more engagement and let the thread be open to move from topic to topic easily. I mean we have covered some naval warfare, chariots warfare, Carthaginians, Romans, Hoplites, and more all ready!

Speaking of Carthaginians, how much can we "believe" the narrative of the Mercenary army as opposed to them using client states and tribal vassals just like the Romans?

If I'm not wrong Carthage started to draft mercenary troops, due to the Carthaginians dead during the First Punic War (something similar happened in Italy after the 1300 a.C.), so I think the "narrative" is plausible.

Polybius again! His histories tell us that the free Carthaginians manned the navy and the army was all mercenary or clients and that was the way of it throughout Carthaginian history. The fact that straight after the First Punic War we had the Mercenary War (although it had lots of the African vassals rebel to join the mercenary revolt) which took something like 4 years to quell suggests that Carthage was quiet dependent on mercenaries but not exclusively (they won after all!).

But we do know that part of Xanthippus's reforms included having the center of his army be a Carthaginian raised phalanx (either supported by or supporting? the elephantry) whilst using allied cavalry on the flanks. Surely they would have conscripted their client and subject peoples at the same? Makes no sense for them to have spent all their money on mercenaries when they had a ready manpower pool available. Not least is how could they have afforded it? It has been argued that Polybius' use of the term 'Mercenary' actually refers to mercenary in its truest sense as well as client/allied/subject peoples (like the Roman Auxiliaries) and that would seem to be a good argument.

All that said though, Carthage had vast wealth but not a massive population so the hiring of mercenaries would not be that stupid (except when you cant pay them).

Well, if Carthage was so dependent by the mercenary troops throughout all its history, I don't they could have had and entire family of generals: the one of Hannibal.

You can have a predominantly mercenary or client army and yet have none of those in the officer class (ref. the British army in India).

Yes, but you need a strong military tradition, to have an entire dynasty of generals; above all if they are skilled like Hannibal was.

Aye, so the officer class could be largely Carthaginian and that would still fit the bill even if 99% of the troops were mercenary. Which of course they were not.
A significant portion of the fighting class of the Germans and Gauls served with Rome and turned out some pretty fine commanders, the Greeks did the same (hence the 10,000).