Early Romans (Pre-Camilian Romans)

[Lion.Kanzen]

"First sack of Rome".

The Roman Republic (Latin: Res publica Romana [ˈreːs ˈpuːblɪka roːˈmaːna]) was the era of classical Roman civilization beginning with the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom (traditionally dated to 509 BC).

The first Roman republican wars were wars of expansion. One by one, Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities. Rome defeated its rival Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Ariccia in 495 BC, the Battle of Mount Algidus in 458 BC, and the Battle of Corbio in 446 BC. But it suffered a significant defeat at the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC, wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city, Veii; this defeat was later avenged at the Battle of Veii in 396 BC, wherein Rome destroyed the city.[12][13][13] By the end of this period, Rome had effectively completed the conquest of its immediate Etruscan and Latin neighbours and secured its position against the immediate threat posed by the nearby Apennine hill tribes.

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The battle was fought at the confluence of the Tiber and Allia rivers, 11 Roman miles (10 mi or 16 km) north of Rome. The Romans were routed and subsequently Rome was sacked by the Senones.[16] There is no destruction layer at Rome around this time, indicating that if a sack occurred, it was largely superficial

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

The early Romans fought as hoplites, inspired by Etruscans and Greeks.

The transition of the Roman army from ‘tribal’ warriors to citizen militia was achieved in part due to the Roman society and its intrinsic representation (with voting rights) in the Roman assembly. To that end, the early Romans were almost entirely depended on their citizen militia for the protection and extension of the burgeoning faction’s borders. These militiamen were simply raised as levy or ‘legio’ – which in turn gives way to the term ‘legion’. In essence, the so-called legions of early Rome were ‘poor’ predecessors to the uniformly-equipped and disciplined soldiers of the later centuries.

 

However, already by this time Greek hoplite equipment had begun to be adopted in the region, including the characteristic double-grip round shield and distinctive helmets and body armor. Hoplite equipment had appeared in the Greek world from the late eighth century, and its widespread use in Etruscan cities is attested from c. 650 on by grave finds and artistic representations. The evidence is thinner for Rome and the other Latin communities, but it seems likely that hoplite equipment came into use there about the same time or soon after its introduction in Etruria.

Established views of hoplite warfare have, however, recently been subjected to radical critiques, notably by Van Wees. He argues that close-formation fighting was not essential for the effectiveness of the new equipment, and that down to the early fifth century Greek hoplites continued to fight in a quite open formation, interspersed with light-armed troops. He also maintains that there was considerable disparity between working-class and leisured hoplites, with only the latter wearing much body armor. These conclusions fit well with the Etruscan indications, and, if they are correct, the difference between developments in Greece and Etruria may not be as great as supposed, and the adoption of Greek armor in Etruria may not have involved radical changes in fighting methods, let alone social structures. The same will also apply to Rome and Latium: here too fighting may have continued to be fluid and flexible, based on an open formation incorporating both light and more heavily armed troops, and especially at first, only the really well-to-do may have aspired to the new Greek-style shields and armor.

 

 

Edited October 29 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

Here I found several images that are not necessarily Romans but their neighbors.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Apparently the levies or legions were constituted into classes.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Apparently the levies or legions were constituted into classes.

 

The army was made up of five classes of soldiers according to their economic capacity, which were introduced into the Roman army during the Etruscan monarchy. The armament of the I class was similar to a Greek hoplite, and the other classes similar to the Romans.

Roman-Etruscan warriors 5th century. Left a soldier of class I very influenced by the Greek hoplites. Right a class III soldier with elongated shield and pectorals.

Roman-Etruscan warriors 5th century: left class I, class V and class III, right class III with axe, class I and Syracusan hoplite. Author Oscar Luna.

Roman conquest of the Etruscan city of Veii in 396 BC. The Romans dug a tunnel under the wall in the citadel next to the temple of Juno. The Romans are seen emerging from the tunnel and taking the city. Author Zvonimir Grbasic, for Ancient Warfare magazine.

Roman warriors V century BC, supposed to be Gaius Martius "Coriolanus" entering the city of Corioli. Author Ángel García Pinto.

https://arrecaballo.es/edad-antigua/la-republica-romana/primera-guerra-latina-505-493-ac/

 

Servius Tullius (578 to 534 BC)

He gave entry into the army to all owners, whether patricians or plebeians; only those who could not afford military equipment were excluded. He reorganized the army on the basis of the economic patrimony of each citizen, according to a division into 5 classes depending on their economic situation and their equipment were:

Class I, were those who earned more than 100,000 aces, wore a helmet, breastplate, greaves, round metal shield (clipeus, the Roman version of the hoplon), sword and long spear with regatton.

Class II, earned 75,000 aces, had to afford a helmet, a rectangular wooden shield (scutum), greaves, a breastplate, a spear and a sword.

Class III, earned 50,000 aces, wore a helmet, rectangular shield, could wear a pectoral plate, the shorter wooden shield (scutum), sword and spear.

Class IV, earned 25,000 aces, no helmet, smaller wooden shield. They carried a spear and a javelin. They were called acenti.

Class V, earned 11,000 aces, carried only slings or bows. They were called leves.

Capitecensi, were unarmed men who served as armorers, smiths, trumpeters and the like.

The soldiers of fourth and fifth class, were employed as skirmishers, in front of the phalanx, when retreating, they formed two rows behind the phalanx.

 

Above them were the equites, who were the aristocracy of the army, and grouped the citizens with fortunes above 100,000 aces. They were armed with helmet, lance, greaves and long sword.

https://arrecaballo.es/edad-antigua/la-republica-romana/la-monarquia-etrusca/

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

It would be cool to depict this era for the Romans. I've long maintained that we could have several "Roman" factions and do interesting things with them.

• Regal Romans
• Republican Romans
• Triumvirate Romans
• Principate Romans
• Dominate Romans

 

You could have a cool Random/Romans group in the civ selection drop down (in match setup) to randomly choose a Roman faction era for you.

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It would be cool to depict this era for the Romans. I've long maintained that we could have several "Roman" factions and do interesting things with them.

• Regal Romans
• Republican Romans
• Triumvirate Romans
• Principate Romans
• Dominate Romans

 

You could have a cool Random/Romans group in the civ selection drop down (in match setup) to randomly choose a Roman faction era for you.

The other option is to make versions or variants.

It would be adding a new dropdown menú.

They would be mods of the base faction.

As the name says, they would be variants I want the faction only to use Romans with Corinthian attic helmets.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Although the elite italians, ie: etruscans and the oscan speakers, used the hoplite panoply we know that hoplitic tactics were never used in italy. Schwerpunkt illustrated this perfectly in the following 2 videos:

 

 

 

 

The fact is that italic warfare is born out a feudalistic reality and therefore was much more individualistic and tribalistic. As such romewhile wealthy for most of it's archaic period wasmore barbarian than people think and only become extremely Hellenised in very late republic. Individualistic to the point that even the stereotypical triplex acies formation is under scrutiny. Again see schwerpunkt's content were he adresses various author's commentaries:

 

 

 

 

 

[Genava55]

It is quicker to read a blog article than listening to a long podcast of several hours:

https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/why-abandon-phalanx-problems-rome/

and if someone wants more info:

N. Rosenstein - Phalanges in Rome.pdf

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

It is quicker to read a blog article than listening to a long podcast of several hours:

https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/why-abandon-phalanx-problems-rome/

and if someone wants more info:

N. Rosenstein - Phalanges in Rome.pdf 112.13 kB · 0 downloads

Well i did suggest the podcast precisely because it is more concise than the sources used.

Again i must reiterate that the phalanx was never used in italy not even by the greek colonies there. These last ones had the adapt to the tactics used by the italians.

The greeks called every heavy formation a phalanx just has the romans latter describe every heavy formation with bigger shields a maniple or a legion. This is the reason we get discription of "imitation" legions, to them everyone armed with a sword and thyreos like shield was a legionary.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

The only criticism i have of schwerpunkt is that he is not the best way to get into hellenic warfare.

[Genava55]

5 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

The greeks called every heavy formation a phalanx

To be fair, the Romans too. Maybe the issue is simply the modern interpretation of the hoplitic phalanx, which is also a debated theory.