ORIGINS OF ROMAN INFANTRY EQUPIMENT: INNOVATION AND CELTIC INFLUENCE

Ian A. Martin

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

December 201 9

APPROVED:

Christopher J. Fuhrmann, Major Professor Walter Roberts, Co-Major Professor Guy Chet, Committee Member D. Keith Mitchener, Committee Member Reid Ferring, Committee Member Jennifer Jensen Wallach, Chair of the Department of History Tamara L. Brown, Executive Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School

Martin, Ian A. Origins of Roman Infantry Equpiment: Innovation and Celtic Influence.

Doctor of Philosophy (History), December 2019, 276 pp., 1 table, 35 figures, 1 appendix,

bibliography, 23 ancient sources, 176 secondary sources.

The Romans were known for taking technology and advancements from other peoples they encountered and making them their own. This pattern holds true in military affairs; indeed, little of the Roman military was indigenously developed. This dissertation looks at the origins of the Roman’s mainline weapons systems from the beginning of Roman Republic expansion in the fourth century BC to the abandonment of Western-style armaments in favor of Eastern style ones

beginning in the late-third century AD. This dissertation determines that the Romans during that time relied predominately on the Celtic peoples of Europe for the majority of their military equipment. One arrives at this conclusion by examining at the origins of the major weapons groups: armor, shields, spears, swords, and missile weapons. This determination is based on the use of ancient written sources, artistic sources, and archaeological sources. It also uses the large

body of modern scholarship on the individual weapons. The goal is to produce a unified work

that addresses the origins of all weapons in order to see if there is an overarching impact on the

Roman military from outside cultures. When one studies whence the weapons that ended up in

Romans hands originated, a decided Celtic influence is easily found. That does not mean the

Romans did not advance those weapons. The Romans proved very adroit at improving upon the

basic designs of others and modifying them into new forms that met new needs. The Romans just

did not develop their own technology very often. As a result, the Celts will exert a strong impact

on the Roman military culture as it develops from 400 BC until it is overtaken by Eastern

influences in the late 200s AD.

Copyright 2019

by

Ian A. Martin

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No major project can be done alone. I could not have completed my educational journey without the dedicated assistance of a village full of people. As such, I would like to take a moment to thank those who assisted me in this journey.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Christopher Fuhrmann. He took me on not knowing much about me or what he was getting himself into, and he gave me everything he could to help me through this project. I honestly could not have done it without him. Just as helpful were my other committee members: Drs. Walter Roberts (co-chair), Guy Chet, Keith

Mitchener, and Reid Ferring. All of them contributed greatly to my finishing. I would not have been able to accomplish all the tasks I have without the input of each and every one of you.

Outside the academic world, I need to thank my family for the support and encouragement given me throughout close to thirty years of education. My father, who passed in

2013, was a driving force behind my interest in history, and was a sounding board for so many ideas I used throughout my educational career. My mother provided the quintessential mother’s care needed to help me through the tough times, and my sister for helping me get away from the rigors of research and writing from time to time.

No less important is my academic family. This group of people who I met when I was just a wide-eyed 42 year old coming to Texas for the first time helped me adjust and blow off steam through the entire process. They were guinea pigs for what came out of my kitchen and bar, and were instrumental in helping me keep what little sanity I have.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES...... v

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 2. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ROMAN ARMY ...... 8

CHAPTER 3. ROME’S MILITARY EVOLUTION, c.600 BC-c. AD 250 ...... 24 Iron Age Rome (The Celtic Age, 390 BC-AD 235) ...... 40

CHAPTER 4. THE CELTS ...... 65

CHAPTER 5. BODY ARMOR ...... 102 Conclusions ...... 146

CHAPTER 6. SHIELDS AND SHAFTS ...... 148 Shafted Weapons ...... 164 Conclusions ...... 185

CHAPTER 7. HILTED WEAPONS...... 190 Conclusion ...... 230

CHAPTER 8. MISSILE WEAPONS ...... 232 Conclusion ...... 249

CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION...... 251

APPENDIX: GLOSSARY OF LATIN AND GREEK MILITARY TERMS...... 257

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 264 Ancient Sources ...... 264 Secondary Sources ...... 265

iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Page

Tables

Table 3.1: Roman Military System, compiled using Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita book 1 section 43...... 33

Figures

Figure 4.1: This is a map begun in 2007 by the Tin (Cassiterite) Distribution Google Earth 3D GIS Project. It marks all current locations known where tin can or has been found throughout history in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa ...... 83

Figure 5.1: Lorica hamata on display at Museum Canuntinum Bad Deutsch-Altenburg, Austria...... 105

Figure 5.2: Body armor...... 111

Figure 5.3: Palette of Narmer. Section B shows the king wearing an armored loincloth and possibly armored lower leg guards...... 117

Figure 5.4: The Dying Gaul ...... 132

Figure 5.5: Ludovisi Gaul ...... 133

Figure 5.6: Riace Bronzes...... 133

Figure 5.7: Letnitza Treasures ...... 135

Figure 5.8: Mogilansja Tumulus Golden Jug ...... 136

Figure 5.9: Detail from Pergamon Weapons Frieze...... 138

Figure 5.10: Vacheres Warrior...... 138

Figure 6.1: Painting from Cave 7 at Dugat in the Altai Mountains ...... 148

Figure 6.2: The Dura Europos shield...... 150

Figure 6.3: Nola tomb frieze of Samnite warrior; 4th cent BC...... 154

Figure 6.4: Crater from tomb 1005 at Caudium 4th century BC ...... 155

Figure 6.5: Situla Arnoaldi from tomb 104 at the Arnoaldi Necropolis c. 500-450 BC...... 170

v Figure 6.6: Fresco from the Giglioli Tomb c. 300 BC...... 170

Figure 6.7: Chigi Vase: Protocorinthian style found in Etr tomb at Monte Aguzzo ...... 173

Figure 6.8: Roman light pilum socketed shank ...... 176

Figure 6.9: Two Roman iron spear heads form 1st-3rd century AD ...... 176

Figure 6.10: Gladius hilt construction...... 177

Figure 6.11: Anatomy of a pilum ...... 180

Figure 6.12: Cancelleria Frieze-Domitian departing for Sarmatian War 92 AD (carved 93-95 AD)...... 183

Figure 7.1: Copper swords found at Arslantepe dating to the early 4th millennium BC ...... 194

Figure 7.2: The Necdet Dilek Sword (front and back images) from the private collection of Necdet Dilek...... 194

Figure 7.3: Picture of Mesopotamian noble in a war cart holding a sickle sword in his right hand...... 198

Figure 7.4: Picture of rank of footmen wielding spears, with panel shields and leather helmets...... 198

Figure 7.5: The actual carvings on the wall of the mortuary temple of Rameses III at Medinet Habu (c.1190 BC) ...... 200

Figure 7.6: Above figure (7.5) rendered in blackline drawing ...... 200

Figure 7.7: A close-up of the top left corner of Fig. 7.6 ...... 201

Figure 7.8: Iron Machaira style sword. 5th-4th century BC...... 206

Figure 7.9: Iron Akinakes. 6th-5th cent BC ...... 207

Figure 7.10: Image of a La Téne Type-I sword form the British Museum ...... 216

Figure 7.11: A blade diagram of the basic blade shapes for the major gladiu types used by the Roman army...... 219

Figure 7.12: Evolution of the Roman pugio from its beginning of use by the Romans in the 2nd century BC, through the Principate period, to its final use in the 3rd century AD ...... 227

vi CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

When I first came to Texas to begin my PhD, I had the beginnings of an idea in mind. As a teacher, I had always promoted the idea that, in the ancient world, settled peoples were responsible for the development of defensive technologies while nomadic peoples advanced offensive technologies. The idea was predicated on the principle of necessity being the mother of invention. Sedentary peoples concerned themselves more with holding on to what they had while the nomadic peoples were always trying to aggrandize themselves at others’ expense. I had never really put any effort into seeing if this theory was true, but it seemed logical at the time.

When I got to the point of picking a topic for my dissertation, I started with that idea. The hypothesis that settled peoples concentrated on defensive technologies while nomadic peoples focused on offensive proved untenable immediately upon starting serious research. It seems that certain peoples were very good at developing new technologies while others simply borrowed from the developers. Of all the peoples of the ancient world, the Romans are probably the best known for borrowing technologies. There is little doubt that the Romans borrowed extensively from the Greeks. After a little study and research, it became obvious that they borrowed almost as much from the Etruscans. After a time, my investigation yielded a new question. What did the

Romans actually ever invent or develop on their own?

I decided to look into the development of Roman technologies. I figured there had to be something decidedly Roman other than concrete. Seeing as how the investigation of the entire

Roman world for inventions and developments would take too much time for a simple PhD, I decided to limit my efforts to military technologies. The result of that investigation is here before you now.

1 When I started to look into the origins of Roman military technologies, I was astounded

by what I did not find. Nowhere has anyone produced an overview of all main Roman military

technologies and their origins. It just did not exist. There were plenty of works produced

covering individual platforms such as swords, or segmented armor, but no one had produced an

overview. Moreover, because no one had produced that overview, there was no overarching

theory of how the Romans came by their technology.

Since there is no overarching survey or Roman military technologies, there is no

hypothesis as to the origins and main influences of Roman on the Roman military. By giving this

survey, I am also offering a new theory as to the major influences on the developments of the

Roman military. By examining ancient, artistic, and archaeological sources as well as prominent

secondary sources, I was able to discern a pattern. The Romans drew their major military

technological influences from the Celtic peoples of Northern Europe

I started with the few works that produced an overarching look at the Roman military

equipment through its various periods. The two main sources for this are Roman Military

Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome by Michael Bishop and Jon Coulston, and

Arms and Armour of the Roman Soldier by Rafaele D’Amato. Both of these works offer

extensive overviews of the pieces of equipment used by the Romans in the various periods: the

first work from mid-Republic to the Fall (218 BC-AD 476), the second from the time of Marius through the time of Commodus (112 BC-AD 192). Both works rely extensively on artistic and

archaeological evidence. They also use literary sources where they can. The result is a very

clinical overview of what is being used and when. Little is discussed of the origins or impacts of

these tools outside the immediate military sphere. They do provide, however, excellent road

maps of the technological changes through the periods in question.

2 Outside of these two main sources, there is little of an all-encompassing nature to the literature of Roman technological studies. Most of the other sources are specialized treatises on the development, adoption, and use of specific technologies. They all have their adherents and they all have their champions. For instance, H. Russell Robinson singled out and examined

Roman armor in depth in the 1960s and 70s. A trained armorer and not a traditional historian,

Robinson’s work in reconstructing the specific style of armors found in the Corbridge Horde

(excavated in 1964) revolutionized the way historians thought about Roman armor and helmets.

His reconstruction of lorica segmentata (Roman banded armor) changed the way we look at the

Romans to such an extent that that particular style of armor has become synonymous with the

Roman army in popular culture. He also did advanced work on helms. Most other works involving the study of Roman armor and helmets begin with Robinson’s work and progress from there.

Unfortunately, Robinson’s lack of training as an historian means his work is almost entirely technical. He focused more on the design, manufacture, and use of armor and helmets than their origins and impacts off the battlefield. This is a common concern for many of these early works. While most of them have highly technical and sound engineering information, they lack any astute historical analysis. It is not until the second generation of hoplologists that we see an attempt to place these developments in a wider historical context.1 This group, largely arising in the 1980s and after, seeks to put all the technical data gleaned from the previous generation of

1 Richard F. Burton, The Book of Swords (New York: Dover, 1884), 6. Burton coins the term hoplology as a name for the science of arms and weapons of offense and defense. It can be further divided into three subcategories: Technological, Functional, and Behavioral. Technological studies the development of weapons and armor in the contexts in which they are created. Functional studies the structure, development, and organization of combat systems and their relations to the weapons. Behavioral scrutinizes the psychological and physiological factors that affect human combative behavior and combative capabilities. It also includes cultural impacts on weapons and fighting systems reciprocally.

3 engineering focused researchers into a broader historical context. I belong to this second group

of historians.

The biggest restriction on Roman technological studies is the lack of published

archaeological data.2 While archaeologists are finding new things every year, the finds they

make predominately end up stored away in museums or warehouses waiting for someone to

catalog and publish. Few people are doing this, however. As a result, historians suffer due to lack

of new information. It is hard to offer new directions and ideas in the field of military

technological studies without new data from which to pull. This is especially true with the

opening of Spain to archaeological research. With the death of Franco in 1975, Spain has proven

to be a new and highly exciting source for artifacts, but if no one is publishing anything

concerning the finds there, historians can do little to advance the understanding of Roman

military social, cultural, and technological development.

My work examines the works of the major components of the first, technological groups

of researchers and the second group of historians along with the artistic and archaeological data

in an effort to determine the sources for Roman military technology. This topic stems from an

idea I had years ago. It occurred to me that if necessity were the mother of invention, then those

with a need would develop the military technologies. What constitutes a need, however? Are

constant threats or aggressive leadership the only things that drive military technological

development? Does having a culture based on a warrior elite status do anything to promote

technological improvements? The truth is there is no simple answer. While large-scale systemic

technologies such as walls and siege equipment may require a decided effort by a whole

community or cultural group, most military technologies during the ancient period are a series of

2 M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd Edition. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006), 23.

4 small developments made over time by various groups building on one another’s improvements.

Eventually, the technology reaches a “finished” product and modern historians credit the invention of that technology to that people.

It seems that all peoples developed both types of military technologies, offensive and defensive, as they needed them. Since all who fight in organized conflicts worry about both protecting themselves and in dealing damage to the opponent, all societies would need to develop both offensive and defensive technologies, but did the Romans? As my original idea transformed, I started asking, when did the Romans develop what they use militarily? This answer surprised me just as much. It seems the Romans developed very little themselves. Since there is little indigenous military technological development, whence did the Romans tools of warfare come?

To answer this question, I started with a basic assumption: the Romans stole (borrowed if you prefer) this technology from others. While unfair to accuse the Romans out of hand, I base that assumption on the hypothesis that little of the Roman world was original to the Romans.

They encountered most elements from more developed peoples, especially the Etruscans and

Greeks, and adopted it. This does not mean that the Romans used these technologies the same way as the originating civilizations. In almost every instance, the Romans Latinized the technologies and developments in a way that meshed with their overall cosmological view. In fact, that was part of their genius. The Romans could take something from someone else and, without changing it physically, use it in an entirely new way. This is what they did with their military technology.

After looking at the available sources for the various elements of Roman military equipment, it became obvious to me that the Romans had one major provider for most of their

5 major military components: the Celts. Celt is the name given to the group of peoples inhabiting

the super-Alpine region of Europe from the Iberian Peninsula to the shores of the Black Sea.

These people’s similarities in culture, social constructs, and language caused the Greeks to

consider them one massive people even though the Celts never identified themselves as a

collective unit. The Celts were highly advanced in metalworking, and they coupled that skill with

a cultural predilection towards aggressive behavior. Because these two elements of Celtic culture

interacted fairly well, it meant that the Celts were highly astute at developing military

technologies. It makes sense when you consider that they based a large portion of their economic

well-being on raiding and taking from other peoples, and those who proved highly capable at

winning large amounts of material goods through force of arms earned a high place in Celtic

society (see chapter 4).

This success the Celts had at the expense of the Etruscans, and especially the Romans, inspired the Romans to adopt the Celtic panoply of weapons. With those weapons and armors, the Romans were able to overpower the Celts and dominate them through non-technological strengths such as organization and manpower. Over time, the Romans attempted to replace those tools with others of their own design or modified them to make them more suitable to Roman needs. The Celtic weapons of the late first millennium BC, however, would serve the Romans well until replaced by a more Eastern panoply in the mid-first millennium AD.

This work traces the military technological innovations the Romans adopted in the mid-

first millennium BC, and with which they built their empire. It starts with two chapters reviewing

the major periods of Roman military evolution from the establishment of the city c.750 BC

through the mid-third century AD when the Romans began to move away from the western

European family of weapons they had been using and adopted a more eastern family of weapons

6 introduced by the new eastern invaders. This chapter looks at what changed technologically and offers some reasons as to why the changes occurred

The third chapter looks at the Celtic peoples of the late Bronze and Iron Ages of Europe.

These peoples were the innovators of much of what the Romans adopted. They are also the major users of these weapons as the Romans began enlisting the Celtic peoples they conquered into the Roman military. This gives the Celts an unprecedented influence on the development of the Roman army and, by extension, the Roman state. Since they are highly important to the development of this aspect of Rome, trying to get an understanding of who these people are is significant to understanding any social or cultural changes imparted by the army on the rest of

Roman society.

Chapters 5 through 8 each look at one of the major technological system employed by the

Romans throughout the latter half of the first millennium BC and the first third of the first millennium AD. There is a chapter devoted each to body armor, shields and spears, hilted weapons, and missile weapons. Each of these systems shows either a major innovation of the

Romans themselves or, more commonly, an adoption of a Celtic system. It is important to understand exactly what the Romans adopted from the Celts since the adoption of these weapons systems means also assuming the manner of manufacturing, training, and usage of these weapons from the parent system. If these systems are, as I propose, Celtic in origin, then they become a gateway to imparting major Celtic influence on the Roman military system.

7 CHAPTER 2

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ROMAN ARMY

Throughout the centuries, one of the most covered aspects of Roman history has been the army. It is the mainstay of popular coverage of Rome in mass media and literature. Academic and lay historians alike have covered its campaigns and battles. The command structure has been dissected and analyzed in meticulous detail. Modern characteristics of military history, such as social aspects, are appearing in current scholarship with the study of soldiers’ lives, their place in the non-military parts of society, and the interactions between the military and civilian parts of

Roman, and non-Roman society. In all of these new tangents and advances in the historical research of the Roman army, one area has fallen to a secondary status. These new directions in

Roman military studies have supplanted the study of technological evolution; all but ignoring it in most forms of modern scholarship. This work returns to the beginnings of Roman studies and looks at the development and introduction of military technologies in the Roman military.

Instead of simply rehashing the outfitting of the Roman army, however, this work attempts to ascertain the origins of the technologies utilized by the Romans in their most prolific and dominate phase: the Celtic era of the Roman military.

I am proposing in this work a new division and categorization for the Roman military.

From the Sack of Rome to the advent of new technologies from the East in the late third century

AD, the Roman military took the majority of their military technologies from the Celtic peoples of Super-Alpine Europe. The use of these arms platforms arose with the defeat of the Romans by an at the time technologically superior foe. The Romans only gave up these arms when a new foe from the East proved the Celtic family of weapons outdated.

Despite the reams of paper spent on examining the Roman army, little has been done in

8 the examination of the development and implementation of military technology throughout its

existence. That is not to say that historians have ignored the technologies employed by the

Roman military. Scholars have examined the Roman panoply since before the beginnings of

scientific archaeology. However, for some reason, Roman military technology has never been

studied as a unified whole. Scholars, such as Harold Robinson and his studies of Roman armor,

have specialized in one piece of technology or equipment to the exclusion of the others. Many

have produced works on the development and variations of helmets, shields, swords, and armor.

A few, such as Michael Bishop and John Coulston, have produced works that give an overview

to the developments of weapons and armors once they become part of the Roman system. None,

however, to this point has looked at the entirety in an effort to understand the origins and

implementation of these military tools.

This trend is mirrored in modern military studies as well. Modern military history tends to move beyond the aspect of the “tools of the trade” and into the organizational ideas involved in military matters: strategy and tactics, supply, support. They all seem to ignore the fact that the type of army fielded tends to dictate the manner in which the other aspects are accomplished. A strategy based on speed is not a good one for an army predominately afoot. Supplying a gunpowder army has a significantly different array of problems and limitations than supplying one that is dependent on muscle-powered weapons. While this work is not meant to be technologically deterministic, it aims to return the technology of the era to the investigations involving the Roman army. After all, in trying to study the culture and development of the

Roman army, the source, manufacture, use, and even the manner in which weapons are carried heavily influences the army’s philosophies and principles.3

3 Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas Larsson, “Contacts and Travel During the 2nd Millennium BC: Warriors on the Move,” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, ed. Ioanna Galanaki, et al. (Zagreb,

9 The best place to start in a work like this is to examine the major periods of the Roman

army during the era in question (c.400 BC-AD 235). Towards that end, a general overview of the

reforms and major changes of the Roman military from the different periods is required. The

focus of this chapter encompasses a timeline starting with the beginnings of Rome and ending

with the death of Alexander Severus, the last of the Severan line and the beginning of the Third

Century Crisis. During that epoch, the Romans predominately utilized the families of weapons

and armors developed by others. They started with the original weapons known to humans, and

then adopted the Bronze Age weapons introduced by the Greeks and Etruscans. The longest

period is the one dominated by the weapons of the Celtic peoples of Northern Europe. With

those weapons, the Romans dominated and controlled the majority of the European continent as

well as the Mediterranean Basin. It was not until they encountered the horse-heavy armies of the

third century AD that those weapons proved ineffective and the system required a change to meet

the new threat.

By examining the reforms of the period, an understanding of what is changing and, more

importantly, what is not changing should become clear. Until the third century AD, there are only

two wholesale changes in the material aspects of the Roman army. This first comes with the

contact and conflict between the Romans and the Etruscans and Greeks. The second comes with

the conflict between the Romans and Celts. Throughout the rest of the timeline, the Romans will

make only small changes in their weapons and armors. These changes mostly involved

improving construction or fixing defects in earlier designs, but they introduced no large-scale changes or new weapons platforms that had a lasting impact. The major reforms of the military during this period (440 BC-AD 235) are all systemic. These reforms focused on recruiting,

Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005), 28. Kristiansen and Larsson propose that to adopt a new technology from a different people often required wholesale adoption of the institutions associated with it: production, use, training, etc.

10 logistics, organization and leadership, but not on technological developments or change. As a

result, the major period of Roman military activity is dominated technologically by the Celts.

In the beginning, the Roman military was without form and void. The proto-Romans had little need of a formal military. Rome existed as a group of hamlets on a set of hills in central

Italy. Nothing of importance that historians or archaeologists can discover had come thus far from the region. In fact, Rome as an entity did not yet exist. It was only with the growth and development of the area that a need for organized protection was required. Towards that end, the

Romans developed a very simple system of weapons and armor.4 The peoples who would one

day be Romans utilized the first family of weapons developed by humans: the spear, dagger or

knife, and hammer.5 Of all these, the spear was both the easiest to make and safest to use. Being

little more than a sharpened stick, probably fire-hardened, the early Romans could construct a spear in very little time.6 It was cheap to make and replaced quickly and easily if broken or lost.

Like most other ancient civilizations, the Romans developed and relied upon the spear in one

way or another from its earliest days until the end of the empire.7

The other weapons undoubtedly made an appearance as well. The knife was too useful an

all-around tool not to employ, but its short reach and relative complexity of manufacture more

than likely relegated it to little more than a backup weapon and personal tool. Likewise, the

hand-axe, or pebble chopper, was one of the most common tools found in Neolithic dig sites, but

its use as a weapon is questionable at best.8

4 Eugene S. McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol 1 (Bergamo, Italy: Istitutio Italiano d’Arti Grafiche, 1917): 122. 5 Arther Farrill, The Origins of War: From the Stone Age to Alexander the Great (London: Thames & Hudson, 1985), 16 – 19. 6 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 131. 7 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 124. 8 Ferrill, Origins of War, 16-17.

11 The hammer was a little different. It was a compound tool and prone to fail if subjected to

rigorous use. That was largely due to the difficulty in attaching the head securely to the handle;

there being little more than natural fiber thongs (hide or plaited grass) to rely upon. As a result,

the hammer was used almost exclusively as a tool until the development of socketing technology

arose. Its more primitive cousin, the club, however, was a common sight in conflict. Again,

simple to make and easily replaced, the club was a great weapon for early military actions and

would remain a part of the Roman military until the end of its days.9

While no archaeological evidence exists in a Roman context to corroborate this, there is

speculation that Romans also employed very simple missile weapons.10 Missile weapons came in

three forms. The first was the spear again. A person could hurl a spear, a thin, mostly straight

piece of wood with a point, at a target almost as easily as he could thrust it into one. It allowed

the fighter to extend his reach beyond the immediate zone around him. As such, it was most

likely a favored early hunting weapon.11 This would imply that those who used it had at least a

passing familiarity with casting spears at targets. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove their

use in warfare. Logic would dictate throwing spears were used, but it does not prove it. The casting spear also had severe limitations. It has a short range, and an opponent can use it in return. To reach further than about 20 yards required a more complex implement. It required a true missile weapon.

The first missile weapon developed by humans, and most likely the first used by the

9 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 123. 10 The fact that pre-historic Man used spears in a hunting context is attested to by the various cave-painting sites from around the world. Few physical spears from this period have been found. By extrapolation, it can be assumed that the prehistoric peoples of the Italian Peninsula also used spears in this manner. 11 Xenophon, Cynegeticus, chapters 2 and 10. In his work, Xenophon indicates that small game was usually hunted with nets while large game was hunted with dogs and spears akin to military style albeit with longer points to account for the thicker torsos of large animals such as boar and deer. These heavier weapons did not enter use until the advent of metalworking, however.

12 proto-Roman people, was the sling.12 The sling was a very simple way of applying external force

to increase the applied strength on the projectile. The result is the ability to cast a stone (bullets,

lead or ceramic, not yet being invented) much further than if you simply threw it by hand. It also

gives the projectile an extreme concussive force that will deliver a killing, or at least stunning,

blow to a target.13 As such, the sling, a very useful hunting tool, saw use throughout the Roman

timeline in both military and civilian matters.14 It was cheap to make and easy to learn to use.

Supplies of ammunition littered the ground everywhere. In addition, since it delivered blunt force damage and did not need to penetrate the target, the sling had the ability to overcome simple defenses.

A more advanced missile weapon was the self-bow. This weapon, the simplest of the bow family, was made of a single stave with a string, usually of treated, twisted gut, attached to the ends of the staff. By applying force, one can draw the bow and increase the force behind a sharpened projectile giving it much greater range and penetrating power than a sharpened stick cast by hand. The self-bow is not much more powerful or deadly than a sling.15 It also required

more knowledge to make and use, and was not easily replaced. While there is evidence of early

use of the bow, it does not appear to be a major part of the proto-Roman panoply.16

The first military developments in the small communities that would become Rome most likely arose as a support system for an elite/heroic warrior. The community somehow raised a group of men armed with weapons made entirely of natural materials to support the one, or few,

12 Ferrill, Origins of War, 19. 13 Ferrill, Origins of War, 22. 14 M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006), 205-206. 15 Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow (New York: Bramhall House, 1963), 33. 16 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 125.

13 trained warriors in battle. These men were not professional fighting men, instead being

predominately farmers and possibly craftsmen. Their weapons reflected this. They were simple

tools primarily designed for medium or close distance and requiring minimal skill to use

effectively. These men employed these tools either as shock or missile weapons. Only the spear

could be employed in both ways, but early Romans most likely employed it as a melee weapon.17

Defensively, these men fought with little more than their everyday clothes.18 While there

are some hints that they employed primitive armors made of hide, none has survived in the

archaeological record to prove that. Shields are also lacking in the archaeological record. While

it is highly probable that the Romans utilized simple shields composed of wood, due to the

nature of the fabrication materials, no evidence survives to confirm this, and scholars are loath to

deny their use simply due to the lack of evidence.19

The only person who might have had different gear was the heroic warrior/leader. If the

fighting system described here did employ the hero as a leader, he most likely was the only one

with extensive combat training. As such, he would be better equipped than were his commoner

supporters.20 But what does “better equipped” mean? Odds are this meant he had weapons made

specifically for use in combat as opposed to work tools modified for war or hunting implements

turned on humans instead of game. It also means he most likely had some form of protective

wear other than standard clothing. If he did, this primitive armor was most likely hide, although

17 Marcus Egg, “War and Weaponry,” in Etrscology vol1, ed. Alessandro Naso (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co., 2017), 167.; McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 131. 18 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 129. 19 Clark Hopkins, "The Arms, Equipment, and Ceremonial Vessels of the Early Etruscan Warriors," The Classical Journal 60, no. 5 (1965): 214-215.; McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 126. Grave goods stemming from early seventh century Etruscan graves yield round shields and spear points along with daggers, but no swords or other forms of body armor. Metal vessels recovered from the same graves have images of warriors fighting while wearing helmets, yet no helmets are found in the graves. 20 Hopkins, "The Arms, Equipment, and Ceremonial Vessels of the Early Etruscan Warriors," 215.

14 in later years it could have evolved into leather.21 One thing is certain, however. There was no

metal involved in these weapons at all. Scholars think that the peoples of central Italy did not yet

have the knowledge of metalcraft, and would not until these hill hamlets coalesced into a city

called Rome (c.753 BC).22

Metalworking arrived in northern Italy, however, as early as the second millennium BC.

Archaeologists have found evidence of mining and smelting in the Po Valley dating to that

period.23 How far that technology spread is the question. It could have moved south with the

Urnfield culture diffusing through northern and central Italy at the end of the second millennium

BC, through trade with other eastern Mediterranean peoples, or it could have been an indigenous development based on local supplies of metal. The answer is unknown. What is known is that the northern Italian foothills were replete with copper, silver, and iron deposits.24 This abundance of

metals would have allowed for indigenous development, but the location in the northern hills

would have restricted local invention to what would become Etruscan territory rather than

Latium.

Everything presented to this point has been largely educated speculation, as the

archaeological record is very scarce for the period under discussion while reliable written records

of any type have not survived.25 All historians can do to get a glimpse of the period is examine

the developments throughout central Italy discovered by archaeologists and pair that with

writings from the ancient sources that talk about the distant past. Those sources, at best, pass on

21 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 129. 22 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 122. 23 Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 17. 24 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 9. 25 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 13.

15 the Roman traditions of earlier times and allow modern scholars to make educated guesses as to

the nature of these developments. Few modern scholars feel the writings of the ancient historians

are accurate and factual in their depiction of Rome’s foundation period.26

The ancient scholar most helpful in pinning down the origins of technological

innovations of the distant Roman past was Pliny the Elder. In his Natural Histories, he listed the

inventors of all manner of things, both military and civilian in nature.27 He was very meticulous

in giving the nation of origin of most things. Items with origins lost to antiquity he usually

attributed to the divine or ancient heroes. Those heroes, however, usually started a race of

people. If Pliny attributed the development of certain weapon or tool to an ancient individual,

descendants of that hero most likely introduced that item or process to the Romans. There is no

true way to tell based on evidence available to scholars today, however.

In actuality, most of the developments covered by Pliny probably came from the ancient

peoples indigenous to the Italian peninsula. The oldest identifiable culture on the Italian

Peninsula is the Apennine Culture (c.15th century BC). The people of this culture were semi-

nomadic, transhumant pastoralists, using high valley pastures in the summer and the lowland

fields in the winter. Scholars also credit this group with the development and use of agriculture

and pottery in Italy.28 It is highly likely that these people developed from earlier peoples in Italy.

Archaeologists show that agriculture was present in the peninsula as early as 5000 BC, but the

archaeological evidence is incomplete and haphazardly gathered in areas.29 Any peoples in the region prior to the Apennine Culture are largely archaeologically invisible. Little information

26 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 3. 27 Pliny The Natural Histories 7.56.

28 T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000 – 264BC) (New York: Routledge, 1995), 32. 29 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 13 – 15.

16 beyond the fact someone was there is discernable. As for the Apennine peoples, unfortunately, they never developed writing of any recognizable type, and their ceramic decorations are little more than geometric designs. As such, archaeologists derive little information with any certainty about their culture beyond the basics from the fragments of material remains available. Even the language family to which they belonged cannot be ascertained, although it is assumed to be an

Italic branch of the Indo-European family.30

The Apennine culture held sway for several centuries until more advanced cultures displaced it. Those cultures probably spread through a combination of migration and invasion.31

These shifts began circa 1100 BC. Involved with these shifts are additions of elements of

Terramara cultures and a noticeable spread of Urnfield (proto-Celtic) cultures. Both of these cultures have their Italian origins in in the Po Valley.32 With the spread of new cultures, the largely unified culture of Apennine Italy split into various sections. The northern portion of Italy split into three cultural section. The Lombardy lake district became the Golassecca Culture. The northeastern Po Valley region became Este (also Atestine). The most widespread of the succeeding cultures was the Villanovan culture. While evidence of this culture can be found all over Italy, it most heavily occupied areas in northern and central Italy just south of the Po

Valley on the eastern coast, and from South of Bologna to the Tiber on the west coast.33

These post-Apennine Italian cultures are thought to be heavily influenced by non-Italian groups having contact with the peoples of the peninsula. Cornell puts the major source of influence as the Celtic and proto-Celtic cultures of northern and central Europe. This is largely

30 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 43. 31 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 32. 32 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 25. 33 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 35. This does include the islands just off the coast and down to Sicily.

17 due to the sudden adoption of a cremation tradition in burial practices popular throughout the

entire super-Alpine region at this time. Prior to this period, the Apennine peoples practiced

inhumation.34 Forsythe is more diverse in his view of influences. He shows elements of the

Celts, agreeing with Cornell to some extent, but he also shows evidence of Balkan and Near

Eastern contact.35 A possible reason for the discrepancy could be information available to

Forsythe put forth in the decade after the publication of Cornell’s work. In either case, cultural

impact on Neolithic and early Bronze Age Italy was from outside sources. With the arrival of

these new non-Italian cultures, cremation supplanted inhumation almost completely. This

included the practice of cremation and creating urn fields as found in super-Alpine Europe,

which had a highly negative affect on the ability to gather archaeological data from this period.

These new, super-Alpine cultures did have limitations to their spread, however. The further south

one goes in Italy during this period, the less one finds the urn fields and the more inhumation is

used.36 Instead, the orientalizing influence of peoples from the Eastern Mediterranean region

dominated: predominately the Greek with lesser influence by the Phoenician.37

In addition to cremation, these super-Alpine cultures introduced other technological advances. While the Apennine cultures of the mid to late second millennium BC did show the use

of bronze, metalworking came late to these cultures. When first encountering these northern

peoples, the central Italian Apennine peoples had only begun to explore metalworking. The new

cultures from central Europe, however, brought advanced bronze working techniques with them.

34 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 33 - 35. 35 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 28. 36 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 32. 37 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 38. Throughout this work, the word orientalizing is used to describe a period where the artistic and cultural influences of societies form the Near East had heavy influence on other peoples throughout the Mediterranean region. The period dates between 750 and 580 BC. It corresponds with the height of the Assyrian and Phoenician civilizations and encompasses the major conquest and colonization movements of both of these peoples. It ends with the rise of the Persian state in the 6th century BC.

18 It is also thought that they introduced iron working to the peninsula circa 900BC.38 The slow development of metallurgical processes resulted, most likely, from the metal-poor nature of the

Italian Peninsula, especially tin needed for the making of bronze. However, the La Tène peoples of Northern and Western Europe were known transporters of tin from the Cornish tin mines of southern England.39 This would give the Celtic cultures valuable trade items for the peoples of the tin-poor Mediterranean as well as the ability to experiment and develop new metallurgical processes.

Other major changes between these new Celtic cultures from the north and the previous

Apennine culture was a better ability to utilize available resources resulting in new and larger population centers, as well as the introduction of a warrior elite culture.40 This culture would dominate the northern portion of Italy and last until the Greeks introduced a heavily Near Eastern influence through trade and their occupation of the southern part of the peninsula.41 The current scholarly question on that particular issue is when that Greek inspired influence occurred. No clear answer is available yet. Possibly, future discovery of further archaeological evidence will clarify this particular issue.

The dominant political entity that eventually arose from the Villanovan culture group was the Etruscans.42 The Etruscans, who settled in the northern portion of the peninsula, were a non-

Indo-European group. Through linguistic analysis and, more recently, DNA sequencing, some current scholarship opines that the closest relative to the Etruscans originated in Western

38 Graham Webster, The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD, 3rd ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998), 1-2. 39 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 36. 40 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 32-33. 41 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 46. 42 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 35.

19 Anatolia.43 This aligns with the belief of the ancients that the Etruscans were of Lydian origins.

Herodotus claims the Lydians split their population when it became too large and sent one-half

out to found a new city under Tyrrhenus.44 This would explain the name given to these peoples

by the Romans: Tyrrhenians. The ancients themselves argued against this origin story, however.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus claimed that the Etruscans were an entirely different people, most

likely indigenous to the region, as they shared neither a language nor any common customs with

the Lydians.45

If modern DNA testing is correct, however, that relationship dates back to the Early

Bronze Age at a minimum and possibly as far back as the Late Neolithic period. Genetic

scientists who support this theory assume that the arrival of the Anatolians corresponded with the

rise of farming in the region. Therefore, while the Etruscans may have been very distantly related

to the peoples of Anatolia, that relationship dates back at least 3000 years. Furthermore, other

scientists find fault with the original study much the same way later ancient authors found fault

with the conclusions drawn by their predecessors.46 The result of modern science’s intervention

in this particular argument is to leave us right where we were prior to their involvement. There is

a group of scientists to support whichever ancient author you prefer to espouse.

The one thing we can tell, however, is that the resulting civilization called Etruscan grew

out of early migrants to the peninsula, merged with peoples already there, and evolved into a

people later considered indigenous. As such, perhaps both Herodotus and Dionysus of

43 Alessandro Achilli, Anna Olivieri, et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Variations of Modern Tuscans Support the Near Eastern Origins of Etruscans,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 180, no 4 (Apr 2007): 759. While this theory is out there it is not highly regarded by the historical community. 44 Herodotus, Histories, 1.94. 45 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 1.29-30. 46Silvia Ghirotto, “Origins and Evolutions of Etruscan mtDNA,” Public Library of Science, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519 (accessed on 25 May 2019).

20 Halicarnassus are both correct to an extent.

The name “Etruria,” as applied to the region of northern and central Italy belies a political

collective. While the peoples of the Etruscan area of Bronze Aged Italy did share a culture, they

were not a united political group. Most Etruscan cities were independent and, at times, in

competition with each other.47

An important aspect of economic life in Etruria was the mineral trade. The Etruscans

were proficient at bronze working from the beginning of their recognized existence, and are

credited with introducing iron working to the region. Etruscans dominated the known tin deposits

in northern Italy, and had access to the rich iron mines found on Sardinia.48 The basis of trans-

Alpine trade with the proto-Celts in northern and central Europe was based almost completely on

the metal trade.

The Etruscans also acted as the primary conduit for technological transference in the

region. Due to their trade contacts with the Levant and Balkan Peninsula, many of the

technologies from those regions came to Italy through Etruscan ports. These technologies

included pottery and art. As a result, most early Italian art and pottery styles mimic that of the

Etruscans, and, through them, the Greeks and Near Eastern peoples. These technologies they

then transferred via the iron trade to northern and central Europe.49

Culturally, the various Etruscans city-states seemed to have shared religions and festivals.

Little more is known of shared trends due to the lack of surviving information, and the various manners in which they chose to practice these beliefs. Many Etruscan cities practiced inhumation

47 Hilary Becker, “Political Systetms and Law,” in The Etruscan World ed. Jean MacIntosh Turfa (London; Routledge, 2014), 351 – 353. 48 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 38. 49 Marian Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods: New Perspectives on “Celtic Barbarians” in Western and Central Europe (500 – 250 BC) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001), 7.

21 while others practiced cremation. Rock-cut tombs also seemed to be a common practice for the

internment of Etruscan elites, although they sometimes raised barrows for their important dead.

The height of these barrows and tombs raised resulted in the formation of many necropolises,

which serve as a major source of information on the Etruscans in modern scholarship.50

The Etruscans, especially in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, did have extensive

contact with the Greeks. The Greeks, in turn, had a decided impact on Etruscan culture,

especially the culture of the elites. Greek artistic style became popular, supplanting the previous

Villanovan styles.51 Additionally, other Near Eastern influences are seen in Etruscan culture,

such as the traditional Assyrian form of couch dining.52 Most of this outside influence, however,

is only seen in the Etruscan elite culture. Whether this is due to it only being adopted by the

elites, or because samples of non-elite Etruscan culture are too rare to enable accurate

generalities is unknown. Even though the Etruscans were highly influenced by their contacts to

the east, they became highly influential in their own right with the other peoples of the Italian

Peninsula.

The Latins began the establishment of the cities of central Italy circa 1000 BC. This

period corresponds to the proto-Villanovan era.53 Latin cities were largely located on defensible

hills and maintained a simple agrarian culture bolstered by trade. Raw materials and metals

figured highly in these cities as trade goods.54 As these cities developed, they made contact with the others in their region. Trade brought them in contact with the Etruscans by 800 BC. It also brought them into contact with a new group of people settling southern Italy, the Greeks. Caught

50 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 45-46. 51 Sybille Haynes, Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History 3rd ed. (Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Trust, 2000), 51-54. 52 Haynes, Etruscan Civilization, 53. 53 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 48-49. 54 Margarita Gleba, Textile Production in Pre-Roman Italy (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2008), 14-15.

22 in the middle between the two more advanced groups, the Latins began adopting cultural aspects from both.55 While the Etruscans were highly influential early, the orientalizing influence of the

Greeks would ultimately dominate. Most Latin cities, however, became a mixture of the three cultural groups fighting to dominate the region: Etruscan, Greek, and Latin.56 Rome was one such city.

55 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 82. 56 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 114.

23 CHAPTER 3

ROME’S MILITARY EVOLUTION, c.600 BC-c. AD 250

Earliest evidence of a settlement at Rome dates to circa 2500 BC.1 This hamlet was little more than a collection of huts on the hills that would eventually become the center of the city and the surrounding agricultural land. Little is known of the process by which this happened.

Most modern scholars believe the city grew over time, coalescing out of a group of communities on the hills scattered through the region and merging into one. This counters the traditional belief held by the Romans themselves of a legendary founder.2 Additionally, there is a strong belief

that building associated with organized religion assisted in unifying the various hamlets on these

hills into a collective city.3 How the process occurred is beyond the scope of this work, however.

Suffice it to say; by about 753BC the polity we think of as Rome had come into existence.

Due to its geography, Rome became an important place in central Italy. That geography brought in other groups who attempted to dominate and control it, including the Etruscans. By

800 BC, some experts speculate that the Etruscans dominated the site.4 Other viewpoints,

however, see the Etruscans as highly influential to the development of Rome, but not in direct

and ultimate control of the city in its early days.5 It is through their influence and direction,

however, that Rome gained many of its important early developments.

Most of these early developments Roman historians attribute to the early kings of Rome.

For our discussion, the important kings are Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, and Servius Tullius.

1 Grant Heiken, et al, The Seven Hills of Roma: A Geologic Tour (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 24- 25. 2 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 91. 3 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 88. 4 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 122. 5 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 100.

24 All these kings have Etruscan names, which indicate the level of control the Etruscans had over

the early city.6 This brings us to one of the basic arguments of archaic Roman history. Did the

early kings truly exist? Most modern scholars agree that the kings of old were little more than

folk heroes and mythological figures. By the time the Romans got around to writing their own

history, the names and deeds of most of the kings were lost. Moreover, there is no definitive

proof that major developments attributed to these men have any basis in fact. The best we have is

the scattered writings of the early Roman historians and Livy, the first historian to give an extant,

in-depth account of any reliability.

How much of Livy’s account is based in fact and how much based in long-standing

tradition is highly debated, however. Scholars such as Cornell tend to take Livy at face value.

They admit to the problems associated with the timeline given but do their best to figure out how

to make it work. The result for these scholars is that the early Roman kings are real people and

the deeds attributed to them are accurate even if a little fuzzy in the details.7 Other scholars, such

as Forsythe, feel these kings were not real people; only myths encompassing the accumulated

accomplishments of several tribal leaders from Rome’s formative period. This possibility would

allow for the problems with the time lines and the inability to match archaeological finds with

the assumed works of these great men.8 Unfortunately, the archaeology does not support either side definitively.

While the argument over the veracity of the founding kings does have its place in the historiography, it is not especially important here. Three kings do figure into the development of the Roman military, and it does not truly detract from the argument presented if what happened

6 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 133. 7 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 85-86. 8 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 104-105.

25 is the work of one man or of several. It is in the time of Tullus Hostilius (673-642 BC) and Ancus

Marcius (642-617 BC), the third and fourth kings of Rome respectively, that the Roman military

system must have formed. While there is little hard evidence to support that, it is under these two

kings that Rome completes its first major conquest of another polity, Alba Longa, and begins its

territorial expansions.9 Moreover, it is under their leadership, or at least during the time period attributed to them, that the first major evolution of Roman arms came about. This development is the evolution in Roman armaments from natural materials to metals. Prior to this period, historians propose the Romans fought with fire-hardened spears, square shields of hide and wood, and draped hide body armor (if they wore any).10 Due to the natural material of these

tools, however, there is no concrete evidence to support this. Evidence does supports, however,

the use of the bow and sling.11 Any evidence of crushing or cutting weapon such as an axe or

dagger is miniscule at best, although the Oscans, neighbors of the Romans, show evidence of axe

use as late as the Punic Wars.12 If those types of weapons existed at this time, they were most

likely limited to stone or wood, and most likely only used by the leaders of the war bands. This is

probably due to the lack of indigenous metal working developing in the central portion of the

Italian Peninsula.

Regardless if Rome acquired metals via direct introduction by a king of the era, or by

diffusion through trade and local contact, one of the most significant technological advances the

Etruscans brought to Rome was bronze.13 This technology allowed for a complete upgrade in

9 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 126.; Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 97. 10 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 131. 11 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 58 – 59. Grave goods relating to this period contain arrowheads both adjacent and under the head of to the interred body. 12 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 129. 13 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 1-2.

26 Roman arms and armor. Prior to this, Latin military equipment mimicked hunting gear.14 With

the advent of metal, however, spears changed to a fire-hardened shaft with a bronze point.

Shields could be, at a minimum, plated with bronze. Body armor that offered a great deal more protection than did hide became more common. Even secondary weapons such as daggers and short swords were now available. Historians think that prior to the Late Republic period (212-27

BC) metal armors and weapons were closely linked with social class.15 The Severan constitution

reinforces that position. The Constitution required those of higher economic ability, and thus

social class, to provide more and better equipment, mostly containing metals. These material

upgrades had the effect of making the Roman army much more effective in the field, especially

against those peoples who had not yet upgraded to the bronze platform. However, this advance

also had some secondary effects on the Roman army.

This move away from natural material weapons and armor into a metal form caused a

change in the ideologies behind the Roman fighting force. The earliest indications in both written

and archaeological sources show the Roman forces relied heavily upon the fighting band led by a

heroic warrior in the archaic/natural weapons phase.16 Historians assume that if anyone had any

formal training in combat it was the leader. The rest of the war band, being a militia levied from

the agricultural workers under his direct control, most likely had little to no experience using

weapons at all. This type of fighting was considered adequate for raiding and small scale border

defense, but showed itself to be inadequate for large-scale actions, such as the conquest and

destruction of a rival. These limitations required a change in organization.

To address these changes, the kings, specifically Tullus Hostilius, introduced new

14 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 132. 15 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 63. 16 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 84.; Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 200.

27 methodologies to the armed forces of the fledgling city. These consisted of some form of military

discipline and the beginnings of military science.17 These reforms do not require a wholesale

change in the manner in which the Romans fought. All indications are that the Romans in the

early Etruscan period still fought in small war bands under the direction of a great warrior leader,

somewhat akin to the nature of warfare in the Iliad.18 However, it does allow for larger group

actions and unified goals that go well beyond the ability of the small raiding bands that had been

the norm to this point. To accomplish this, the Romans needed to establish a hierarchy, or a

ranking system, in their forces. The establishment of this hierarchy corresponds to the

orientalizing influence of the Greeks in the Latial Phase IV era.19 With a hierarchical system, organized actions of larger groups are feasible, thus allowing for the attack on rival cities. The proof of the effectiveness of this type of organization came with the first Roman conquest at

Alba Longa, conducted, according to legend, under the direction of Tullus Hostilius.20

The period following the conquest of Alba Longa saw Rome come under continual attack

from the various Latin and Sabine cities in the region as well as a concerted effort by Etruscans

to the north. While the Romans faired moderately well against the Latins and Sabines, there was

more of an issue in holding off the Etruscans. Most scholars think that the Etruscans had adopted

Greek phalanx style combat by this point.21 This gave them a decided advantage over the

Romans, as the Roman model of warrior aristocracy supported by a handful of men did not have

the ability to overcome the phalanx. Tradition dictates the sixth ancient king of Rome, Servius

17 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 133. 18 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 173. 19 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 81. Latial Phase IV is a late proto-Villanovan Era roughly encompassing 730 – 630 BC. 20 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1,22-30. 21 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 184.

28 Tullius (575-533 BC), instituted a new constitution that reformed the Roman military system in order to combat this problem.22

Most modern scholars have trouble reconciling the establishment of the Servian

Constitution with the timeline in which it traditionally happened. There is little doubt that the

changes in the military system attributed to Servius Tullius happened. The crux of the argument

is when did those changes actually happen. The adoption of the round shield and heavy spear

synonymous with the phalanx dated, via surviving artwork and artifacts, to the sixth century

BC.23 It is known that the Etruscans had adopted the phalanx system in full throughout their

territories by 625 BC.24 Considering Rome was in a frequent state of opposition, if not out and

out war, with the Etruscans from its founding until the ultimate defeat of the Etruscans in the

early third century BC, it is only logical that the Romans adopted this style of fighting. Material

evidence indicates the Romans adopted the phalanx by 600 BC.25 It is at this point that the

argument begins.

According to tradition, the Servian reforms laid down by the Servian Constitution came

along in the second quarter of the sixth century BC under the reign of Servius Tullius (r. 575-535

BC). The two arguments associated with the new Servian system are: 1) it established the new

phalanx fighting system adopted through Greek/Etruscan influence, and 2) it is a restructuring of

the Roman political system. I tend to agree with the second theory more so than the first.

The Servian constitution is usually associated with the phalanx period of the Roman

military. Archaeology, however, proves that Rome used the phalanx formation prior to the

22 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 133. 23 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 149. 24 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 184. 25 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 189.

29 establishment of the governmental system associated with the Servian Constitution: as early as

600 BC. If the Servian system was needed to make the phalanx a workable military system, the

Romans would have developed and instituted it prior to the mid-sixth century BC. Instead, we see the phalanx employed by the Romans during the reign of Tullus Hostilius. He preceded Servius

Tullius by at least seventy years (by modern temporal reckoning).

Additionally, at the time the Constitution was said to be adopted, archaeologists find no change in military equipment for the new Eastern style system being adopted by Rome. Instead, the same equipment associated with the phalanx continues in use from the previous century.

While it is conceivable that the equipment popularized through phalanx use by the Greek and

Etruscans may have become popular in Rome without the phalanx formation being adopted it is highly unlikely to have done so. The equipment in question is not conducive to individual usage without an excessive amount of personal training. The Corinthian helmet restricts the view of the wearer. The hoplon shield is very large and heavy making it hard to swing around in individual warfare. Moreover, the Argive grip straps the shield to the left forearm making it nearly impossible to use effectively to cover the right side of the body. This particular panoply only achieves its maximum utility in massed formations.

If, on the other hand, we look at the political happenings in Rome around this time, we can see a need for the Servian Constitution’s adoption. During the last quarter of the sixth century BC Rome began having internal problems. If the events reported by the ancient writers

can be believed, coups brought the last two kings of Rome to the throne (Servius Tullius and L.

Tarquinius Superbus).26 A noble uprising deposing the last king and establishing an aristocracy

in the city followed this only to see the commoners of Rome walk out of the city in protest later

26 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 1,40-47.

30 over their treatment.27 When looked upon with these events in mind, we can see the usefulness of

the Servian Constitution in winning the support of the plebeians to the side of the rulers.

With Servius Tullius rising to the throne in very unusual means, he took efforts to get the

people, both noble and common, on his side. By restructuring the Roman democratic process in

such a way as to give more elective power to those of the city with greater means, Servius

Tullius could win the support of the people. This is why the Servian Constitution was set out as it

was. Those of higher socio-economic class received more say in the Centuriate Assembly than those of lower class.

According to Livy, this era (c.550-490 BC) was marked by strife between the aristocrats

and the common people, or plebeians. Called the Conflict or Struggle of the Orders, this conflict

reach its first climax in 496BC when the plebeians seceded from Rome and set up a fortified

camp on the Sacred Mount about three miles from the city.28 Fearing this would weaken the city

enough for enemies to make a successful attack, the patricians began negotiations with the

plebeians. These negotiations gave of the lower classes more of a political say in the city. The

end of the Conflict of the Orders in 287 BC saw a much more democratic Rome than when it had

been at the end of the Regal Period in 509 BC.

This long drawn out period of social conflict between the patricians and plebeians

supports the idea that the Servian Constitution was the first in many changes designed to bring

political change to the Roman system. When you couple it with the lack of any significant

change to the archaeology of the military, the theory that the Constitution brought in the phalanx

system is weak at best. It also supports the idea that the Constitutional system evolved over time

instead of being implemented in its final form by Servius Tullius in the latter half of the sixth

27 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1,60. II,32. 28 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 2,32.

31 century BC. Unfortunately, without anything to corroborate Livy, he becomes the only expert to

which we can refer, and his writings are tainted by time and Roman traditions that had morphed

into fact by the time he penned his work.

By the end of the period of change, the Roman military had converted from an ad hoc

band of fighters led by a warrior aristocrat to a full-fledged militia system with leaders elected by the serving soldiery. This new system divided the men of Rome into a class based on the results of the census.29 The census created a socio-economic hierarchy of citizens. It required each

citizen to provide service to the military needs of the city based on their economic ability to

provide those services. The result was a division of the population into six classes. Each class

had a required amount of military gear to provide for themselves and a place to fill in the military

system of the city. The result was full participation by all those with a vested interest in the city

to the best of their ability. It also established a military system that provided for all military

needs (see Table 3.1)

Unfortunately, the best indication we have of how this system worked comes from the

writings of Livy. While there is little need to discredit the actual constitution, most historians

find Livy’s rendition as a military system faulty.30 He is writing close to 400 years after the fact, and Roman tradition taints his version. The theory gaining traction in modern scholarship is that the Servian class system as presented by Livy was not a military system introduced by an ancient king but a system established in the fifth century BC to entrench a socio-economic system that

protected the place of a privileged upper class.31 Even Cornell, who tends to be very trusting of the ancient sources, finds fault with the idea that a single ruler created this system in its entirety

29 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1.42 – 45. 30 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 180. 31 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 180.

32 from nothing. He prefers the Fraccaro Theory from 1930.32

Table 3.1: Roman Military System, compiled using Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita book 1 section 43

Total Property (in Class Armour Weapons Number of Centuries Number asses) of Men 18 (These are known to Helmets, Greaves, Shield, Equestrian Patricians Lance, Sword be traditional 100 man 1,800 Breastplate, Horse centuries)* Helmets, Greaves, Shield, I 100,000+ Spear, Sword 80 36800 Breastplate Siege engine Engineers Class I None 2 920 Specialists II 75,000+ Helmets, Greaves, Shield, Spear, Sword 20 9200 III 50,000+ Helmets, Shield, Spear, Sword 20 9200 IV 25,000+ None Spear, Javelin 20 9200 V 11,000+ None Sling, Stones 30 13800 Knife, Musicians Class V None 2 920 Instrument 1 (All were grouped into VI <11,000 Deemed unworthy of service one century though none actually served)* TOTALS 174 (193 actual) 80040

*Italicized sections were not included in the total numbers

The Fraccaro theory credits the actual formation of the legion as a single body of men amounting to sixty centuries, roughly 6000 men, and commanded by a single officer.33 As such, this theory dates the formation of the legion system to the regal period when there was only one king to lead the entire military. The basis for this system required 1000 men from each of the three tribes (100 per curia) to respond to each year’s levy (legio in Latin). How those men were chosen was up to the individual tribes. When the population grew and more manpower became available, the system was simply expanded to incorporate the new tribes being created: each still

32 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 181-182. 33 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 182.

33 required to provide the set number of men.34

The counter to this argument tends to be vague. Forsythe decries the veracity of a singular entity creating this recruitment system. He states that the system came about through a long evolutionary period. Unfortunately, he does not provide any proof to back this claim. He simply states that it is too complex a system to originate in a completed form from nothing.

Instead, he argues that this military structure came out of a political system set up in the time of

Servius Tullius. This political system was responsible for the affirmation of kings until the end of the regal period. It then switched over to electing republic era officials who held imperium. As such, the system of recruitment was already in place prior to the reign of Servius Tullius. He simply added a political arrangement to it.35

In either case, the important piece for this particular study is how the Romans revamped

their method of raising a military force. This system marks a decided change away from the

aristocratic leaders and clan battle groups that dominated the archaic period. Whether the system

came into being under the auspices of one man, or through an evolutionary process involving the

contributions of many over several decades is not germane to this discussion. What is important

is the paradigm shift in the structure of the Roman military away from the small, clan, raiding

group to a more structured system under direct centralized control. By raising a force in this

manner and placing it directly under the control of a centralized authority, in this case a king, the

Romans removed the military control from the local aristocrats. This also removed the ability of

those aristocrats to take unilateral actions in their own geographic areas for their own interests and, instead, put the use of the military force of the day under the purview of the state.

34 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 181-182. Citing P. Fraccaro, in Atti II congress naz. studi Romani (1931), 91-7 (Opscula II, 287 – 92). 35 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 110 – 112.

34 The establishment of this system dates to the year 406 BC. It is at this time that the

Romans began to remove the military burden from the highest class of citizen and passed on to

those of lesser means. Several things coalesced during this period to support this new theory.

First, 406 BC was the first time evidence shows soldiers receiving compensation for their

service.36 Prior to this, soldiers served for a campaign season providing their own military

necessities and living off the land through which they marched. In exchange, they received a

piece of any plunder taken at the end of the campaign. With the expansion of the Etruscan and

Samnite Wars (753-280 BC, and 343-290 BC respectively), Rome needed a military force in existence for longer than a combat season. Citizen soldiers could not afford to be away from their farms for the entirety of a war, however. The resulting arrangement was that men of lesser status, sons who did not yet own land in their own name for instance, could go fight for the city leaving those of established wealth and responsibility home to maintain the city. This could only happen if men received remuneration in exchange for fighting.37 Additionally, the state took up

the burden of providing weapons, equipment, food, clothing, and any other materiel needed by

soldiers while on campaign in exchange for their services.38 Soldiers were still expected to provide for their initial muster, however.

The second factor is the beginning of tribute by conquered cities.39 Before 406 BC, Rome

absorbed or destroyed most of the cities conquered, such as Velitrae and Alba Longa

respectively. After this point, Rome began to allow defeated cities to continue to exist, but

required a form of economic tithe on a yearly basis. While precious metals were always

36 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 187.

37 Brian Campbell, War and Society in Imperial Rome: 31BC – AD284 (New York: Routledge Press, 2002), 23. 38 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 188. 39 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 188.

35 accepted, Roman allowed these cities to pay their indemnification in war supplies as well.40

Since Rome accepted war materiel as payment for a debt, then Rome had a need for that

materiel. The need was to resupply soldiers in the field for extended campaigns. While on active

campaign, soldiers could not be expected to take the time needed to find and acquire the arms

and materiel needed to maintain themselves. The state met this need for the soldiers on active

campaign. Since there were no mass production facilities to provide the needed materiel, the

Roman state simply allowed those who owed a yearly tribute to pay that tribute in kind.

Finally, it is in the fifth century BC that we see the beginnings of significant Roman

expansion.41 Up to this point, Rome had been a small and somewhat secluded settlement in

central Italy. As other powers grew around it, its geographic desirability brought Rome into

conflict with those seeking greater power in the region. The result was a period of domination by

other powers and a purely defensive stance designed to protect itself from the encroachment of

others. It was not until the establishment of an effective fighting force under capable leadership

(a phalanx army under Tullus Hostilius) that Rome was able to both adequately defend itself and

exert some form of will on the peoples in the surrounding area.42

Recent scholarship credits these changes in the operations of the state and military

systems with the establishment of the Servian Constitution. Originally, historians argued that the

Romans enacted the Constitution in order to establish and support a hoplite style army.43

Archaeology shows, through grave goods and artistic renderings, that the city of Rome had this

40 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 188. 41 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 133. 42 David Potter, “The Roman Army and Navy,” in The Cambridge Guide to the Roman Republic, edited by Harriet P. Flower (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 69. 43 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 189.

36 capability as early as 600 BC.44 This predates the earliest dates for the reign of Servius Tullius by

at least 25 years. Furthermore, modern scholarship dates the establishment of the Constitution to the later fifth century BC.45 Servius Tullius died, according to legend, circa 535 BC.

At that time, the biggest threat to the centralized power arising in Rome was not outside

forces but the power of the local aristocracy who continued to hold sway over the military aged

population of Rome.46 The landed aristocracy worked under a military ethos common to warrior

clans throughout Europe of the period.47 Since those raised as soldiers initially fell under the

control of these military elites, it gave those elites a certain amount of control over the Roman

military. This control allowed these aristocrats to direct the purposes and actions of the military

through personal influence over the soldiers.48 What Rome needed was a way to tap the personal

leadership and morale boosting abilities of these warrior elite leaders while curbing their ability

to influence the goals of the entire city’s military system. The result was a change in the

organizational system that put the individual interests of the aristocrats in conflict with each

other while still utilizing them for their leadership abilities. This new system placed the

command of the military forces in the hands of six military tribunes instead of one leader.49 This forced these aristocrats to share power and prevented one from attaining too much over the rest.

As such, the Servian Constitution is more a political document than a military one. It did have some military benefits, however.

In addition to dividing the citizenry into classes with a census, it allowed for the practical

44 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 184. 45 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 180.; Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 366. Forsythe dates the establishment of the constitutional system to the mid-fourth century BC. 46 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 190. 47 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 286. 48 Campbell, War and Society in Imperial Rome, 3. 49 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 268.

37 application of resources. The census divided people into classes based on accumulated wealth.

Members of those classes were then responsible for providing the panoply of a specific kind of

soldier. Those who could afford it, such as the aristocrats, were required to provide a horse, tack,

and equipment to outfit a cavalryman. The first class provided enough to outfit a fully armored

hoplite warrior.50 Each subsequent class provided less and outfitted a different type of warrior

until the census arrived at the sixth (lowest) class, the proletarii. These people could not afford to

provide anything outside the value of their person. As such, they became the main source for

naval personnel, but not for the army.51 (See Table-1)

In exchange for providing the needed materiel for the army, those serving received preferential treatment in voting within city assemblies.52 The top classes had more, albeit smaller, centuries, voting in the Centuriate Assembly, thus allowing their votes to count more than the centuries of lesser means. This had the effect of giving them greater sway in government and more of a say in the administration of the city. Additionally, they cast their votes first.53 This

allowed them to influence the voting of others and to show solidarity amongst the upper classes:

the cavalry and hoplite centuries.54 Everyone, however, had a voice in the assemblies.

A century after the Servian Constitution took effect Rome underwent a major military

upheaval. This fact supports the argument that the Servian Constitution was less a military

organization and more a way to revamp the Roman political system. If the Romans created this

system to upgrade their military, then the components created by the system would have

disappeared when the associated military structure, the hoplite system, evolved to a new form. It

50 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1.43. 51 Service in the navy at this time was as a rower. As such, it was considered a job and not military service. 52 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 186. 53 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1.43. 54 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 113.

38 lasted, however, as a functioning political structure for almost 400 years after the Romans

abandoned the hoplite organizational system for a newer one.

Throughout the early Roman period, the backbone of the Roman military system was a

warrior elite model akin to that found in the Levant and Super-Alpine Europe.55 Even after the

Romans changed to a phalanx formation, they maintained the aristocratic control and divisions as

indicated by the continued use of the military tribune system. Military tribunes grew out of the

aristocratic leadership of the previous period to become the leaders of the tribal contingents of

the yearly levy.56 After the deposition of the kings and prior to the instillation of the consular

system, the military tribunes ran the Roman army. The military disasters that began the fourth

century BC in Rome showed the Romans a need for a change. During this period (c. 509-c. 390

BC), the armies led by the tribunes continually met defeat at the hands of the Celts and Sabines. It was only with armies under the singular leadership of dictators that the Romans had any appreciable success. This began the development of the consular system as a form of military

leadership. According to Plutarch, the consular system did not reach adoption until after the

defeat of the second Celtic invasion of 377 BC.57 Speculation is that one of the main reasons for

the rise of consular control was to replace the control of the military tribunes.58 Unfortunately, it

is exceedingly difficult to track the changes to the Roman systems, military and political, through

the fifth century BC. Even the Roman historians lament the lack of information from times prior

to that. This is because Rome underwent probably its greatest catastrophe prior to the Gothic

sack of the city in 410 AD: the Gallic Sack of Rome in 390 BC. With the sack of the city, the

55 Campbell, War and Society in Imperial Rome, 1.; Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 189. 56 Varro, De Lingua Latina, 5,81.; Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 182. 57 Plutarch, Camillus, 41-42. 58 Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome, 268.

39 records and writings of the Regal and Early Republic Periods burned with the majority of the city.59 The result is that later historians, even later Romans, lost access to all the information upon which to base their research. The only things left to them were tradition and oral histories.

Iron Age Rome (The Celtic Age, 390 BC-AD 235)

In 390 BC, the Romans began a series of very serious confrontations with two distinct groups: the Samnites and the Celts.60 Each of these groups presented a problem to the preferred phalanx fighting style the Romans employed at the time. The Samnites were located in the rugged Apennine region of central Italy. The geography of the region precluded large formations and hindered movement. When the Romans formed into a phalanx, the small units of the

Samnites were able to accost the Romans on all sides and do massive damage to the Roman forces.61 In order to be successful, the Romans needed a new formation to counter the guerilla tactics of the Samnites: something that allowed for smaller, more mobile units capable of independent action.

The Celts presented a very different problem. The Celts, by the time they encountered the

Romans militarily, were fully involved in the Iron Age. While the Romans knew the uses of iron, they were still primarily a bronze army. The Celts had already made the switch to iron. The Celts also had a more war-oriented culture than did the Romans. The Celts sustained themselves, especially economically, through war-related activities such as raiding and mercenary work.62

Because of this, the Celts offered socio-economic advancement through the military in a way

59 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 5,52. 60 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 314. 61 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 137. 62 J.N.G. Ritchie and W.F. Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London; Routledge, 1995): 55.

40 that the Romans would not for several centuries.63 Because of a Celtic need to distinguish oneself on the battlefield in order to win the fame and honor needed for social promotion, they tended to fight in a much looser formation, if they adopted one at all.64 Because they did not

depend on formations to fight, but, instead, on the ability of each man to be skilled in combat, the

Celts chose to use much smaller, skill-based weapons: swords, axes, and battle spears65 (see

chapter 4). As a result, the phalanx, both Roman and Etruscan, was all but ineffective against the

Celtic armies. The Celts, attacking in a general order instead of a more traditional formation,

were able to dodge past the hedgerow of spears and attack the individual members of the shield-

wall, most likely by flanking the phalanx. At this point, the Romans were at an extreme

disadvantage. They armed their fighters with extremely long spears and very short secondary

weapons. The Celts swarmed among them with iron sword and axes. Additionally, the Celts

trained for individual combat. The Romans, being predominately farmers conscripted for the

action at hand, had almost no individual combat training. The Celts repeatedly defeated Etruscan

and Roman armies. The ultimate result was the Sack of Rome in 390 BC.

The change in the Roman system in the early fourth century BC addressed both the issues

encountered in fighting the Samnites and Celts. The Romans had never completely abandoned

the old war band system it used in the archaic period. It still broke down the shield wall of the

phalanx into these subunits, especially for camp and work details.66 There was tradition behind

63 Marian Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods: New Perspectives on “Celtic Barbarians” in Western and Central Europe (500 – 250 BC (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001), 7. 64 Evangelia Popadapoulou, “Western Greece and the North in the Kate Bronze Age: The Evidence of Metalworking and Objects of Exotic Material,” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, ed. Ioanna galanaki, et al. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007): 464-465. Sufficient archaeological evidence shows the development of high skill weapons in mass production in Celtic Europe prior to these weapons being found in the Mediterranean region. 65 David Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 24. 66 McCartney, “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria,” 137.

41 the use of these subunits. Additionally, there was the ease of raising and supporting these smaller

units that made them still useful in the Roman system. It was only on the field of battle that these

units needed mutual support of each other. By utilizing the old system, the Romans could

abandon the phalanx and adopt a system that allowed much freer movement in rough terrain, the

ability to match trained warriors on the field of battle, and to exploit the full extent of their

biggest advantage: manpower. In so doing, the Romans, in essence, created miniature phalanxes that worked together in a large grouping to achieve the results desired. The raising of a Roman levy did not change. The societal organization stayed the same. What changed was how the

Romans organized, equipped, and trained those small collectives.

At the same time the Romans made a change in their infantry formations, there was a decided effort to upgrade materially to an iron-based army. While this upgrade would take a century or two of time to complete, the Romans began to adopt the iron-based equipment of their

enemies. This equipment proved to be much more useful, easily made, and cheaper than the

bronze that the Romans were using at the time of Rome’s sacking.67

In the new iron age legions, the maniple became the important formation. The usual division during the Republic period was 60 maniples per legion. Each maniple was composed of

approximately 160 men and categorized as hastati, principes, or triarii. The division was 15

maniples each (although that could change depending on circumstances). The hastati maniples

contained the newest members of the legion. These men had been trained but had seen limited

action on the battlefield. The idea was to bloody these men in order to indoctrinate them to battle

as quickly as possible. These maniples also lost about a quarter of their numbers to fill out the

velites, or light infantry, that each legion employed. Hastati maniples comprised the first line in

67 Potter, “The Roman Army and Navy,” 67.

42 each legion.68 Each maniple formed a tight square allowing for mutual support but small enough

to react as needed. Between each maniple was a maniple-sized gap.69 In this way, each maniple

was a small, independent unit amongst several hundred other small units. This allowed for

movement on the battlefield and reaction to threats on the immediate front that might not require

the attention of the entire front rank. Thus, the ability to navigate rough terrain and meet sallies

of enemies from unexpected directions could be met as needed.

Behind the hastati were the principes. These maniples contained the hardened veterans of

the legion.70 It was expected that the hastati would blunt the main thrust of the enemy and stop their movement, and that the principes would then step up and press the attack. This new formation retained the ability of the phalanx to be defensive and receive the charge of the enemy, while also adopting the new methodology of combat introduced by the Celts: to press the attack into the enemy formations, disrupt those formations, and break the confidence of the opponent’s men. Honestly, this was also the goal of a phalanx, but the phalanx was too rigid to allow for success in one area while another was hard pressed. The entire formation either advanced as one, or stayed in place. The maniple formation allowed for local variants during a battle that, in turn, could break the will of stronger portions of the opponent’s formation. To facilitate this attack protocol, the Romans arrayed the principes maniples in the gaps behind those of the hastati. The

result was a formation that looked like a checkerboard instead of a solid line of men. This

allowed the principes to press the attack forward, but, just as important, it also allowed the

hastati, a space through which to retreat if they were pressed too hard by the enemy. By allowing

the rout spaces in the lines, the Romans prevented the disruption caused by men reeling from

68 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 8,8.; Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 5. 69 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 8,8. 70 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 8,8.

43 combat trying to move through the formation of fresh troops preparing an attack. If an enemy

succeeded in driving off the first rank, they found themselves facing a fresh and formed set of

units ready to fight instead of a mass of men in confusion and disorder.

The final line of troops in the legion was the triarii. This grouping arranged itself in

ordines instead of maniples. Ordines were rows as in seats in a theater. The triarii formed a solid

line of troops instead of the checkerboard maniple formation of the previous two lines. This

group formed this way due to its subdivision into three subtypes.71 The first third in each ordo

comprised the regular members of the legion. These were the men towards the end of their

enlistment period. They had earned the spot as being sure in combat and reliable. Rarely were

they called upon to actually participate in battle: the first two ranks having decided the issue by

the time they were needed. There is confusion about the other two ordines in the third line. Both

of these ordines went out of use by the time reliable descriptions of the Roman army were

penned in the second century BC. Due to that, the use of the words in association with the military became clouded even to the Roman historians. The second ordo, arrayed in rank behind

the veterans, was the rorarii. These men were either raw recruits, or the unarmored missile

troops accompanying the army in its phalanx version. If they were the former, had very little

training and had seen little to no combat to this point. As such, they were unsure and unreliable.

Placing them here allowed them to get use to the psychological impact of combat, ironically

called seeing the elephant, without relying on them to carry the day. If they were the later, it

placed them in a protected position, as they were little to no armor, but still allowed them to lob

javelins and fire bows from this position. The final ordo was the accensi. This word is

problematic in that there is no clear definition for it. According to Varro, it refers to

71 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 5-6.

44 “attendants.”72 Unfortunately, he does not explain what type of attendant. They could be the

personal servants of the upper class accompanying the officers. They could be the

noncombatants attached to the legion to provide the services that keep the legion operational on a

daily basis. They could even be the attending servants that carried the armor and weapons of the

hoplites when the Roman army fought as a phalanx. Another possibility is that this is the

collective name for the fifth class of citizen that filled out the slingers and musicians of the army.

If that is what the word means, it would make sense to have them included with the rorarii.73

A final group in each legion was the velites. These were the light infantry units attached

to each legion. Tradition has these men armed with either javelins or short-ranged missile weapons: slings or bows. Each legion contained about 1200 of these men.74 Being very lightly

armed and almost unarmored, they were not expected to participate in the melee of battle.

Instead, these men arrayed to the front of the formation to harass the enemy and pick off soldiers

prior to the two formations closing. They were also useful in providing a screen for the main

force if some type of maneuver was taking place or extra time was needed to form. As the enemy

closed, these velites fell back on the heavy infantry. They could continue to fight in the gaps

between the hastati maniples, or fall back through the entire formation. Being in loose formation

and with the formation having premade gaps in it, they caused minimal disruption to the legion’s

lines of battle. They would then swing around to the flanks of the battle to continue harassing the

enemy. Some equate the velites with the rorarii. Unfortunately, the ancient sources are so scarce

in commenting on the rorarii that it is difficult to come to any definitive conclusion.

The new maniple formation brought all the strengths of the phalanx to the battlefield, but

72 Varro, De Lingua Latina, 7.58.

73 Louis Rawlings, “The Army and Battle During the Conquest of Italy (350 – 264 BC),” in A Companion to the Roman Army ed. Paul Erdkamp (Oxford: Blackwell, 2011), 56 74 Dobson, The Army of the Roman Republic, 48.

45 it took into consideration the problems caused by the phalanx and modified the formation to fix

them. In order to make the maniple effective, however, a change was required across the rest of

the military spectrum. Arming soldiers to fight in a phalanx and forming them into maniples

crippled the formation. To address this, the Romans changed the entire panoply of the legions to

fit the new system. Livy notes that while the hastati were armed originally with spears, the

principes were the “most showily armed.”75 The only weapons that were utilized in Italy at this

time different from the phalanx weapon family were those of the Celts. So either the principes

used really fancy spears, or possibly even Greek style xiphos swords, or they were starting to use the Celtic weapons which were known to be highly decorative.

According to Roman legend, the changes in the Roman system at the time of the Celtic invasion came from the early republic’s most distinguished political figures, Marcus Furius

Camillus. The fact that there was a man named Camillus is not in doubt. His name appears in the

records that survive from the period.76 Whether he did the things attributed to him is in doubt.77

Our information on Camillus comes from three solid sources and a fourth source less

detailed. The first three are Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Plutarch.78 In all three cases,

Camillus is the consummate Roman hero. He behaves as propriety requires and does all the right

things. The gods, in turn, reward his right actions with grand successes. That success earns him

fame which brings either respect or jealousy of his fellow Romans. His detractors drive Camillus

from the city because they envy his success. Camillus leaves as they desire because that is the

proper thing to do. Rome is then plagued with misfortune that results in a catastrophic loss to the

75 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 8,8. (insignibus maxime armis Loeb edition) 76 Robert S. Broughton, The Magistracies of the Roman Republic vol 1 (New York: American Philological Association, 1951), 89. Camillus’s name appears as a Military Tribune in 394 BC. It is listed several other times as dictator in 390, 384, 381, 368, and 367 BC. 77 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 318-319. 78 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 5.; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 12 - 14.; Plutarch, Camillus.

46 Celts on the banks of the Allia River. Those Celts then proceeded to sack the city in 390 BC.

Being a just and well-mannered Roman, Camillus then returns to the city to save it from the disgrace its un-Roman actions had brought to fruition. He finds the Celts hauling away their ill- gotten goods and delivers a proper Roman chastisement to them, thus regaining both their spoils from sacking the city and the reputation of Rome.

These three authors, one Roman and two Greek, present the events of the life of Camillus in the traditional way of the period. Livy uses Camillus to provide a life lesson to show the

Romans of his day how they should be behaving themselves instead of how they are.79 Dionysius uses the Roman historians available to him to explain Roman history to a Greek audience.80 As such, he is trying to show the Greeks how the Romans see themselves. Plutarch is also trying to make a point. In his treatment of both Camillus and his Greek counterpart in Lives, Themistocles,

Plutarch is out to show the ravages associated with ambition when not tempered by moderation: a major issue amongst the military leader of his era.81

The final source on Camillus and his exploits is Diodorus Siculus. He wrote a massive work titled Bibliotheca Histroica (Grk. Ἱστορικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη) around 60 BC. The work was not original research, but relied upon the writings of other historians. How accurate those writings were, modern scholars are unsure. Little is known of him or his life. As a result, most of his work is looked upon very skeptically. In his writings concerning the Sack of Rome in 390BC, he mentions that it happened and tells the fate of the Celts who did the deed, but offers little in the way of expansion upon the event. Camillus does figure into the tale as the Roman leader who eventually tracked down the marauding Celts as they were making their way back to the Po

79 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 5.1 – 7.1. 80 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 12 –14. 81 Timothy E. Duff, “Plutarch’s Themistocles and Camillus,” in Plutarch’s Lives: Parallelism and Purpose, ed. N. Humble, (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2010), 46 – 47.

47 Valley with all of the booty attained on the trip. The Romans under Camillus defeated the Celts.

All that can be added to the story is that, according to the way Diodorus laid out events, there was a great deal more time between the Sack of Rome by the Celts and their subsequent defeat by the Romans under Camillus. There was time for the Volscians, an Italic group located immediately south of the Latin region on the Italian coast, to find out about Rome’s weakness and declare war. The Romans did not defeat the Celts until the Celts decided to besiege the town of Vaescium in Sabine territory.82 The impressions given in the writings of Diodorus Siculus are that this defeat took place several weeks if not months after the Sack of Rome. In the works of the other three authors, the chastisement delivered by Camillus was almost immediately after the event.

In all these cases, the ancient historians show Camillus as the leader of the Romans.

There is no need to doubt his existence. The question relevant to this study is did he do what is attributed to him? The short answer is most likely not. The classic historians, especially Livy, most likely are presenting a revisionist account in order to help ease the ignominy of the Roman defeat at the hands of the Celts. With that in mind, Diodorus Siculus’ account is most likely the most reliable. That does not mean there is no good information in the other accounts, however.

For instance, Plutarch puts the change of fighting style of the Roman forces squarely on the shoulders of Camillus.83

Realistically, most of the changes from this period in regards to arming the legions had been taking place, most likely, over the past few decades and merely came to fruition at the time

Camillus was active in Roman politics. As he was the most important figure from the period, he got the credit for the changes. What is known is that the material changes in the Roman army

82 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 14.113–117. 83 Plutarch, Camillus, 40.

48 happening at this time could not have taken place in a very short period. Simply making enough

armor and equipment to supply a fighting force of roughly 20,000 men, or the four legions

Camillus was said to command, would have taken an extended amount of time. However,

Plutarch credits Camillus directly with giving Roman soldiers iron helms.84 He stated

specifically that iron helms help defend the Romans from the downward stroke of the Celtic iron

swords. He also taught the Romans to trust upwards from underneath to avoid the Celtic

defenses.85 In order to do this, a change in weaponry is required as the spear utilized in a

phalanx, upwards of twelve feet long, is incapable of underhand or one-hand use.

These changes accompany a change in the Roman equipment seen in the second half of

the fourth century BC.86 Instead of the Greek style bronze of the phalanx era, the Romans of this

era began employing iron weapons and armor. Simple bowl helmets and plates of iron sewn to

leather or cloth shirts dominate the armor. Shields gained iron rims for their wooden bodies,

although the change in shape from round to rectangular was in the not too distant future.87

Weaponry changed from long spears only effectively usable in massed formations to short spears

capable of use in individual combat. The Romans also added secondary weapons capable of

inflicting debilitating wounds. Daggers continued to be used, but they became longer and wider.

The biggest weaponry change was the addition of a sword.88 With some modifications over the

centuries, the Romans now had the equipment families they would use to forge an empire.

84 Plutarch, Camillus, 40. 85 Plutarch, Camillus, 40. 86 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 48 – 50. Actual archaeological finds from as early as the fourth century BC are rare. However, what has been found shows a good amount of iron usage as well as bronze. 87 Plutarch, Camillus, 40. 88 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 54. This would not happen until the Romans became active in Spain.

49 The Roman army would make its reputation utilizing this Celtic family of weapons and

armor. With only minor changes, these tools would suffice for the rest of the Roman Republic

and a major portion of the empire. It was not until the threats Romans faced came more from

mounted warriors than from those afoot that the Romans were required to change the overall

fighting style of the legions during the mid-third century AD and later.89. That does not mean the

Romans made no changes in their military system from the Camillan Reforms until the third

century AD. Several series of reforms happened. All of those reforms, however, were in

organization and culture. Little changed in the realm of equipment, and the changes the Romans

made in equipment were predominately simple modifications of the panoply currently in use.

The Romans introduced little new to their system for close to seven hundred years.

The most famous of these subsequent Roman military reforms came at the end of the second century BC. During this period, Rome was facing a severe manpower shortage. Roman

tradition precluded those of the lowest social class, the proletarii, from serving in the army. Until

this time, these people, deemed not worthy to serve, as they were too poor to have a stake in the

city, had been relegated to the navy.90 In the navy, these men were put on an oar and forced to

row the warships of the empire. The work was exceedingly hard, the conditions were

horrendous, and the pay was almost non-existent. It is little wonder that few had any desire to

volunteer for it. At the same time, a combination of increasing demands for soldiers to fight in

multiple actions on various fronts across the empire, and a precipitous drop in private ownership

of land reduced the number of men qualifying for service in the legions.91 They wanted to serve,

but did not meet the state minimum income required to do so.

89 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 149. 90 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 10. 91 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 19.

50 At this point, these men found a political champion in the form of Gaius Marius. Himself an equestrian from a lesser Latin city, Marius, throughout his career, showed a propensity to side with the lower classes against the wealthy and well connected. As a result, the people saw him as a champion, and elected him to high office.92

Under the Roman system to this point, a person had to be worth approximately 3000 sesterces in property to serve. This was a relaxation of the restrictions on service passed during the Gracchan Reforms (133-121 BC).93 The idea was to lower the land requirements for service in order to increase the numbers capable of serving. Unfortunately, the numbers did not increase enough.

Politically, when the problem of levying enough troops had arisen in the past, the Senate passed a special dispensation to allow the recruitment of men normally considered ineligible for military service. In the case of Marius, his political enemies did not want to assist his success and refused to pass the dispensation.

Marius fixed this problem simply by not asking those trying to enlist their economic condition. He took any who wanted to serve.94 The government had begun supplying the military around 400 BC. By the end of the second century BC, the government provided almost everything required of the enlisted men.95 Since men were not required to provide their own equipment anymore, there was no need to restrict those of little to no means from joining. These men desired military service for the steady food and pay serving promised. Additionally, if they were part of an army that took a city, they were guaranteed to receive a large bonus based on the loot

92 Plutarch, Marius 9,2 93 R.E. Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958), 9. 94 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 19. 95 Dobson, The Army of the Roman Republic, 61.

51 taken. A military career could relieve one of the burdens of poverty. Add to that the possibility of

obtaining land from the state upon completing a full enlistment as had happened in the previous

few decades and the military becomes the best possible option for upward mobility in Rome.

This simple act by Marius opened an entire new class of citizen, mostly urban poor, to military

service fixing the manpower issue.

History also credits Marius with other reforms. He was known as a hard disciplinarian,

and under him, the Roman army finally achieved a professional level of training it maintained

throughout the rest of its existence.96 He instituted uniformity in the legion by removing the

different equipment issued. Instead of each line of soldiers receiving equipment that made him

distinct, all soldiers were outfitted roughly the same.97 For instance, the hastati were traditionally

issued spears, while the principes over the past few decades had been issued swords. Marius began giving everyone swords. By no means does this mean that each Roman legion comprised soldiers in identical panoplies. There was still massive differences between each soldier in the ranks based on his personal preferences. Nevertheless, each man now fought with a short sword as a main weapon and carried a rectangular shield.

Another reform credited to Marius was the modernization of the pilum.98 The pilum was

the quintessential Roman missile weapon. It was a long throwing spear made of a wooden haft

and a soft iron shank. Anyone familiar with the Roman army understand that, upon impact, the

soft iron shank would usually bend and make it unusable for a return cast by the enemy.

Unfortunately, the weapon did not always hit its target, and, even if it did, the shaft did not

always bend. Legend has it that Marius had armorers replace one of the two iron pins holding the

96 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 19-20. Plutarch, Marius 13.1 97 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 21. This particular change is thought to have started under Scipio Africanus and reached completion under Marius. 98 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 21.

52 two pieces of the spear shaft, the wooden haft and the iron shank, together with a wooden peg.99

This wooden peg sufficed in holding the weapon together for the first cast. Upon hitting

anything, even the ground, that peg broke causing the iron shaft to pull out of wooden haft and

bend on the iron pin. The weapon was now useless until straightened and another pin inserted.

While the bending of the pilum is an interesting and slightly useful side effect, this idea is largely legend. The Romans sought to improve the usability of their weapons, not increase design flaws to assist in making them useless. The pilum was meant to kill an enemy, not disable a shield.100

The final reform of Marius was a new organizational paradigm for the legions. Prior to

his stints as consul, the Roman legions was either formed as a full legion or divided into

individual maniples. For many tasks, a legion was too large and a maniple (usually around 160

men) was too small. Marius introduced a new level of organization between these two called a

cohort.101 The cohort included three maniples or 6 centuries (usually around 480 men). This

provided a much more significant force for tasks deemed too important to leave to a single

maniple, but not requiring the attention of a full legion.

While Marius receives the credit for these reforms, it is more probable that they had been

in development for decades, if not a century, and only reached maturation under Marius. The

first mention of a cohort in the literature of the era dates to 210 BC in a description of events in

Spain. The last mention of a maniple is in a report about Africa in 104 BC.102 Regardless, the

Roman army had finally reached its final and most recognizable state.

Even though the reforms of Marius gave us the final incarnation of the Roman legion,

99 Plutarch, Caius Marius, 25.; Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 51. 100 Michael Bishop, The Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2017), 4. 101 Adrian Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare (New York; Collins Books, 1999), 114. 102 Dobson, The Army of the Roman Republic, 58.

53 other reforms also had impact. The first post-Marian reforms were minor. For instance, Julius

Caesar doubled the size of the first cohort of each legion under him.103 Since the first cohort

comprised the elite of each legion, assignment to that cohort was a point of pride and considered

a high honor by Roman soldiers. Therefore, while this was not a major reform, other generals

adopted it for their legions throughout Rome and maintained this practice until the Western

Empire fell (58 BC-AD 476) as it allowed them to award men under their command in a simple

and relatively cheap manner. It also increased the final size of the legion to a paper strength of

5280, although few legions reached that full number after initial muster.104

Other reforms were more important. Under Augustus, the Roman military system

received stability in the government. Prior to Augustus, the Roman state raised legions as needed

and men selected to lead them based on a system of patronage and political favor. Under

Augustus, the Romans fixed the number of permanent legions at twenty-eight. In times of

emergency, however, the Romans raised temporary legions and sent them to the trouble area for

the duration of the crisis.105 This would remain constant for three hundred years. To keep legions

at full strength, the government formalized recruitment and dispatched replacements, usually in

maniple sizes, as needed. Additionally, if it the Senate determined it easier to raise a new legion

instead of reconstitute one badly damaged in action, they raised a new legion. This required

liquidation of the old legion. This usually occurred by merging two legions that had a history of

communal service into a new unit.106 The result was a constant number even if the names

remained fluid.

103 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 110. 104 Richard Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History (New York; Routledge, 1995), 21.; Adrian Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army 2nd Edition (London: Thames & Hudson, 2007), 28. 105 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 25, 142. 106 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 115.

54 This restriction on the numbers of legions is misleading. While it is true that the Romans maintained a set number of permanent legions, those legions were largely garrison forces.107 For the last four years of a soldier’s enlistment, the Roman state took them out of active service and assigned them to one of the permanent garrison legions.108 During peace, these legions were sufficient to maintain control of the population and patrol the borders. When an emergency occurred, the secondary Roman system swung into place.

The Roman government raised legions for specific actions and crises.109 These legions were never intended to be permanent. They lasted for the duration of the crisis for which they were raised. At the end, the legions were dissolved and the men sent back to civilian life. Those men that chose to stay after the crisis period were shifted into permanent legions to refill ranks.

This does not mean that the permanent legions never fought except as garrison forces.

While the Romans raised and equipped the crisis legions, the permanent legions could be shifted from one location to another. This resulted in the internal movement of men and materiel throughout the empire. Sometimes these men would return to their station of origin. Often they became part of the military institution in the province to which they were moved.

To prevent the overload of too many soldiers in an area, the Romans frequently merged the legions into a new whole. This allowed the Romans to maintain a constant number in a region, helped streamline supply issues, and made sure the legions were filled with troops at the top level of experience. The newly merged legion was usually given the moniker Gemina, or twin, to indicate its previous existence as two separate entities.

The second impact was the reliance on local units for legion support. The Romans had

107 Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army, 29. 108 Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army, 35-36. 109 Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army, 37-38.

55 always been quick to utilize the non-Roman peoples under their control for military matters.

Often, these non-Roman units, called auxilia, proved proficient at forms of combat the Romans lacked, such as cavalry or ranged weapons. Under the Augustan system, the Romans restricted the numbers of legions raised. However, they did not restrict the numbers of auxilia. Over time, these troops would grow in number to make up a majority of the Roman forces.110

Other changes made by Augustus had to do with the running of the legions. He removed the ability of the Senate to appoint commanding generals. Instead, the emperor appointed those generals himself.111 This allowed him to maintain reliance and loyalty of the military to himself and prevent the rise of ambitious opponents. He restricted the enlistment of Praetorians to Italian peoples only, and did not allow anyone above the rank of equestrian to command them.112 He expanded the fleet and built new bases to give the Roman navy greater presence throughout the

Mediterranean basin.113 Finally, he replaced grants of land for retirement from the military to a one-time donative and created a new war treasury under his direct control to guarantee pay and retirements were met.114

Other early emperors also contributed to the army’s development. Tiberius is said to have removed the cultural restrictions for recruiting men into specific auxilia units, although certain specialist units tended to keep the restrictions: cavalry for instance.115 Claudius granted Roman citizenship to all auxilia retiring from a full enlistment. Prior to this, Romans granted citizenship

110 Polybius, Histories 2,24; Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 367-368. 111 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 24. 112 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 26. 113 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 29. New bases were established at Misenum (Bay of Naples), Ravenna (Upper Adriatic), and Fréjus (Provence). 114 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 25. 115 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 26, 145.

56 to non-Romans as an award for conspicuous valor in action.116

The last major reforms of the pre-Diocletian era came from the early third century.

Throughout the second century, the legions had become more and more important to the power structure of Rome. With a new outbreak of civil war after the death of Marcus Aurelius, the legions used their influence to gain concessions from those trying to become emperor. It got so bad that, at one point in AD 193, the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the purple to the highest bidder. With the rise of a new, stable emperor, reforms to the system were required to curb the power of the legions.

The emperor in question was Septimius Severus. Rising out of the east, Septimius used the infighting of the legions and the naked ambition of various generals to his advantage. Over the course of four years, he quashed the other rivals to the throne and made himself the head of the Roman state. To prevent the abuses of power perpetrated by the legions from happening again, he instituted a series of reforms.

His first reform was to increase the pay of the legions. Since the time of Marius, the legions had filled it ranks with the lowest sector of society. These men of low means joined the army to make a living for themselves. Unfortunately, the legions were not the path to financial security they used to be.117 Most soldiers joined the army in order to make a living for themselves and to gain financial security in the form of a land grant upon retirement. This had been the manner of securing loyalty since the time of Marius. Unfortunately, by the time of

Augustus, Rome was running out of desirable land, and money with which to buy that land, to give soldiers upon retirement. Augustus took away the promise of land upon retirement and

116 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 142-143. 117 John Patterson, “Military Organization and Social Change in the Later Roman Republic, “ War and Society in the Roman World, ed. John Rich and Graham Shipley (New York: Routledge, 1993), 99.

57 replaced it with a one-time donative for services rendered: a much cheaper alternative to him

than providing land.118 While this saved the state an enormous amount of money, it removed one

of the main reasons the poor joined the legions. They could no longer gain land to raise

themselves and their families out of poverty. All that left was to accumulate of money during an

enlistment in order provide for the rest of a retired soldier’s life.

While the empire was expanding in the first and second centuries, this was a viable option. The frequent campaigns against foreign nations and the sacking of cities gave occasions to accumulate enough wealth to retire when mustered out. At the end of the second century, however, the expansions stopped. This removed the largest source of wealth for the enlisted man: sacking cities. At the same time, the standard pay had stagnated since the time of Domitian at the end of the first century AD.119 Additionally, corrupt supply officers came up with repeated

stoppages of pay for every enlisted man.120 This drain on pay meant that life in the legion was no

longer a lucrative career for the poorer classes. When the chance came to make money by

helping your general become emperor, many legions saw it as a way to achieve the monetary

rewards denied them with the changing military situation.

At issue were pay rates and what constituted a living wage. Under Julius Caesar, the pay

of a regular soldier in the legion was doubled from 112 to 225 denarii a year.121 A denarius was worth ten asses, or five sesterces. Since the expected level of wealth for the average citizen to join the military was property worth 3000 sesterces (or 600 denarii), this would be considered a moderate yearly wage. Upon ascension to emperor, Augustus maintained this rate, although he

118 Patterson, “Military Organization and Social Change,” 103. 119 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 265. 120 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 267. 121 Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, 94.

58 did include a one-time donative of 75 denarii at the time of his rise. Pay rates stayed at 225 with

the 75 denarii donative upon the rise of each new emperor through the Julio-Claudian line.

Under the Flavians, the rate was finally officially increased. At the end of the first century,

Domitian increased the official yearly pay of other-ranks to 300 denarii a year.122 Centurions

received decidedly more. The highest rank centurion of each legion received 5000 denarii a year.

Lower ranked centurions and other NCOs received less, but all received at least 500 denarii as a

yearly salary.123 Pay rates froze at this rate for the next century.

Septimius Severus realized that his retention of imperial power depended on his ability to

maintain the loyalty of the legions. To keep their loyalty, he relied on money.124 Since the

legionaries complained about inability to maintain a living wage at the current pay rate, he fixed

this problem very simply; he gave the legions a raise. Centurions received a raise of 3300 denarii

per year. Other ranks got an additional 200 denarii. This increase approximated an additional

67% raise for all ranks, and raised the pay of all legionaries to a living wage.125 Additionally,

Septimius increased the ability of the legions to make even more.

He did this by increasing the economic viability of the legions as a whole. Every legion stationed in a garrison received a plot of land to work.126 This allowed the legion to provide a

large portion of its own food instead of requiring purchase from the local community. It is not

known if the land was worked in commune or if it was issued to specific soldiers. To increase the

non-food resources every legion required, he instituted a new program of training. Men were

selected from across the legion for specialized training in artisan work. These men provided

122 Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, 94. 123 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 265-266. 124 Anthony Birley, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor (New York: Routledge, 1988), 108. 125 Michael Grant, The Severans: The Changed Roman Empire (New York: Routledge, 1996), 34. 126 Grant, The Severans, 35.

59 needed services to the legion free of charge, but could also provide it to the local community in

which they were stationed for a fee.127 This relieved the need for soldiers to spend their own

money on necessities and expanded the monetary base from which legionaries could support

themselves.

Socially, Septimius allowed legally what was happening in reality. Since the time of

Augustus, Roman law forbade legionaries to marry. The idea was to reduce the death costs paid to families of soldiers who died in battle. It also cut back on the transport cost of moving dependents with soldiers when legions moved to new provinces. This did not stop soldiers from having families, however. They simply did it without official sanction. This was especially true for units stationed in garrisons or the same geographic region for long periods. In order to improve life in the legion camps, Septimius rescinded the anti-marriage law.128 This allowed

legionaries to have families, which they were doing anyway, and added stability within the army

communities.

An added benefit to this was the recognition of children of soldiers as legitimate.129 Since

most boys learned and followed the profession of his father during that period, these children

were prime candidates for a military life. Being illegitimate, however, the legal status of these

children brought into question their ability to join. That status was used to determine a recruit’s

unit qualification. A citizen could join a legion. Non-citizens had to join the auxilia. With the

steady expansion of recruiting away from the urban centers in the central empire to the

hinterlands and border regions, finding men to fill the ranks of the heavy infantry legions was

127 Grant, The Severans, 35. 128 R. E. Smith, “The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus,” Historia: 21, no. 3 (1972): 492. 129 Grant, The Severans, 35.

60 becoming problematic.130 This helped solve that issue.

Another issue for Septimius was the number of troops in the field. The old Augustan

system of border defenses that had been reinstituted under Hadrian (AD 117-138) was proving weak and ineffectual. Septimius needed to raise more troops to contend with the issues of his day. As such, he increased the number of legions by adding three: I, II, and III Parthica.131

While originally raised for his Parthian War, Septimius used these new legions at the end of the

campaign to bolster border defenses in the east. Usually, legions, even at this late a date, were

disbanded at the end of the war for which they were raised. By keeping them under arms, it

allowed Rome to better defend the borders, especially the porous ones in the East. Two of these

legions, I and III Parthica, became the bulwark for the defenses of the new, shortlived,

Mesopotamian province in the east. The third legion, II Parthica, became the core of the new

central army located in northern Italy. This legion, along with the Praetorian Guard and the

Urban Cohorts, both of which had been doubled in size, became the defenders of Italy and the

emergency response army for any front breached by invaders.132 Some scholars opine that

Septimius increased the size of the army in order to awe the Roman people into obedience.133

More recent scholarship has begun to counter this argument and, instead, presents the increased

size of the military as a strategic necessity for imperial defense.134 Regardless of the reasons, this

increase marks the first major increase in regards to numbers for the Roman army since

Augustus’s time.

130 Sara E. Phang, “New Approaches to the Roman Army,” Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World, ed. Lee L. Brice and Jennifer T. Roberts (Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 2011), 130. 131 Birley, Septimius Severus, 106-107. 132 Birley, Septimius Severus, 196. 133 Birley, Septimius Severus, 196. 134 Smith, “The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus,” 488-489.

61 When it came to the non-Roman units, Septimius began to rely less of auxilia and foederati. (Foederati are units from nominally independent states and client kingdoms serving under Roman control.) Instead, during the years of his rule, there is a dramatic upswing in the number of numeri directly employed by the Roman state.135 Numeri were soldiers hired by the

Romans in geographic regions for service in those regions. Unlike auxilia or foederati, numeri, did not have a political connection to the Romans. The relationships was usually purely economic, although I am sure gaining good will from the Romans figured into the decision of the local population to assist the Romans. Hiring numeri was most likely a money saving measure for the Romans. Auxilia and foederati required support from the Roman military system for the tenure of their service. The numeri supplied most of their own needs and served for very specific periods. They were then released and no long a drain on the fisc.

Septimius Severus was a soldier’s emperor. He recognized that the strength of any emperor was based on his ability to maintain loyalty from the army. Towards this end, he relaxed discipline requirements and allowed the military to prevail over civilian populations when the two came together.136 He allowed the instillation of officer clubs in garrison areas that catered to the needs of the officers to keep them happy.137 Additionally, he was not above using money to keep the army loyal.138 He prevented the possibility of revolt and civil war by refusing to locate more than two legions in a province in which he was not personally located.139 Finally, he removed from service those he determined to be beyond control and a danger to his rule.

135 Grant, The Severans, 36. 136 Grant, The Severans, 36. 137 Smith, “The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus,” 497. 138 Birley, Septimius Severus, 108. 139 Grant, The Severans, 35.

62 The specific example of this was the liquidation of the Praetorian Guard. Seeing their

actions during the auctioning of the imperial seat during the most recent civil wars as treasonous,

every guardsman was mustered out of the legion and sent away from Rome. He then

reconstituted the Praetorian Guard using non-Italian troops (since the time of Augustus, all

Praetorians had been from the Italian Peninsula) and placed them under direct control of officers

loyal to him from the Danubian legions.140 He also countered the power of the Praetorian Guard by increasing the urban cohorts located in Rome and creating three new legions, all from Parthia, and placing one in proximity of Rome to prevent another coup by local troops.141

Upon his death, Septimius Severus left a much more secure and foundationally solid military system. He also left Rome a second society within its borders: a military one to counter the traditional Roman civilian society. His heirs continued this process.

The oldest son of Septimius Severus, Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus, usually known as Caracalla, continued the absolute authority of the army under his rule. His first act was to give the legions another pay raise. This increased the pay of the average soldier to about 750 denarii a year.142 He also continued to give the army preference in all policies to keep

them loyal to him.143 Finally, he concluded the process started by his father of opening more

posts to the equestrian class and further restricting access to military rank by those holding

senatorial positions.144

Probably the most important action to influence the military performed by Caracalla was

140 Pat Southern, Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine (New York: Routledge, 2001), 31. 141 Birley, Septimius Severus, 103. 142 Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 266. 143 Grant, The Severans, 36. 144 Southern, Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, 40.

63 the passing of the Consitutio Antoniniana (AD 212).145 This legal action made every free inhabitant of the empire, except dediticii (usually defined as prisoners or prisoners of war), a

Roman citizen. While most historians feel this was an economic move to increase the tax base with which to support the military, it also had a military effect. Under his father, the Roman system had begun to reduce reliance on auxilia and increase it use of numeri. This meant that those men who previously had joined the military in auxilia units now had no place. In order to qualify as a full legionary, one had to be a Roman citizen. As Roman recruitment had moved further and further away from the population centers in the peaceful portions of the empire along the Mediterranean coast, a problem in filling the ranks of the legions developed. By making all people within the empire a citizen, those men who had been forced into auxilia units now could join the legions. This solved the manpower shortage developing from lack of citizens’ desire to join the military.

With the death of Caracalla in AD 217, the military went into a period of stagnation.

Emperors put less and less emphasis on it as other problems arose and demanded immediate

attention. This would change during the latter portion of the third century AD. During this period,

the Roman army received wholesale change in organization, training, equipment, recruitment,

and logistics. The old, Celtic-inspired system that had built the empire and defended it for seven

hundred years was semi-retired and a new system, predicated on the dominate form of warfare in

the eastern provinces and based on the high mobility equipment and tactics of the steppe peoples,

took its place. With the removal of the fighting system upon which it was built and was designed

to work in that geographic region, it was only a matter of time before the Roman Empire, at least

in the Western, Celtic-dominated portion, fell.

145 Phang, “New Approaches to the Roman Army,” 130.

64 CHAPTER 4

THE CELTS

As we have seen, the Roman army started with the same development as most other peoples. They went from simple natural weapons and defenses to copies of the same simple tools made of metal. They then adopted the eastern panoply from either the Etruscans or the Greeks

(possibly both). This weapons family served the Romans well for about two centuries. Then they encountered a people utilizing a new system of weapons capable of defeating forces armed with the hoplite panoply. These peoples, the Celts, had been at war with Rome’s neighbor to the north, the Etruscans, for decades. The Etruscans had been using a mostly Greek style of warfare for centuries. They did include ethnic weapons, such as axes, as well, but these weapons were few in use and restricted to the upper classes. The majority of the Etruscan armies were armed with heavy spears and fought in formations of overlapping shields: in a phalanx. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that when the Celts encountered the Romans at the Battle of Allia c.

386 BC, they had little problems fighting yet another army arrayed in this manner. The loss of that battle resulted in the first sack of Rome. Faced with a military crisis, the Romans decided to copy the weapons and fighting style of the enemy that beat them.

There is more to adopting weapons than just picking them up, however. In order to employ adequately a new weapons system, the adopting group ingests a certain amount of social and cultural identity from the originating group in order to learn to make and properly use these weapons.1 A simple material transfer is not enough. Artisans must be brought in to show locals how to produce the new technology. Trainers utilized to teach proper use of the new tools. This, in essence, means that the Romans had to adopt a certain amount of Celticness in order to

1 Peter S. Wells, The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 39.

65 transform properly their military from a Greek/Etruscan hoplite system to the embryonic legion

system for which Rome is so famous. But who were these new peoples creeping into northern

Italy? How were they repeatedly able to defeat the reigning power of the region, the Etruscans, in

so easy a manner? What makes their system different from the one the Romans had been using

for a century?

The Celts were an Indo-European group that occupied Europe north of the Mediterranean

littoral. The earliest known report of these peoples in the archaeological record dates to c.1000

BC at the beginning of what archaeologists call the Hallstatt B period. By then, they inhabited most of the Great Northern European Plain region as well as the northern Alpine foothills. By the middle of the first millennium BC, these peoples made contact with the Mediterranean cultures,

and even began to move past the geographic barriers in various areas: most notably south of the

Alps into the Po Valley of northern Italy, west past the Pyrenees into the Iberian Peninsula, and

past the Danube and the Dardanelles into central Anatolia.2

While the peoples inhabiting this region comprised roughly 40% of Europe, they were

not a unified political, social, cultural, or economic group.3 It was only from an outsider’s

perspective that they seemed related. Such a perspective often assumed many shared similarities

that are not always visible within the individual kinship groups.4 This skewed perspective makes using literary sources for a modern understanding of the Celtic-speaking peoples problematic and has led to a trend of seeking alternative source material, such as archaeology.

It seems that the Romans subsumed the Celts of the Greco-Roman world as an independent culture in the 1st century BC. The one exception to this would be in the British Isles.

2 Miranda J. Green, “Introduction: Who Were the Celts?” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 3. All geographical names are modern unless otherwise noted 3John Haywood, The Celts: Bronze Age to New Age (Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, Ltd., 2004), 6. 4 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 4.

66 The Celtic peoples here continued in a pseudo-Celtic tradition with only minor Romanization.5

The continental Celts, however, steadily lost the Celtic parts of their culture through continual

Romanization. Due to this, it is very difficult at best to analyze and decipher Celtic practices and

traditions from the Roman veneer enclosing them. Additionally, the Celts did not write anything

of their own. While there was an attempt at forming and spreading a Celtic written system, most

everything found written in the Celtic language uses Roman or Greek characters.6 While it is

plausible that the Celts wrote about themselves, most modern scholars attribute the literary

sources on the Celts dating back to this period to Roman or Greek authors. Since the

Mediterranean peoples thought of the Celts as barbarians, they were not truly interested in a

detailed examination of their history or culture.

The Greeks, as they commonly did with the various peoples they met, assigned the Celts

a lineage that connects them to the Age of Heroes. In the Celtic case, the Greeks attributed the

Celtic lineage to Galatos, the son of the cyclops Polyphemus. This granted the Celts the source of their two most distinguished characteristics, size and fierceness.7 Characteristic most other

Mediterranean and European peoples of the Iron Age associated with the Celts throughout their

history. Oddly enough, the other Mediterranean peoples saw many of these characteristics in the

Roman as well, especially after the adoption of the Celtic military technology.8 The

Mediterranean peoples considered the Celts warlike, physically large, and fierce as a rule.

Outside of mentions reasserting the stereotype of the Celts by the Mediterranean writers, no written histories of these peoples exist to use as primers from which to begin our studies. That

5 Haywood, The Celts, 17. 6 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 4. 7 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 32. 8 David Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 27.

67 does not mean, however, that there is nothing written about the Celts. It only means that what is

written about the Celts comes from a culture whose elites considered themselves superior to the

Celts as a civilization.

Thus the Celts as a cultural group based upon a shared language disappeared from history

for about1400 years. With the elimination of their independent continental tribal communities

under the Romans in the first century BC under Julius Caesar, the last freestanding Celtic

homeland was Britain.9 This fell to the Romans in the first century AD under various emperors in

a piecemeal fashion. Once dominated by the Romans, the process of Romanization began. By the

first century AD, the term “Celt” had disappeared from the writings of the ancient scholars.

Instead, they divided non-Roman controlled Europe into two groups: Germani and Scythian.

Celts simply became another people dominated by the Romans.10 With the fall of Britain, the

only non-Romanized Celtic peoples were in the hinterlands of the British Isles. This isolation

lasted until their conquest by Germanic tribes in the first millennium AD. With Germanic tribes

dominating the secular development and the steady “Romanization” of the Catholic Church, the

Celtic societies on the British Isles finally succumbed.11 At this point, no purely Celtic society

survived in Europe.

The Celts were an all but lost and forgotten culture until the eighteenth century. Scholars of that era used the name, interchangeably with Gauls, as the generic name for the valiant

European barbarian enemies of Rome, but historians gave little effort to learn much about

9 Haywood, The Celts, 17. 10 Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: the Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 5. 11 Heather, Empires and Barbarians, 246. Haywood, The Celts, 17

68 them.12 The use of the name “Celt” changed when early scholars of European archaeology and

languages required a new term to differentiate the collective artifacts of the non-Roman, non-

Germanic peoples of that era. These peoples, all but ignored to this point, shared similarities in

their artistic forms and motifs as well as language roots.13 Needing a term not already in use by

other groups that maintained a presence in the historiography, the scholars of the late eighteenth

century dusted off the old term “Celt” as the general term for these non-Greco-Roman/non-

Germanic-speaking European peoples.14

Because the need for this term arose in recent history, there have been some arguments

associated with its uses. Many historians, especially during early employment of the term,

objected to it. They cited the ancients using it as little more than a general descriptive for the

non-Mediterranean peoples of Europe, the lack of any unified Celtic culture, and no recorded

history of these people by anyone of the ancient world, friend or foe. Unfortunately, the time of

the reinvention, if you will, of the Celtic people coincided with a massive upswing in European

nationalism. To deny the existence of this ethnicity robbed several modern European nations (for

instance France and England) of their ancient heritage.15 The Greeks and Italians could date

themselves all the way back to the beginnings of European history. Even other groups such as

the Germans and Hungarians could do the same, albeit not quite as far back. If scholars denied

the existence of this newly termed Celtic group, then the other major European nations would

have their ancestral heritage stripped away. As such, it became politically expedient to admit this

12 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 32. 13 Marian Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods: New Perspectives on “Celtic Barbarians” in Western and Central Europe (500 – 250 BC (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001), 3. 14 John Davies, The Celts (New York: Sterling Publishing Co., 2004), 14. The term “Gaul” (the Latin word for “Celt”) was already in use for the Celtic peoples specific to the region of France so the Greek term, Keltoi (Κελτοί ), was used instead. 15 Haywood, The Celts, 6.

69 newest group into the pantheon of European peoples, especially by the French and English who

happened to be at the forefront of ancient scholarship at the time.16

What makes the use of this term acceptable is the language aspect under which it was

first established. While it is true that very little in the way of Celtic writing survives, enough

words of the ancient Celtic language do survive, predominately through place and plant names,

to give linguists a sense of the language and the ability to place it in a language family.17 As

these words did not match up with any other already existing language family used, linguists

latched on to the Celtic name. This same process occurred within the art history community.

While looking for a way to describe the artistic style found on the artifacts recovered during this

period, the art historians adopted the term utilized by linguists.18 While the two branches of early

science, art history and linguistics, had very little to do with one another, the dual use of the

word “Celt” by both disciplines gave the moniker validity and helped get it accepted within the

larger scholarly community. The result was the adoption of the term by the archaeological

community. With these three scholarly fields using the same term, it gained a universal

acceptance as a descriptive of the material culture of these previously unassigned peoples.

The term “Celt” originated in ancient Greece in the mid-sixth century BC as a descriptive moniker for those peoples inhabiting Europe north of the Mediterranean region. Additionally, the

Greeks also used the term “Galatian” (Γαλατοι), a specific tribe of Celts found in central

Anatolia (see below), as another general name for the same people. That term, Galatian, became

the basis for the Roman word for Celt: Gaul. 19 The first recorded use of the term Κελτοί (Keltoi)

16 Carmel McCaffrey and Leo Eaton, In Search of Ancient Ireland: The Origins of the Irish, from Neolithic Times to the Coming of the English, (Chicago: New Amsterdam Books, 2002), 52-3. 17. Haywood, The Celts, pp 8. 18 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 3-4. 19 Haywood, The Celts, pp 5-6.

70 comes to us through Hecataeus of Miletus in his work Περίοδος γῆς (Periodos Gês).20 While not extensive, it does describe the group he terms “Celts” as living in the region north of the Greek colony of Massilia (modern Marseilles) in the Rhône valley.21 Hecataeus knew little about these people personally, and all the information he imparts is thought to be second hand.22

The same can be said for Herodotus, the next Greek to speak of these people. In his use of the term, “Celt,” Herodotus is speaking of the peoples of the Danube River basin. He describes the homeland of these people as the headwaters of the Danube that he mistakenly places in the Pyrenees Mountains.23 He remarks that the Celts are the western most people of

Europe with the exception of the Cynetes.24 However, he does make a distinction between the

Celts and the Thracians and Illyrians, thus indicating they are not the same peoples.25 Herodotus specifically and the Greek in general distinguished the Celts from the other five great “barbarian” groups of the era. The Greeks defined barbarians as people different from themselves and of a more primitive nature. As such, they granted the following groups a status of greater barbarians, which was a step between the truly primitive peoples and themselves. This group included the

Persians, the Scythians, the Thracians, the Carthaginians (which they held different from the

Phoenicians), and the Celts. The Romans adopted this classification system and continued to

20 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 4. 21 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 4. Massilia was a Greek colony established by the Phocaeans circa 600BC in what would become the Roman province of Narbonensis. 22 J.N.G. Ritchie and W.F. Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 37. 23 Herodotus, Histories, 4.49.; Robert Strassler, The Landmark Herodotus, trans. Andrea Purvis (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007), 302-303. The ancient Greek name for the Danube is the Ister, and Herodotus describes this river as a giant, Nile-like river that bisects the European continent. It rises in the foothills of the Pyrenees and empties into the Black Sea. 24 Herodotus, Histories, 4.49.; Strassler, The Landmark Herodotus, 302-303. The Cynetes (lat. Conii) occupied the southwestern portion of the Iberian Peninsula in the southernmost states of present day Portugal. 25 Strassler, The Landmark Herodotus, 302-303.

71 think of the Celts as a greater barbarian group.26

According to the ancient Greeks, the Celts were the amalgamation of the peoples who

lived in the area encompassing the headwaters of the Danube and north of it throughout its

course bisecting Europe.27 In reality, the Celts dominated the area of Europe starting at the Black

Sea and extending westward north of a line formed by the Danube-Alps-Rhine: the Germanic peoples not yet making an appearance in the archaeological record. The Greeks also placed them in the area of present day France in the Rhône basin beyond the Mediterranean littoral, and in the central highlands of the Iberian Peninsula. While this does encompass a large region, the Greeks termed all these peoples “Celts” because the Greeks saw cultural similarities in them. The

Greeks saw the Celts as a very brutish and violent people predisposed to fighting and not graced with the advanced temperament of civilization. There is also suspicion that these people may have used the same language family, which would have encouraged the Greeks to group them together.28 However, they did make a distinction between the Celts and the Britons and

Germans. The Greeks considered the latter two exceedingly primitive.29

By the time the Greeks made contact with the Celts, c.800 BC during the Hallstatt B

period (see below), the Celts already had a sophisticated culture.30 This culture was aristocratic

in nature, most likely controlled by a warrior elite. The basis of this belief is the differentiation

seen in graves and grave good found from this period.31 The richer graves all contained a variety of tools and goods that spoke of someone of greater means, while the poorer graves were

26 Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” 22, 24-25. 27 Herodotus, Histories, 4.49.; Strassler, The Landmark Herodotus, 302-303. 28 Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” 22. 29 Davies, The Celts, 57. 30 Haywood, The Celts, 7. 31 Haywood, The Celts, 11.

72 decidedly lacking in more than the basics.32 These grave goods of the lower classes were little

more than everyday implements of their trade. The upper class graves, however, were filled with

highly decorated feasting and drinking vessels, many either imported from the Mediterranean

region or with a decided Mediterranean design. Along with these more mundane goods,

archaeologists also found a large quantity of weapons with either a hunting or warfare

implication.

As the Greeks established a more permanent contact with these peoples, they began to

distinguish between the tribes of the Celts. This became more common as the Celts began to

make aggressive movements towards the “civilized” populations of the Mediterranean basin. The

most contacted and feared of the Celts from a Greek point of view were the Galatians who

eventually settled in central Anatolia.33

The Galatians were a migratory Celtic band that originated in the Danube region of

Bulgaria.34 Once settled, the Galatians, like most Celtic peoples, merged their culture and

practices with the locals through intermarriage and diffusion. They maintained a separate

identity, however. They spoke a Celtic form of language, which has since been called Galatian,

and they perpetuated the Celtic warrior tradition, expanding their territory through raids and

warfare. These people mark the easternmost extent of Celtic territory and influence.35

Looking back, there is no evidence that the Celts ever thought of themselves as a united

group.36 Their government seemed to be little more than tribal. The only exception to this was tribes in more advanced areas, such as the Galatians, who utilized a more advanced form of tribal

32 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 37. 33 Haywood, The Celts, 6. 34 Strabo, Geographies, 12.5.1 – 4. 35 Strabo, Geographies 12,5.1-4. 36 Haywood, The Celts, 6.

73 organization. In the case of the Galatians, they formed a government called a tetrarchy. They

divided their territory into three independent tribes (the Tocmi, Tolistoboii, and Tectosages).

Each tribe was then subdivided into four districts called cantons. Each canton was overseen by a

chief with a judge and a general under him. These officials had absolute rule within their

territory. There was a ruling council for decisions affecting more than one territory. The council

was composed of 300 men from across the tribes. There is little evidence of their ever reaching a

unified rule, however.37 The rest maintained small socio-political groups built around small

trading and manufacturing centers, termed oppida by the Romans, with a local chief and war

leader.38 They maintained a warrior class at the top of their social structure with supporting

artisans and agriculturalists forming the lower sector of society.

The first distinct European culture that can be readily identified as proto-Celtic is the

Urnfield culture. It arose through the Great European Plain c.1200 BC mainly in the flatlands and foothills surrounding the central Alpine region. This culture receives its name due to a propensity towards cremation burials instead of the tumulus, or barrow, burials of the preceding era.

Another distinction is the culture’s ability to fashion thin sheets of bronze instead of simply casting it. By making bronze into sheets, the Urnfield people were able to use bronze to make a more varied array of items, from a higher quality and more complex form of tableware to body armor.39 It is thought that the advent of bronze body armor indicated contact with the

Mediterranean cultures, specifically the Mycenaeans, but no actual proof of this contact exists. It

also shows an early proclivity towards military development and innovation in these societies.

Little is known about this group other than their preference for cremation burials over

37 Strabo, Geographies 12, 5.This could be the origins of the idea that the Romans adopted under Diocletian. 38 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 33 39 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 5.

74 inhumation.40 This change is thought to be associated with a major shift in religious influence,

but no concrete evidence of religious practices of the period in question can be discerned. There

is no written evidence of these people, and the material evidence is limited to the urns found in

their funerary plots as well as a dismal few scattered artifacts. The decorations on the urns,

however, tend to be of a proto-Celtic design. That leads modern archaeologists to mark these

people as either the earliest form of Celt or as having direct contact with the Celts. Some believe

that the Urnfield culture included proto-Celtic as well as other indigenous European groups. If this is the case, then the Celtic cultural elements grew to dominate and overshadow those other

groups. Prior to the Urnfield culture, however, the Celts as a people are archaeologically

invisible.41

At the same time the Urnfield peoples dominated the flatlands and Alpine foothills of the

European plain, c.1200 BC, a new culture arose around the salt mines of north-central Austria.42

The environs of the modern town of Hallstatt yielded the first examples of, and gave its name to, this new European culture. The Hallstatt culture is divided into four distinct periods with the first two, periods A (1200-1050 BC) and B (1050-800 BC), occurring during the latter Bronze Age and

in parallel with the Urnfield cultures, while the second two, C (800-620 BC) and D (620- -450

BC), mark the beginning of the European Iron Age.43

What makes the Hallstatt culture distinct from the Urnfield culture is the inclusion of

elements usually associated with cultures originating further east in the Eurasian plain. This

includes a change from cremation to inhumation burials (a godsend for archaeologists as it also

40 Christopher Pare, “Tumulus Burial and the Question of the Start of the Hallstatt Culture,” in Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, ed. Jean Bourgeois, et al (Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002), 76. 41 Haywood, The Celts, 7. 42 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 38. 43 Davies, The Celts, 15.

75 includes an increase in burial goods with the bodies), and a decided social split between an upper

“knightly” class and a lower peasant class (reflected in those burials and the goods associated with them).44 It also includes new material finds such as equipment normally associated with horses and riding, and a new type of longer sword designed for slashing.45 While no discernable writing accompanies these finds, the artwork on them is distinctly primitive Celt, so much so, in fact, archaeologists assign the Hallstatt C period (800-620 BC) as the first decidedly Celtic society in Europe.46

Other major differences between the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures focus on their social structure and economics. Both groups employed hillforts. By using these settlements, it implies a distinct difference in class structure between a lower class responsible for production of food and material goods, and an upper class that controlled both the protection of the peoples living in the hillforts and its environs as well as the trade goods moving through the region.47

Early examination of the Urnfield and Hallstatt A and B cultures shows some characteristics important to the development of these cultures. The early use of bronze and the ability to form it into large sheets indicates the natural metallurgical abilities of these peoples.

While little of their specific culture remains, it can be assumed that the development of metallurgical skills points to a reliance and a perceived importance in manufacturing in this medium. Furthermore, the archaeological record, while lacking finds of other materials, has a fair amount of items in metals. Although a modest percentage of those items are ordinary tools and jewelry, the preponderance are items of a military nature: weapons, pieces of protective

44 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 5. 45 Peter Wilcox, Barbarians Against Rome: Rome’s Celtic, German, Spanish, and Gallic Enemies (London: Osprey, 2000), 15. 46 Haywood, The Celts, 7 47 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 33.

76 wear, and horse tack. By this, a natural conclusion would be that warfare and conflict are an important part of this culture leading to an emphasis on the development and improvement of anything associated with it.

The main difference between these two cultures is the size of the forts involved. The

Hallstatt culture was centered on much larger settlements that control a larger area of land.48 As such, there are fewer of them and they are more widely dispersed than are the Urnfield sites. This increase in area of control can be attributed, first, to the advent of horseback riding, which is a decided Hallstatt characteristic. The introduction of the horse came along with one of the later waves of Indo-European migration. The horse gave these new peoples a decided military advantage over the local Europeans. The result was either a domination of the locals by the new people, for which there is very little archaeological evidence, or the adoption of the horse into the

European societies already established in these regions. Due to the expense of keeping horses and the advantage they gave to the warrior in combat, horses became the symbol of the upper classes. Anyone wishing to move into the upper classes had to obtain and learn to use horses.

This begins the Celtic association with horses that would lead later generations to consider the

Celts one of the dominant cavalry peoples of ancient Europe.49

The second major difference between Urnfield and Celtic societies was the shift in trade patterns away from the more rugged eastern region of Europe and the Balkans to the much more movement friendly western European region.50 This shift is associated with the establishment and growth of Greek colonies along the western Mediterranean coast as well as the expansion of other Indo-European peoples, most notably the Italic and Etruscan peoples of the Italian

48 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 6-7. 49 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 44. 50 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?”5-6; Haywood, The Celts, 15.

77 peninsula.51 It also brought these northern European peoples into extensive contact with the sub-

Alpine settlements. Until this time, most trade had been conducted through the river valleys and

tributaries of the Danube region. That trade now shifted west into direct trade with the Etruscans

and others of central Italy and the French Mediterranean coast.

With this shift of trade partners and patterns, the Hallstatt peoples gained a decided

advantage over the Urnfield peoples. This allowed the Hallstatt to prosper at the expense of their

neighbors. By c.800 BC, the Urnfield culture had all but died out while the Hallstatt entered its third and most dynamic stage.

The shift between Hallstatt B and C periods denotes major changes in the prehistoric cultures of these peoples. The most important was the introduction of iron working.52 Many

scholars think that the Celts learned iron working from the cultures further east.53 Many feel that

the Celtic acquisition of iron working came directly from the Hittites and other Asia Minor

civilizations, while others give a domino effect timeline of the spread of ironworking: Greece in

1200BC, Italy in 800BC, and finally the Hallstatt region in 700BC. This is a misleading argument,

however. It is known that the Hallstatt peoples could and did use meteoric iron and trade iron to

produce tools and weapons. It was the introduction of iron mining that was the big change. This

is further supported by the lack of easily accessed iron deposits in the main Hallstatt regions of

Central and Eastern Europe.54 While Hallstatt A and B societies did prize iron artifacts and

traded for them, there is little evidence of local production. That changed c.800 BC as the

Hallstatt cultures shifted their settlements and trade patterns to central and western

51 Haywood, The Celts, 15; Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 7. 52 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 5. 53 W. H. Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 319. 54 Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” 319.

78 Mediterranean Europe and away from the eastern Mediterranean region.55 This area, eastern

France, Switzerland, and the low-countries, had higher concentration of easily attained iron,

which allowed for more local production.56 With the advent of ironworking, most scholars agree that the Hallstatt C peoples of central and northern Europe can be truly called Celts.

The fall of Hallstatt culture accompanied a geographic shift in economic patterns. The major change was a location transfer away from the Rhône River valley of southeastern France to the Swiss highlands. This accompanied a shift in trading patterns away from the Greek colonial cities on the Riviera to the Etruscan heartland in northern Italy.57 The most likely cause

of this shift is the fall of the Greek colony city of Massalia to the Carthaginians in 540 BC at the

Battle of Alalia. With this shift, the La Tène culture arises.58

Major distinctions between the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures are based in art and

technology. Artistically, the La Tène culture moves away from the purely geometric designs that

dominated the Hallstatt periods.59 Instead, they begin combining decorations of more naturalistic

motifs with the geometric designs of the earlier period in their metalwork and pottery. This is

thought to indicate a more eastern influence, maybe caused by an influx of people from the

eastern steppe region.60

The second shift is in the quality and variety of La Tène ironworking. While early

patterns of iron weapons copied their bronze predecessors, the late Hallstatt and especially La

55 Haywood, The Celts, 14; Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 39. This shift corresponds to the establishment of the Phocaean city of Masslia (modern Marseilles) in southern France and several Phoenician colonies on the Spanish Mediterranean coast. 56 Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” 313. 57 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 5-6.

58 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods,7. This is usually dated to the 5th century BC, but elements of it can be seen in the mid to late 6th century, so, like most changes, it is a fluid one. 59 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 6. 60 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 6.

79 Tène peoples began to branch away from those patterns.61 Swords became much more prevalent

in the burial records indicating a switch to a much more martial society during the La Tène period.62 The swords also changed to a much more slender style blade with the tip becoming

progressively rounder.63 This indicates a shift away from a thrusting style weapon to a

slashing/chopping style. This is a decided difference from Mediterranean cultures. Where the

Celtic cultures focused on the development and use of long blade weapons such as swords and

daggers, the Mediterranean cultures remained focused on weapons that thrust as a main form of

use.

In addition to the change in artistic and metalworking technologies, a few other

introductions helped mark the change from Hallstatt to La Tène. The first was a major increase

in agricultural technologies.64 Unlike the Hallstatt peoples who relied primarily on herding for

sustenance, the La Tène were primarily farmers. This was possible by the introduction of the

heavy iron wheeled plow.65 These plows were much better suited to the heavy soils of northern

Europe than were the traditional scratch plows of the Mediterranean regions. They also were

better able to clear land of the heavy forests, thus creating farmland, with the use of heavy iron

axes designed for this purpose.66

The second major change was the introduction of Mediterranean brickmaking

technologies.67 Prior to this period, the Celtic peoples built with wood almost exclusively. While

wood would always be the primary building material for the Celtic peoples, the incorporation of

61 Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” 317. 62 Haywood, The Celts, 18. 63 Wilcox, Barbarians against Rome, `9-20. 64 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods,8. 65 Haywood, The Celts, 39. 66 Harry Mountain, The Celtic Encyclopedia vol. 1, Aveiro, Portugal: Harry Mountain (1997), 86. 67 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 41.

80 brick and stone begin to be a common occurrence.68 This is especially true in heat sensitive

pursuits such as metal smelting and forging, and pottery firing.

These changes resulted in the establishment of larger population centers throughout the

norther European region.69 Moreover, while these peoples did share enough commonality to earn

a collective name from their Mediterranean counterparts, there is no proof that these people

called Celts ever shared anything resembling a unified consciousness or collective identity.70

Throughout their history, they were simply a myriad of tribal peoples who shared some cultural

traits and a language. It is in those shared traits, however, that they earned a collective moniker

in modern thought.

It is the people of the La Tène culture (c.500-15 BC) that we now think of as ancient

Celts. This culture was essential for the development of Europe during this time. The La Tène

era Celts were the main military innovators of the latter half of the first millennium BC as well as the main opponent of the Romans and the scourge of ancient Europe. While they were largely illiterate, their advances in metal-based technology were vastly superior to their Mediterranean neighbors, and went far to improving those peoples abilities to expand and dominate the region.

The largest detriment to the understanding of these peoples is their illiteracy. While archaeological evidence shows the beginnings of a writing system introduced in the Early La

Tène, the Greeks in the east and the Latins in the west quickly dominated the Celtic writing process. As such, most of their surviving written evidence, elements of which have been found in the Helvetian homelands of modern day Switzerland, consists of Mediterranean scripts.71 While

68 Davies, The Celts, 46. 69 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods,8. 70 Davies, The Celts, 57. 71 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 33.

81 not much of a deterrent in the study of the Celts today, this would have had a severe cultural impact on the peoples involved as it prevented their development intellectually in their own vein and pushed them into a Mediterranean path. As a result, we do not see the development of intellectual property akin to that developed in the southern reaches of Europe: such things as literature, philosophy, and theoretical writings.72

Where we do see advancement by the Celts, however, is in metalworking. The Celts excelled in this area, and it formed an essential part of both their economic and religious lives.73

Archaeologists believe that bronze working arose independently in the region around 2000 BC.74

They base this belief on the readily available supply of both copper and tin needed to make the metal within the Hallstatt habitation zone (see Figure 4.1). Early use of the metal was restricted to upper class warriors and the corresponding women, and focused more on ceremonial pieces and ornaments.75 Once they secured a supply of sufficient quantity, they began to experiment with its possibilities. They produced a wide variety of weapons (swords, spears, axes, and daggers) as well as beginning to produce large pieces of bronze plate armor and helmets.76

Scholars think the Celts learned to fashion large sheets from Aegean area smiths.

72 Green, “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” 4. 73 Davies, The Celts, 17.

74 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 12. Evidence shows that gold and copper arose in the European area c. 6000 BC with bronze arising independently between 2400 and 2000 BC. 75 Christopher Huth, “Poor Belgium, Rich Belgium: Some Reflections on the Nature of Metalwork Depositions in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age,” in Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, ed. Jean Bourgeois, et al (Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002), 48. Working with the chemical markers that identify the mines of all sources of metals, scientists have estimated that 1.5 and 2 million tons of copper were pulled out of the Kargaly mines of the Urals alone during the Bronze Age. Total estimates of mined copper from the mines of Europe and western Asia are in excess of 9 million tons. These numbers are based off of the total amounts found in the archaeological record only. Metals lost, used in later periods, or still buried are not figured into this number. Evidence also shows that Bronze and Iron Age metals societies were highly successful at recycling and repurposing metal, especially in metal poor regions. (Huth, “Poor Belgium, Rich Belgium,” 49.) 76 Eleni Andrikou, “New Evidence of Mycenaean Bronze Corselets From Thebes in Boeotia and the Bronze Age Sequence of Corselets in Greece and Europe.” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, ed. Ioanna Galanaki, et al (Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005), 405.

82

Figure 4.1: This is a map begun in 2007 by the Tin (Cassiterite) Distribution Google Earth 3D GIS Project. It marks all current locations known where tin can or has been found throughout history in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The darker markers on the map indicate deep core deposits only discoverable through modern geological techniques. These would have been unknown in the ancient world. The lighter marks, however, show deposits easily found with ancient mining techniques. http://www.minoanatlantis.com/pix/Bronze_Age_Tin_Deposits_Europe.jpg (downloaded 13 March, 2017)

In addition to long distant trade bringing in new products to inspire local production, it also allowed advancement of metallurgical technologies through the movement of skilled artisans who travelled these trade circuits in the pursuit of their craft. In this way, scholars credit the

Greeks with introducing bronze plate armor to the Celts, although the Celts will improve upon

83 the platform later.77 Through this trade of resources and knowledge, the Celts produced enough

bronze weaponry to equip every warrior with at least a bronze tipped weapon. Full weapons

made in metal, such as swords and maces, were reserved for the elites.78 The need to make

economic use of the metal, however, encouraged the Celts to recycle, and to vary the patterns

produced to make maximum use of a somewhat limited resource. The patterns created were then

easily transferred into iron once the process of iron mining and smelting made it into the

region.79

Economically, the Celts seemed to base their whole system around the transfer of

metal.80 Outside of the Celtic region, little has been found archaeologically that belongs to or

mimics Celtic designs or art that is not metallic. While it could simply be that other mediums did

not survive in the archaeological record, it is possible that Celtic attempts in stone and wood

were simply less advanced or skillful than their Mediterranean counterparts. This resulted in

Celtic wood and stone goods being acceptable for local consumption but not cost effective to

transport them to a differing region for trade. Also, being in a relatively rich copper/tin zone (see

Map-1), they had a ready supply of trade material highly sought by their neighbors to the south.

In some cases, they traded these in metal ingots. Mostly, though, metal traded as a finished

product.81 Due to this, the Celtic patterns of swords and spear points travelled throughout the

European region, while the Mediterranean (largely Mycenaean) designs of body armor was

77 Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas Larsson, “Contacts and Travel During the 2nd Millennium BC: Warriors on the Move,” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, ed. Ioanna Galanaki, et al (Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005), 27. 78 Haywood, The Celts, 12. 79 Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” 317. 80 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 12. Trade also included amber, glass beads, and forest products not available in the Mediterranean region. 81 Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” 11.

84 introduced into the Alpine region.82 This began the process of diffusion of military technology throughout the European region even before the migration of peoples brought the Celts into direct military contact with the Mediterranean peoples to the south. Trade of these new weapons was not enough, however. No indication exists that Celts in any significant numbers made the trek to the Mediterranean region. Without the added benefit of Celtic instructions, the

Mediterranean peoples did not readily adopt these new weapons and armors. Instead, they relied upon indigenous systems of warfare that dated back at least to 1200 BC.

Military goods also figured into the religion of the Celts. Most scholars think the Celtic faith centered on votive offerings.83 While no detailed description of their mythology or practices survives, scholars believe that the important gods in the Celtic faith were all somewhat involved in conflict and warfare. This could simply be due to the surviving archaeological finds, however.

What is known is that the Celts regularly and profusely made votive offerings in a symbolic manner in water.84 The location could be a natural waterway such as a marsh or lake, but often it was in a site prepared specifically for this purpose: an abandoned well, for instance. The main offerings found were military gear. While it was preferred to make offerings of spoils taken on the battlefield from an enemy, this was not always possible. There is no specific evidence to support this particular idea. It is based on several large finds of weapons, deposited in this fashion, of a non-Celtic nature. Scholars speculate that after large encounters with foreign enemies, the Celts dumped large quantities of captured military equipment (weapons and armor) in these spots. Very little Celtic made products are mixed with these giving rise to this particular theory. This outlook helps support the idea that the Celts had a highly militarized society. In

82 Wilcox, Barbarians Against Rome, 65. 83 Huth, “Poor Belgium, Rich Belgium,” 48. 84 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 37.

85 such a society, fighting would be both a requirement, at least in a small way, for most, and an

active pursuit for a large portion of the populace.

For those who did not fight for a living, or in times of little to no conflict, acquisition of

devotional items could be difficult. Because the Celts needed to make regular offerings to their

gods, there was a cottage industry of making votive weapons.85 Large supplies of these weapons

have been found, all identical in make and usually of an inferior blend of copper and tin. Since

digs of votive piles often contain these in large numbers, it is assumed they were made for this

purpose. It can also be assumed that this was the main way metal was formed for trade transport.

The Celts also used metal as an artistic medium. Most metallic items found in Celtic

regions were at least partially decorated. There is no knowing if the artwork had any religious

significance or if it was just another way to differentiate people and identify items. What is

known is that burial goods of elites, both men and women, were highly decorative.86 The motifs

commonly used throughout are geometric patterns dating to the earlier Celtic periods of the

Hallstatt and Urnfield, as well as natural designs involving plants and animals. These are thought

to have been introduced with the contact of more eastern peoples from the Black Sea region.87

Through this, scholars suspect the Celts of having wide flung trade contacts. Through these trade contacts, new methods of manufacture as well as designs for weapons and armor were introduced. Even though the Celts encountered these foreign elements through trade, most La

Tène era items used a combination of both foreign and domestic styles for a decidedly Celtic form.

85 Huth, “Poor Belgium, Rich Belgium,” 48. 86 Haywood, The Celts, 7. 87 Evangelia Papadapoulou, “Western Greece and the North in the Late Bronze Age: The Evidence of Metalwork and Objects of Exotic Material,” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, ed. Ioanna Galanaki, et al. (Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005), 460.

86 The multiple way Celts used metals in their society shows the extent to which Celtic

peoples went to develop better and more economical uses of metal. This focus on the

metallurgical arts would naturally put the Celts amongst the leaders of these sciences, giving

them a technological advantage on those, like the Romans, who lagged behind in developing

these skills.

While metal is the most common form of artifact found from the Celtic peoples, there are

also several finds in stone.88 The workmanship of these items shows the same level of

sophistication and skill as do metal items. There simply are not as many in which to give a

general indication of ability and use. It is known that early Celts used wood almost exclusively

for building. It could simply be that masonry was relatively late in coming to the Celtic region

and never gained much in popularity or widespread usage.89 The lack of quality stone quarries or the ability to utilize them could also have restricted Celtic developments in masonry.

Unfortunately, the predominate building material, wood, has not survived the ravages of time. While some examples of natural materials (wood and leather) are found in both graves and votive pits, they are very rare and usually in a dilapidated state.90 As such, we do not know the

extent of natural medium usage or their skill and decoration levels.

Culturally, the Celts were very different from their Mediterranean counterparts.

Somewhat akin to the manner in which historians see the city-states of the Balkan Peninsula, the

Celts are not considered a united people. The disparate tribes shared several cultural traits, but

they all had something different that made them distinct from their Celtic neighbors and kept

88 Davies, The Celts, 46. 89 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 41. As stated above, brickmaking and masonry did not enter the Celtic region until the latter Hallstatt D period (850 – 800 BC). It is thought to have been introduced by the Greek cultures then trading with the Celts. 90 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 37.

87 them from forming an incorporated or leagued polity.91 The general concepts of peoples such as

Celt or German was a Mediterranean construct used to lump far off groups into a single group

for ease of identification. While the Mediterranean cultures did see some similarities amongst

these groups as outsiders looking in, the people identified within these encompassing names

never saw themselves as part of a larger collective, and never referred to themselves as such until

the eighteenth century AD. This is one of the largest detriments to the Celtic struggle against

better-organized opponents such as Rome: a fatal flaw that ultimate led to their conquest.

The one thing this divided culture does allow, however, is an insight into the spread of

Celtic culture through Europe. Most scholars believe that the Celts arose in the central European

highlands and then diffused their culture throughout the Northern European Plain from there.92

This model has grown in acceptance over the previous conquest model of a distant Celtic homeland from which eventual conquerors launched raids and full-scale military movements.

The biggest support for the conquest model is that the Celtic language is Indo-European. This would put the Celtic peoples as part of the Indo-European migration groups that swept through

Europe the previous two millennia. It fails, however, to provide either a definite homeland for these Celtic invaders, or conclusive evidence to preclude the opposing argument in its entirety.

For example, the individuated nature of the Celtic tribal groups throughout the region point to a rising indigenous culture instead of one imposed at the top from outside. Had these peoples been conquered and ruled by a differing cultural group, there would be a much more unified nature to the result.93 As it is, the tribes adopted elements of the overarching Celtic culture, mostly seen

91 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 32. 92 Haywood, The Celts, 9. 93 Pare, “Tumulus Burial,” 76. While there are some elements of Celtic and proto-Celtic culture that can be considered common, there are no elements at all that can be considered universal. Even going as far back as Hallstatt A and Urnfield cultures, no universal elements are found.

88 through elements of elitism and technology that survive archaeologically, and continued in the

tradition manner concerning the other elements of their society. This points more towards a

peaceful arrival either through indigenous growth or a less invasive migration than is does a

cataclysmic overthrow and domination by a foreign power. Unfortunately, the archaeological

evidence is insufficient at this time to provide definitive proof either way.

The fact that these people shared cultural traits in the eyes of the Mediterranean peoples

of the first half of the first millennium BC would lend credence to a unification of culture, either

through conflict or diffusion, throughout the region.94 The Greeks considered these elements,

their large physical size and unbridled savagery, as held in common by all tribes they dubbed

“Celtic,” and likened them to the titans of the mythological past. It also helps to explain why the

island Celts (the Britons) were the least Celticized of the Celtic peoples, and why the ancient

ancestors of the Scots and Irish were almost totally devoid of Celtic cultural traits matching those

on continental Europe.95 Lack of contact caused by the difficulty of crossing large and

unpredictable bodies of water reduced the rate of diffusion made possible by extended trade or

ease of conflict between groups resulting in societies that only exhibited small elements of Celtic

culture.

The second reason for a gentler form of spread is a less valid one. Many of the early

proponents of the Celtic ethnicity objected to the blood-thirsty manner in which the ancients

portrayed their ancestors. Since one of the purposes of establishing the Celts as a group in the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was to provide an ancient link for modern polities, the

scholars did not want to link themselves to an aggressive and brutal people. The result was the

94 Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” 22. 95 Davies, The Celts, 47. Archaeologists show that La Tène culture, the last stage of pre-Roman Celtic culture, never reached Ireland or western Iberia, and was only a fringe element of northern Britain.

89 preference to the gentle diffusion method of cultural transmission instead of the savagery of

conquest by foreign raiders.96 There is evidence, however, of an aggressive nature to the Celtic

spread that belies this gentler diffusion. It seems earlier historians simply ignored the evidence in order to support the preferred theory.

The first element of a violent spread in Celtic lands is noted by the literate cultures the

Celts encountered. They do not speak of the advances in technology or artistic styles of these

people at all. Instead, they mark them as being as different from themselves as possible through

their savage nature.97

The archaeological evidence shows a migration of Celtic peoples happening during the

seventh century BC.98 This migration brought the Celts across the Danube into the Carpathians,

across the Pyrenees into Spain, and across the Alps into Italy. They came in such force and

savagery that the local populations were unable to oust them once they arrived. This established

Celtic settled regions on the fringes of Southern Europe that gave the Celts launching points for

future raids and invasions.

The outcome of this was over two hundred years of Celtic pressure that resulted in a

second massive migration during the fifth through thirds centuries BC.99 While the evidence

shows that the Mediterranean peoples considered the Celts a unified, monolithic group, they

were not. These disparate tribes were able to unite in military matters, however, as military

culture was the most commonly shared cultural characteristics of those tribes. Having a

charismatic leader arise at these times also helped.100 Once the Celts achieved the goals of their

96 Haywood, The Celts, 6 – 9. 97 Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” 37. 98 Davies, The Celts, 20. 99 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 45. 100 It is exceedingly difficult to differentiate Celtic kings, as the name “Brennus” is the most common for all of

90 raids, however, they tended to break apart and wander back home. This allowed the

Mediterranean peoples to retake lands and push the Celts back out.

The Celts were the scourge of the Mediterranean during this period. Script evidence in

the form of surviving stone inscriptions puts the earliest Celtic presence in the Po Valley as far

back as c. 900 BC (the Golasecla people). The Celts drove out the Etruscan and non-affiliated

Villanovan peoples of the Po Valley, and established permanent control of this region between

620 and 580 BC.101 The Etruscans show evidence of a massive war against the Celts throughout

the fifth century BC.102 Scholars speculate that this Celtic onslaught was the main factor in

ending Etruscan power in northern and central Italy, which assisted in the rise of a free and

independent Rome.103 Also, the Celtic Sack of Rome in 390 BC is credited with causing a major

shift in Roman military thought away from the Mediterranean family of weapons to the Celtic

family.104 The Romans would maintain a dread and fear of the Celts for the next 400 years.105

While the Celts were not successful in making lasting inroads deep into the Italian Peninsula,

they were able to establish a permanent presence in northern Italy.

The Greeks fared little better against the Celts than did the Etruscans. It is said that

Alexander the Great treated with the Celts instead of trying to fight them. He was said to be

amazingly impressed when he learned that the only thing the Celts feared was the sky falling. By

negotiating with the Celts, Alexander gained both a secure northern frontier and a much needed

them. It could be that the name Brennus is used as a title instead of a given name so that any war leader of the Celts could be called Brennus even though it was not his true name. 101 Nikolas Eristavi, From Celtic, Etruscan and Roman Hands: the Po River Valley and Modena (Mutina), (Munich, Germany: Grin Verlang), 2010.; Davies, The Celts, 20-21. The Villanovan culture is usually dated as c.900 – 700 BC. It is possible that the last vestiges of unaligned Villanovan population centers were wiped out or conquered in the first phases of the Celtic invasion of the Po Valley in the early seventh century BC. 102 Davies, The Celts, 20-21. 103 Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” 24. 104 Haywood, The Celts, 51. 105 Rankin, “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” 24-5.

91 source of mercenaries.106 After Alexander’s death and the subsequent division of his empire, the

Celts again began to pressure the Greek city-states. A massive invasion of Greece in the early

decades of the third century BC resulted in a major Celtic move on Delphi for the purposes of

razing and looting the holy site. The Greeks saw it as only an act of Apollo himself that the city

was saved.107

The reason for the success the Celts enjoyed at the expense of their neighbors is given to

their culture. The Celts maintained a hierarchical culture based on a warrior elite. Like most

ancient societies, a person’s standing in the community had to be earned. The way the Celts

earned their place was through feats of arms.108 To earn respect in the Celtic community, one had

to be able to provide for those who followed both in primary sustenance and in luxuries.109 This

mentality firmly tied Celtic culture with their economic system. Trade was highly respected and

an integral part of the Celtic world and was the main component of a Celtic education.110 In looking at major Celtic sites during all periods of Celtic development, most of these sites were

placed in prime trade regions and along essential trade routes.111 Leaders were expected to both

protect trade in their territory and lead raids into neighboring regions in order to gain resources.

The most sought of these resources were metal goods. Leaders then gave these goods to retainers for continued support, or passed them on to artisans who would repurpose them into tools and ornaments.112 Because of this, metalsmiths also held an honored place in Celtic society: so much

106 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, 4.18. 107 Strabo, Geographies 12.5.1-4. 108 Haywood, The Celts, 20. 109 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 7. 110 Kristiansen and Larsson, “Contacts and Travel During the 2nd Millennium BC,” 27. 111 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 6-7. 112 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 7.

92 so that they were often allowed free passage through Celtic territories to ply their trade.113

As Celtic society became larger and more complex, the reliance on tribal sponsored

raiding and warfare declined.114 Archaeological finds show an increase in local agriculture and

industry that translate into a greater amount of self-reliance. There is no indication, however, that the social hierarchy based on skill at arms diminished. Instead, mercenary work became a suitable replacement for local warfare.115 Since the Celts maintained their social attachment to

the warrior as a high-ranking member of society, and they now had extensive contact with

various Mediterranean cultures, which were constantly at odds with each other, there was a need

for warriors in the Mediterranean and the Celts needed wars. Due to this, the Celts became one

of the largest groups of mercenaries in ancient Europe.116 From the 370 BC on, Celts served

throughout the Mediterranean as mercenaries. They are found in the armies of famous generals

such as Hannibal and Pyrrhus. In fact, the Celts were so highly regarded in warfare that Eastern

king waged war without hiring Celts reluctantly lest the outcome be left in doubt.117 This allowed young men to gain military experience, prove their worth, and bring economic benefit back to the tribe. The result was a much more peaceful way of life at home in the Celtic homelands while the warriors gained needed experience and were able to mature out of the highly aggressive period of young adulthood. It also had the secondary effect of introducing

Celtic technology and artwork to the other peoples of Europe.

113 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 43. 114 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 42. 115 Barbara Horejs, “Macedonia: Mediator of Buffer Zone Between Cultural Spheres?” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, ed. Ioanna Galanaki, et al (Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005), 323-328. 116 Haywood, The Celts, 85. 117 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 55.

93 The last major migration of Celts ended in the third century BC.118 During this migration,

the Celts established permanent settlements on the southern side of the Alps, the southern banks

of the Danube, in the Carpathians, In the central Spanish highlands, and in central Anatolia.

While the major Celtic invasion of Greece was underway, resulting in the defeat of Brennus on

his way to Delphi, another large group of Celtic people migrated through Thrace. Under the

impression that no war could be won without the aid of the Celts, King Nicomedes I of Bythinia

invited three tribes of Celts to assist in a dynastic struggle. These tribes were eventually defeated

by Antiochus I, but he was unable to oust them from Asia Minor. The tribes settled in the

principality of Galatia, becoming the Celtic Galatians, where they quickly imported the raiding

warrior lifestyle.119

In most places, the Celts were very adaptive to new situations. While they excelled at

several things such as metalcraft, they were deficient or lacking in many other areas, such as

agriculture.120 Because of this, there are many examples of cultural pluralism in the Celtic world.

Where the Celts came into regular contact with diverse people, a blended culture emerged. As

one travels further away from a border, however, Celticism asserts itself in full. A prime example

of this is in the Po Valley. On the southern side of the Po River in the valley, the Celts came into

regular contact with other Italic and Etruscan peoples. These Celts evolved into a blended culture

exhibiting traits of all three groups. North of the river, however, the Celts had little direct contact

with non-Celtic cultural groups. The Celts in the valley north of the river dealt mainly with

super-Alpine Celts and their immediate Celtic neighbors to the south. They avoided most peaceful contacts with the Etruscan and Italic peoples populating the regions immediately

118 Haywood, The Celts, 19. 119 Strabo, Geographies, 4, 187. 120 These areas included advanced social and cultural institutions as well as intellectual developments such as writing.

94 beyond the Po Valley. Those contacts they left to the Celtic tribes on the southern side of the Po

River. As such, the Celts north of the Po maintained an almost pure Celtic socio-cultural identity, while those south of the river developed a much more blended cultural profile. The same thing happened in the Galatian region and in Spain. After the Celts settled those regions, they quickly adopted the socio-cultural norms of the various peoples surrounding them and adapted to their neighbors. They did maintain a Celtic love for violence and raiding for quite some time, however.121

The most obvious cultural trait of the Celts is their hierarchy based on warrior elites. It is thought that this began in the late Bronze Age under the Urnfield and Hallstatt civilizations. It revolved around the need and desire for specialty and luxury resources: all forms of metals, amber, rare furs, specialty-manufactured items from the Mediterranean regions, and wine.

Differing locales sought other items in addition, but these specific items seemed to hold a universal desire within the Celtic region. People could win deference and honor within Celtic society if they were able to acquire those resources, or, in the cases where those resources were already present, defend them against theft from others.122 This concept made acquisition and defense paramount in those early Celtic areas. This, in turn, gave rise to the warrior elites who could carry out these tasks.

This reliance on and reverence for a warrior elite provided a form of social mobility.123

Anyone who was willing to put in the time and effort and proved effective at carrying out the acquisition or defense of these resources was able to rise within the social ranks to greater positions. The opposite was also true. People who held a high position, through either previous

121 Haywood, The Celts, 22. 122 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 6-7. 123 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 6-7.

95 efforts or accident of birth, lost those positions if they proved unable to perform these duties.

This created a form of meritocracy.

The most obvious form of this social stratification is in the burial practices of the Celts.

At the end of the Bronze Age, the Celts abandoned the cremation style burials favored by the

Urnfield cultures and returned to inhumation burials, often with barrows.124 The size of the

barrows indicated something of a social rank. Modern archaeologists ascribe a higher ranking to

those with larger barrows. This is predominately due to the number and extent of grave goods

found within the larger barrows.125 These larger graves contained not just remnants of the

physical body as well as personal adornments such as clothes and jewelry, but also weapons (for

both hunting and war), feasting paraphernalia, and large drinking sets, usually of a

Mediterranean design and/or make.126 In some few very rare instances, large carts and chariots,

as well as horse gear, have been found.127 The goods found in these large barrows are all of high

quality and richly decorated. Smaller barrows reduce the number of goods buried with the

person, and the quality of the good is noticeably reduced, thus the implication of a highly

stratified society.128 Since baser graves lack weapons commonly found in the elite graves it

implies that the higher classes were based on a warrior tradition of some type.129 The more elite graves also tend to contain goods with a much higher metal content. This monopolization of metal by the elites is another way to show their high status in society as metal often required,

124 Haywood, The Celts, 20. 125 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 34-35. 126 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 39. 127 Haywood, The Celts, 18. 128 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 38. 129 Nortmann Hans, “Dead Warriors and Their Communities in the Hunsrück-Eifel-Culture,” ,” in Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, ed. Jean Bourgeois, et al (Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002), 143.

96 especially during the early Iron Age, importation.

One decided factor that does indicate elite status is the presence of grave goods relating to horses. While the Celts were much more likely to practice chariot (or cart) burial instead of full horse burial, the practice of including the actual horse with the interred human corpse is not unheard of, especially in Celtic groups in the more eastern reaches of Europe. Archaeologists consider horse burial a very common practice in Indo-European cultures. It shows the reverence for the animal and its importance in society. The same can be said for chariot burials. The fact that the Celts did not practice this regularly implies that the horse was not as sacred and important to the hill and forest peoples of Western Europe as it was to the plains peoples of

Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Archaeologists commonly find in Celtic graves disassembled carts from the Hallstatt periods, and riding tack from the La Tène periods.130 The implication of this is that, while most Celts fought afoot, the leaders and highest of elites utilized horses.131 This also goes with the belief of the Romans that the Celts made the most effective native European cavalry forces.132 The elite received their social position based on their ability to acquire and defend material goods through application of force. Since they were the best warriors of a culture that highly praised and rewarded warriors, and they rode horses, it makes sense that they were exceedingly effective at horse combat.

Women were also included in this social construct, although it is not known specifically how women achieved higher social status. What is known is that women are found in very rich burial plots not linked to an associated male.133 They have all the markings of being of high

130 Haywood, The Celts, 18. 131 Wilcox, Barbarians Against Rome, 73. 132 Strabo, Geographies, 4,4.2.; Plutarch, Marcellus 6.4.; Pausanius, Guide to Greece, 10.19. 133 Haywood, The Celts, 11.

97 social standing: abundant jewelry, ornate grave goods, grave plots that took time and effort to construct, and the like.134 The lack of any form of male accompaniment or any indication of relation to men of high status leads us to believe that the Celts held these women in high regard on their own accord. Was this because of their offspring? Did women hold land rights and run farms while men owned weapons and livestock? While it is clear that women did achieve a high enough social standing to warrant a burial equal to high-ranking men, what they did to achieve that rank and earn the burial is not indicated through the remains found, and none of the ancient writers have given enough of a comment to allow an educated guess.

What is known from the writers of ancient times was that the Celts were feared warriors.

The used their own family of weapons very different from the Mediterranean family. The Celts utilized weapons designed for a more individualistic style of warfare.135 Celtic warriors carried at least one, if not multiples of the following: spears, swords, axes, daggers, or javelins.136 In early artwork, Celts are usually identified as dressed in chainmail and carrying a spear and shield.

While most Celtic warriors did carry spears, there is evidence that early Iron Age Celts were largely axe people, a penchant they passed to the Germans. The axe was replaced with the longsword with the advent of horseback riding in the La Tène periods, as it was a much more effective weapon to use from horseback. They wore a new type of armor made of linked chains and a very effective leather and iron helmet.137 They employed an older style of shield that allowed for a more effective and fluid use.138

134 Wells, The Barbarians Speak, 36. 135 Mariya Ivanona, “Things Unfound: Patterns of Warfare in the Early Bronze Age Aegean and Thrace,” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory across Borders, ed. Ioanna Galanaki, et al. (Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005), 253. 136 Davies, The Celts, 57. 137 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 44, 51. 138 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 43.

98 The Mediterranean culture, on the other hand, tended to restrict use of weapons to the

spear with a short sword or dagger as an emergency weapon.139 They also were more likely to

employ plate armor of either leather or bronze.140 They wore large bronze helmets and carried a

dual strapped shield that was much more easily learned but more restrictive in abilities.141 These

two weapon families are based on two different styles of fighting. The Mediterranean family is

based more on a collective style where fighting in formations was almost required. Since most

Mediterranean fighters were only partially trained for combat, this makes a great deal of sense.

The Celtic family, however, promotes a more individualistic style of fighting.142 This goes along with the Celtic idea of personal capability and a meritocracy based on personal ability in combat.

It is difficult to stand out from the others to establish your bona fides in a collective form of combat. Because of this, Celts were considered great individual fighters, but could have trouble winning in situations that required dedication and discipline.

This was the most common critique of the Celts by the ancient writers. While almost all

of them lauded the Celts for their bravery and martial skill, they also castigated the Celts for

lacking any form of military discipline. Polybius faults the Celts for having a volatile mentality,

being ineffective planners, and lacking any form of cohesion.143 Since the Celts based culture

and upward mobility on the individual warrior’s own actions, it made leadership within the ranks

of Celtic forces somewhat weak and ineffective. It also led to a lack of any military doctrine

since most warriors were out to make a name for themselves: something hard to do under the

tight control of an overseeing general. The same can be said for siege warfare. Since, by nature,

139 Haywood, The Celts, 51. 140 Cloth armor would also be employed in certain conditions. 141 Haywood, The Celts, 51. 142 Ivanova, “Things Unfound,” 153. 143 Polybius, Histories, 2,17 – 31.

99 sieges require the unification and cooperation of large numbers of warriors, the Celts were notoriously bad at it.144 The drawback to this lack of leadership from a Mediterranean point of view is that when the Celts actually did see the rise of a leader that showed the skills and charisma to unite the warriors, it caused a serious problem for the peoples they encountered.

This is the culture that had the most impact on the Roman military. As will be shown further, the Romans adopted, almost in its entirety, the Celtic family of weapons and armor. In order to make proper use of that panoply, the Romans needed to bring in additional Celtic people to teach them how to use and make the weapons. By bringing in the Celtic artisans and experts, the Romans opened themselves to a certain amount of Celtic cultural adoption.145 This is especially true since the use of weapons was such an integral part of Celtic society. It also introduced other Celtic elements to Roman society. Since so much of Celtic art and society was wrapped up in their weaponry, the Romans inadvertently copied those aspects as well. This early

Celtic influence on Roman culture can be seen in that subsequent contacts with other

Mediterranean peoples resulted in those peoples attributing to the Romans many of the same characteristics previously only attributed to the Celts.146

Celtic culture was artistically dynamic, socially diverse, and rapidly evolving. The Celts had contact with the peoples of the Mediterranean since at least 900 BC. While this contact predominately involved trade and was conducted by only very few, it was enough to begin the diffusion of technologies and cultural norms. The presence of drinking paraphernalia in Celtic grave goods shows the importance Mediterranean drinking and feasting customs took in Celtic cultures. The presence of the full panoply of Celtic weapons and armor within the Roman

144 Haywood, The Celts, 47. 145 Wells,The Barbarians Speak, 39. 146 Rankin, “The Celts through Classic Eyes,” 27.

100 military shows the importance Celtic military culture had on the development of the Roman army. The ability of those Celtic weapons to succeed against the traditional Mediterranean panoply, as seen by the repeated successes Celtic groups had in forging new, sub-Alpine homes at the expense of Mediterranean societies, forced those societies to either change in such a way as to be competitive with the Celtic invaders or to be dominated and controlled by those invaders. This was the Roman conundrum starting in 390BC.

101 CHAPTER 5

BODY ARMOR

From the beginning of warfare, two essentials have been foremost in the minds of those prosecuting the martial effort: how to prevent damage to oneself while at the same time doing the maximum amount of damage possible to one’s target. This chapter examines the first part of that dichotomy in the Roman context by looking at the development and implementation of body armor by the Roman military.

In the Roman world, body armor was a mainstay of the military institution from the beginning.1 One simply cannot imagine a Roman soldier without some form of armor. In fact, the segmented armor of the early first millennium AD is iconic in depicting the Roman soldier, but it is not the only form of body armor used by the Romans. Throughout their history, the

Romans have employed several different types of armor: segmented, mail (chain, scale or ring), and others. Most of those armor types, however, originated with peoples other than the Romans.

As stated previously, the Romans developed little of their own militarily. Instead, they adopted and modified the efforts of other contacted peoples into a working conglomerate of pieces that became greater than the whole. Body armor was no different. While the Romans did improve upon the various platforms, there was no armor system created by the Romans that had any lasting impact. The one caveat to this assertion is the afore mentioned segmented armor.

That particular system seems to be one of purely Roman design. Unfortunately, the Romans could not get it to work reliably and abandoned the system in favor of a previous system that was reliable and easy to manufacture.

Regrettably, any examination of armor from the Roman era is limited by a paucity of

1 Helmets are a specialized form of body armor and have been singled out for examination on their own. Shields, being carried and not worn, constitute a separate piece of equipment.

102 sources. Armor sources fall into one of three categories: archaeological, literary, and artistic.

Each of these sources is problematic and limited in their use for the study of armor. The result is

that a great deal of Roman armor studies must rely on common sense and educated guesses.

These guesses, aided by the study of more modern armor systems from the Medieval period,

hinge on the belief that the techniques used to produce those armors originated from the classical

and post-classical, that is Roman and late antique era, manufacturing procedures. The framework of armor-smithing developments can work provided there is no break in the manufactural chain between the periods. Again, we have to trust to conjecture on this as no manuals or descriptions of techniques survive in writing from the Roman era. Additionally, metallurgical studies and techniques took great strides forward in the European Middle Ages. In essence, we can assume the basics of smithing and manufacturing got their beginnings during the Roman era, but there is no hard evidence to prove that this is the case. Those techniques could have been introduced to

Europe just as easily from Eastern sources, Near or Far, after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. The absence of a written trail and gaps in the archaeological record simply do not allow for certainty.

Specifically, each form of source is also limited in its ability to provide information on the origins and diffusion of defensive military technologies. Archaeology is severely limited due to the lack of published finds available and the condition of most finds. One would expect more examples of armor in the archaeological record, but, for whatever reason, they simply are not there.

Several factors arise to explain this dearth of armor finds hampering the ability of modern scholars to determine definitively the sources of origins of several classifications of armor.

Primarily, only metal armors have any real chance to survive the ravages of time. While

103 evidence points to extensive use of organic materials for making body armors, cloth and leather predominately, those materials simply do not survive the elements under ordinary circumstances.

When pieces made of organic materials are found, they are typically little more than scraps.

These crumbs provide little more than confirmation that ancient peoples utilized these materials in armor production. Most forms of non-mail armor utilized leather for various purposes: straps, lining, and the like. Because of this, it is difficult to determine if the scrap was part of an integral armor system on its own, a lining or padding associated with a different armor system, or simply bits of clothing. Fortunately, the Romans from the mid-Republic period on chose to make most of their armor out of metal.2

Metal has its own issues, however. The first issue is the feasibility of metal in all occupations. Because metal is useful for just about anything, people who acquired broken armor or armor as spoils tended to recycle it.3 A leather breastplate ravaged by battle would be of little use and discarded. Metal armor rent by war could be repurposed into something else or patched and reused as armor. This re-use effectively removes metal armor from the archaeological record. Armor deposited in the record through burial, votive deposit, discarding, loss, or accident suffered from the elements as much as any other material. A large number of fragments have been found, but rarely full pieces.4 Furthermore, the condition of those pieces is little more than a mass of rust (see Figure 5.1). Bronze does tend to be more resilient that does iron, but the

Romans made the switch from bronze to iron for the majority of their armor needs beginning in the fourth century BC. Archaeologists can tell that the piece used to be chain mail or scales, but

2 To date, no completed form of leather armor from a known Roman context has been found. Eastern dig sites have yielded linen armor (linothorax). Those have not been found in Western dig sites however. 3 W. H. Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 317. 4 Eero Jarva, Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armor (Rovaniemi, Lapland: Pohjois-Suomen HistoriallinenYhdidtys Societas Historica Finlandiae Septenrionalis, 1995), 19.

104 any attempt to analyze the found lump would reduce it to a pile of oxidized dust. Modern technology is making stride in examining and reconstructing these pieces through digital analysis, but the technology is still relatively new and has a long way to go.5

Figure 5.1: Lorica hamata on display at Museum Canuntinum Bad Deutsch-Altenburg, Austria. (Source: http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Body-Armour.html)

Literature is also very limited. Modern military writing covers every aspect of the various military systems used by all nations. The Romans, to our knowledge, never did this. While they did write about their military, it was predominately about its exploits, not its technology. In most cases, Roman authors never mentioned anything about their military technology at all. To most

Romans, the reasons behind a battle victory or defeat rested on the worthiness of those fighting, or on religion.6 If the Romans had not done their divine duties as a society, or the commander

5 M. C. Bishop, Lorica Segementata Vol 1: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (Braemar, UK: Armatura Press, 2002), 14.

6 Brian Campbell, War and Society in Imperial Rome, 31 BC – AD284 (New York: Routledge Press, 2002): 2.

105 neglected necessary rituals, defeat resulted. It made no difference what they were wearing.

Therefore, writing about the use and acquisition of technologies was of little consequence in their perspective. As such, most information gained from literary sources must be done through careful reading and extrapolation. The few military manuals that do survive all come from the later empire. Even in these, the authors blamed the military problems of their days predominately on training and discipline.7 Technological changes or an assumption that the Romans were falling behind the technological curve never came into question.

This brings us to the richest source for Roman equipment studies: art. Artistic depictions of armor are scattered around the Roman Empire and prove to be the most plentiful source available. The majority of the sources pertaining to military technology are sculpture. This includes the massive metropolitan propaganda pieces such as Trajan’s Column and the various triumphal arches, as well as the gravestones of the individual soldiers found wherever the army had garrison posts. These two subsets account for most of the important military pieces, but there are other pieces such as sarcophagi and graffiti as well. All of these pieces give a visual representation of the Roman army, usually in the field or on campaign. Because of this, the soldiers depicted tend to be fully clad in the standard materials they used for war. However, historians question the accuracy of the artists’ depictions.

For the most part, historians attribute the urban and propaganda art works created to professional artists. The odds that these sculptors had real military experience are low as most

Roman citizens, especially after the turn from Republic to Empire through the Third Century

Crisis, did not join the military.8 These civilian sculptors trained in special workshops in Italy

7 For examples, see the writings of Vegetius (5th century AD) and Pseudo-Maurice (6th century AD) 8 Sara E. Phang, . “New Approaches to the Roman Army,” Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World, ed. Lee L. Brice and Jennifer T. Roberts (Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 2011), 130. At the end of the Third Century Crisis, Emperor Antoninus, or Caracalla, passed the Constitutio Antoniniana. This act effectively made all

106 and Greece and then took their talents out into the rest of the empire.9 Most military sculptors, on

the other hand, received training while on garrison duty in the large garrison towns of Northern

Europe. This difference in the training of civilian and military sculptors gives credence to those

working directly with the military in producing art, specifically funerary art, but it calls into

question the knowledge and accuracy of the civilian artists. Are the images produced by these

artists taken from the reality of the world at the time of production, or are they stylized

reproductions of how the artist thought the Roman forces should appear? Were they changed in

order to give the consuming public a picture they expected to see? Unfortunately, there is no

clear way to know this. The result is a certain discord in the historical community. Some

historians take these images at face value and decide they represent what actually was. Others

tend to treat these images as stylized representations. As a result, we are unsure of how accurate

our most plentiful source for military technology is.10

In most cases, historians come down on the side of caution. They give certain sculptural

works more credence than other works. For instance, while the artistic quality of soldiers’

gravestones is lacking in comparison to commissioned pieces for the private sector, most

historians will agree that the depiction of the military accouterments is more accurate. Therefore,

while the artistic imagery cannot be taken at face value, there is a great deal to learn from it.

One of the major problems associated with artistic interpretations is that of materials. It is well known that the Romans made armor out of all manner of materials common to the era: leather, linen, bronze, and iron. Artists, however, had trouble rendering these different materials

people living within the boundaries of the Roman Empire at that time a Roman citizen. By doing so, all soldiers enlisting in the military from that point forward were already citizens and were not required to serve in order to win citizenship. 9 Alastair Scott Anderson, Roman Military Tombstones (Bucks, UK: Shire Publications LTD, 1984), 27. 10 Bishop, Lorica Segementata, 9.

107 in stone.11 For instance, trying to carve a visual representation of chain mail into a stone surface

is difficult in the best of circumstance. Doing so at a frontier fort might well be past the

capabilities of the artist. To get the desired effect without the tedium of carving minute detail or

risking messing up the whole image, artist regularly used paint. Modern observers are used to

seeing ancient sculpture as simply stone. Evidence supports the idea that ancient artists regularly

painted what they sculpted, adding depth and detail sculpting alone simply could not.12 After two

thousand years, most of those paints have washed away and eroded. This makes getting a

modern interpretation of intended materials very difficult. Is a smooth figure smooth because he

wore linen, or did he wear leather or iron that was painted on and has since washed away? Many

interpretations of images are based on the argument of paint use.

To help alleviate some of these questions, modern scientific efforts are being made to

analyze surface residue of ancient sculpture.13 We have ample evidence in the literary sources

that the ancients were highly skilled in painting.14 Unfortunately, very few pieces of painted

work survived. While time has erased almost every visual representation of any paint used,

microscopic residue remains. Molecular scientists can do analyses to determine if any residue

remains. If molecular residue, of paints for instance, appears in the analysis then it is likely that

the artist intended the finished image to represent a figure wearing some type of armor or

clothing that the sculpted stone by itself does not depict. However, it does not give definite,

11 Anderson, Roman Military Tombstones, 26; H. Russell Robinson, What the Soldiers Wore on Hadrian’s Wall (Newcastle, UK: Frank Graham, 1976), 3-4. 12 Mark Abbe, “Polychromy of Roman Marble Sculpture,” The Met, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/prms/hd_prms.htm (accessed on 9 June, 2018). 13 Esther Ingles-Arkell, “Ultraviolet Light Reveals How Ancient Greek Statues Really Looked,” Gizmodo. https://io9.gizmodo.com/5616498/ultraviolet-light-reveals-how-ancient-greek-statues-really-looked (accessed 9 June). 14 Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, 35. This entire book of Pliny’s work discusses the various types and skill levels of artistic painting in the ancient Mediterranean.

108 detailed result. While scientists may be able to tell if traces of paint are left, they cannot tell what

color it used to be.

Another artistic medium that can be helpful in studying ancient armor is pottery. While

the Romans were not known for decorating pottery with martial scenes, other societies around

the Mediterranean were. Since the purpose of this work is to establish the origins of types of

armor, those pieces of pottery are very useful for establishing armor type usage in certain eras.

Furthermore, pottery, when found in situ, is extremely useful in dating finds simply by being

present with the recovered artifact. Many finds go without adequate dating simply due to the lack

of datable materials found with them. Pottery acts as the most prolific and concrete calendar for

the ancient world.15

The dating aspect of pottery is extremely important in studying the advancement and

adoption of body armors. Most hoplologists agree that organic forms of most body armors

existed well before their metal counterparts.16 In fact, ancient artisans copied the forms of organic body armor in metal when metallurgy developed enough to allow the construction of the metallic components. As such, in tracing the origins of armor styles, one must look for the organic forms of these armors instead of the metal ones. Since, as noted above, the organic components are not likely to survive the ravages of age needed for preservation in the archaeological record, it becomes almost impossible to find the original forms of body armor physically. We must rely on the artistic and literary sources to give us the information needed to trace their origins. Pottery is the one artistic medium most likely to survive from ancient times to

15 Gareth Darbyshire, Stephen Mitchell, and Levent Varder, “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor,” Anatolian Studies vol 50 (2000): 81. 16 John Chadwick, The Mycenaean World 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 160.; Jarva, Archaiologia, 18.

109 modern in usable conditions to allow the interpretation of military technologies from those distant eras making it one of the more important artistic mediums for the study of armor origins.

In the study of the origins of body armors, there are two categories to examine. The first category is the body part being protected. Not all armor families cover all body parts, and the development of each covering piece happens at different times. The second is the type of armor being constructed. This involves the different construction techniques used to create the pieces of protective wear we refer to as armor and not the material with which it is constructed as almost all styles of armor construction will be made of multiple materials. Once the armor piece is conceived and created, the material with which it is made becomes fluid.

In regards to the first element, the Romans regularly used armor to cover the head, torso, shoulders, arms, upper leg (common for cavalry and less so for foot troops) and lower leg. Each is a separate piece of armor and may or may not be included in all forms of armor (see Figure

5.2). The styles of fighting most warriors undergo dictate the forms of protections needed. Some pieces warriors do not require in certain types of warfare or against certain opponents. Other pieces give a clear indication of whence the major threat to a soldier’s life and limb comes.

Heavily reinforced shoulders indicate a serious threat to the soldier coming from weapons wielded in an overhand chopping motion, as do large crests or conical helmets. Heavy face guards such as expanded cheek pieces and nasals indicate a threat to a soldier’s face, commonly caused when a rounded shield deflects thrusted weapons up. Others pieces of armor, such as helmets, most societies considered mandatory. Because of this, tracing the beginnings of each piece is necessary for the development of armor in the Roman world. This, fortunately, is easily done as all pieces of body armor employed by the Romans originated elsewhere or in the prehistoric past.

110 Figure 5.2: Body armor.

111 The basic pieces, breast plates and helmet, predate recorded history.17 Evidence from cave paintings have been interpreted to show cave dwellers wearing something thought to be protective gear. Most of this is found in protecting the torso, but some elements are also seen that may be interpreted as head protection.18 Less obvious but still thought to be innovated in prehistoric times are groin protections. This is difficult to judge, as most primitive coverings would go from shoulder to top of the leg covering the groin in a general sense. Other picture from caves, however seem to show a separate loincloth type protective wear.19

Other protective wear comes along later. One of the more important pieces to be added were shoulder guards, or spaulders. These protected the shoulder, upper arm, and neck area.

Most practitioners of early warfare did not need these pieces. This was due to the way men fought in the days of war’s infancy. Most weapons were thrust types and wielded underhand, the club being a notable exception. These types of weapons do not attack the shoulder and neck region with enough regularity to warrant developing a specific piece of armor to guard that area.

While a club can cause major damage, no evidence surviving from prehistoric sources show man as having the ability to make a heavy enough protective piece to thwart the club’s crushing damage. Even slashing weapons, while causing a problem for the throat, were not regularly seen enough on a battlefield to justify upper torso and neck armor. It was not until the development of weapons designed to be wielded in an overhand, chopping manner developed that this type of armor became necessary. The weapons that fit this description are the axe, the mace or hammer, and the sword. Warriors can wield all of these weapons in an overhand manner. In fact, for the axe, mace, and hammer, it is the preferred method of wielding them. Therefore, until a society

17 It is unclear if back plates arise with the breastplate as the surviving evidence, in this case cave paintings, do not regularly show warriors from a rear perspective. 18 Arthur Ferrill, The Origins of War (New York: Thames & Hudson, 1985), 22. 19 Ferrill, The Origins of War, 22.

112 regularly runs into warriors wielding these types of weapons, the need for shoulder protection is

not truly necessary.

The ancient world had a working knowledge of swords, axes, and blunt weapons. They

were not, however, in use regularly. This is due to construction techniques during the early days

of weaponry. Swinging a weapon puts an inordinate amount of shearing force on the materials

used to manufacture it. This shear often resulted in breaking the weapon, leaving the warrior without offensive capability on the battlefield.20 To rectify this vulnerability, early societies

adopted thrusting weapons that underwent compressive stress instead. While compressive stress

could deform and blunt points of thrusting weapons, it did not break them. Relying

predominately on thrusting weapons would change with the invention of socket technology as

well as the improvement of metallurgy.21

While socketing technology improved the ability of weapons to withstand shearing forces

exerted while swinging in a slashing or chopping motion, the dearth of metals available in the

Levant to make weapons and armors relegated those weapons to the upper classes. It was not

until iron took over as the main weapon-making material that most soldiers could have a weapon

that consisted of more than a spear point of metal. The first major cultures arising in a metal rich

area that showed a penchant for metalwork and a large amount of metal use was the Urnfield and

early La Tène Celtic cultures of Europe. Because these cultures did not have to economize with

metals as did their Near Eastern and Mediterranean counterparts, they were able to make most of

their weapons out of large quantities of metal. Due to this abundance, swords were plentiful and

quickly became the weapon of choice in the Celtic cultures due to their versatility of use. This

meant that the upper torso and neck region of the Celtic warrior was at greater peril in combat

20 Frederick Wilkinson, Edged Weapons (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co., 1970): 8. 21 Richard A Gabriel, Great Armies of Antiquity (Westport, CN: Greenwood Publishing, 2002): 53.

113 due to the type of weapon opposing him than were warriors of the thrusting weapon dominated

Mediterranean basin. Because of this, the Celts needed to invent and use protective wear for the

shoulders. The answer was the invention of the armor piece that would become spaulders.

The earliest examples we have of shoulder guards are on the remnants of the Type-IV muscled cuirass. This type of armor dates to artwork from the proto-Attic period (mid-eighth to late seventh centuries BC), and are well established in the Etruscan and Greek worlds by the mid-

sixth century BC.22 This places the use of shoulder guards well before the firm establishment of a

permanent Roman army and at the very beginnings of the Greek classical period. Since it is

thought that the Greeks lost their ability to manufacture armors of this complexity during their

Dark Age and reacquired it from their neighbors, logic indicates that the Greeks readopted the

muscled cuirass, with its subsequent improvements, from the Celtic peoples they originally

taught to make it. The abundant trade contacts with the Greek world and Celtic Northern Europe

would support this.23 Thus, while originally a Greek invention, the modified muscled cuirass as used by the Roman military was a Celtic innovation.

Next to be protected outside the main torso of the body was the lower leg. This is most

likely due to the vulnerability of this portion of the body to kicks and other low strikes, from

spear shafts or shield rims for instance, common in close quarter combat. The earliest discovered

identifiable greave, or shin guard, dates to the mid-tenth century BC and is found in southeast

Europe.24 This would put it in the southern portion of the Celtic homelands along the southern

Danube. The Greeks do not show use of metal greaves until the mid-eighth century BC, although

22 Jarva, Archaiologia, 34-35. 23 Peter Well, The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 12, 39. This trade increased dramatically with the establishment of Greek and Phoenician colonies in the western Mediterranean after 600 BC. 24 Jarva, Archaiologia, 85.

114 Mycenaean artwork does indicate the use of linen shin guards prior to this period.25 The late

adoption of greaves may imply that the Celts invented this type of armor and passed it along to

their trading partners sometime in the early years of the first millennium BC, or could indicate

that metallic greaves simply did not survive in the archaeological record. The existence of this

particular armor piece definitely precedes the end of the Dark Ages in Greece, as the descriptions

in Homer of the arming process include the strapping on of greaves as the first step.26 Greaves

remained a part of the heavy infantry synonymous with Greek warfare through the classical

period and were probably passed to the Romans during the orientalizing period of Greek

influence on Italy. Even so, greaves were not considered standard issue by the Roman army of

the middle Republic period on. Their use shrunk to cavalry, officers (who regularly patterned

their battlefield dress after cavalry), and centurions.27

Armguards, or vambraces, were the last major item of body armor invented. Those came

from the trans-Danubian frontier and are, most likely, an innovation of the horse nomads of the

central Eurasian steppe.28 Their form of warfare put the limbs at great risk. As with so many

inventions of humanity, necessity prompts invention. Almost all forms of early vambraces are

made of scale or lamellar armor (see below). This type of armor was highly used among the

steppe peoples. The Romans do not begin regular use of this type of armor until Trajan’s Dacian

campaigns when they began to come into direct contact with these steppe peoples. Some scholars

think that the Dacian falx, a farm tool used in harvesting grain modified for use in warfare,

25 Jarva, Archaiologia, 85.s 26 Homer, Iliad, 11, 15-16. 27 H. Russell Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1975), 187. 28 Simon James, “The Impact of Steppe Peoples and the Partho-Sasanian World on the Development of Roman Military Equipment and Dress 1st to 3rd Centuries AD,” in Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. eds. Markus Mode, and Jürgen Tubach (Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006): 362.

115 prompted the Romans to adopt this form of protection. Legend had it that the falx could take off

an unprotected arm with one swipe.29

The main item of body armor, the breast and back plate or lorica, was invented

everywhere around the world by nascent peoples struggling to protect themselves and their

resources from the environment, natural dangers, and each other.30 They did this with the use of

thick animal hides draped over the body. As proto-humans learned to sew, the modification of

those hides became possible, making them into a more fitting garment that could protect against

the cold, predators, game animals during the hunt, and other humans in competition for the same

resources. Humans must have learned about the use of animal skins via the hunt. Animals had a

much tougher outer coating than did the humans hunting them. Reason would dictate that

covering yourself in those tougher skins would benefit. As they rotted or wore out, the hunters

replaced them with newly acquired skins. Over time, the science of preserving these skins into

hides was developed and the first permanent type of armor came into existence.31

Stories from the distant past have survived from oral history through the beginnings of writing to support this use of hides as armor. Archaeologists have interpreted cave paintings of warriors as being clad in a semblance of protective wear over vital body parts such as the chest or groin.32 In fact, the Palette of Narmer dating to the late fourth millennium BC depicts the

Egyptian conqueror wearing an armored loincloth (see Figure 5.3). Hercules draping himself in

the skin of the Nemean Lion is another example. While these examples might not be as prolific

29 Michael Schmitz, The Dacian Threat, 101 – 106 AD (Armidale, Australia: Caeros, 2005): 31. 30 Ferrill, The Origins of War, 22. 31 Josephine Barbe, “The History of Leather Tanning,” Maharam.com, https://www.maharam.com/stories/barbe_the- history-of-leather-tanning (accessed 27 June 2019). Evidence points to humans tanning leather at least by 8000 Evidence points to humans tanning leather at least by 8000 BC. The development of plant-based tanning methods developed circa 3000 BC in Egypt and Mesopotamia with the technology making it to Rome by 800BC. 32 Ferrill, The Origins of War, 22.

116 as modern researchers would like, it does show that the idea of defensive wear existed almost to the beginnings of civilization. The Romans even kept this traditional style of dress throughout their history by draping the legion standard-bearers, or signifier, in bear or lion skins.33

However, by the time the first civilizations are leaving vestiges of their presence, they have mostly moved on from this simplistic type.

Figure 5.3: Palette of Narmer. Section B shows the king wearing an armored loincloth and possibly armored lower leg guards. (Source: from: http://www.lesphotosderobert.com/Egypte/AbydosE/History/Narmer.html)

The first purposefully constructed armor platform known is a construct commonly referred to as scale. Called squamata by the Romans, this armor type consist of many small pieces of material attached to a backing piece. The main elements are usually of a very hard and unwieldy substance such as leather, rawhide, bone, hoof, or even wood. They have holes punched or drilled in the top edge and are tied to a backing material, cloth or a softer and more

33 Raffaele D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier: From Marius to Commodus, 112 BC – AD 192 (London: Frontline Books, 2009): 171.

117 flexible leather, in an overlapping pattern.34 The result would be something that looks like the

scales of a fish or feathers of a bird, hence the name. This form of armor is very easy to produce.

It requires very little actual manufacturing skill to make the scales. Simply shaping the desired

material into small pieces, or stamping them out of a large sheet of metal, is usually sufficient.

Those pieces are then individually tied onto the fabric using leather or rawhide thongs or chorded

fibers. What the armor lacks in craftsmanship, however, it makes up for in time. This type of

armor is very labor intensive to construct initially. However, once made, the maintenance of the

armor by the wearer is very simple. Individual users can maintain the armor as long as they can

secure a supply of scales and twine.35

All indications are that scale armor first developed in the Near East. Evidence of its use

stretches back as far as the eleventh century BC, although indications point to a much older beginning, circa the seventeenth century BC, and it may be older than that.36 This type of armor is

easy to produce requiring care and attention to detail rather than craft skill, easily patched and

maintained in the field, and, therefore, cheap to make and maintain in relation to other forms of

armor.37

The Romans had a long history of lorica squamata use. Historians think it made its way

to the Italian peninsula from the Near East via Cyprus with the Greek and Phoenician traders

traveling the region as part of the Near Eastern influence experienced by the Romans in the early

34 Aleksander K. Nefedkin, “Sarmatian Armor According to Narrative and Archaeological Data,” in Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. eds. Markus Mode, and Jürgen Tubach (Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006): 435. 35 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 153. 36 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 153. 37 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 153.

118 days of the city’s history.38 As such, lorica squamata has a long tradition tying it to the armies of the Near East. In fact, scale seemed to be the preferred armor worn by Persian elite troops and cavalry.39 Due to this, the Romans tended to look down on it as coming from an inferior people: an attitude they obtained, no doubt, from the Greeks.40

Unfortunately, few early examples of Roman scale have survived, and historians must rely upon artistic renderings and the few sparse literary examples for evidence of its use. Scraps of scale have been found on the battlefield at Trasimene.41 This dates its use to the end of the third century BC. Due to the lack of remains found and the extent of the Roman defeat here, however, it would imply that scale, by this time, was only worn by specialists (a centurion maybe?) or by cavalry. The only remains approaching a full suit of scale found in the Roman record comes from the remains recovered at Dura-Europos.42 This find dates to the third century

AD. Most other evidence of Roman scale comes from artistic evidence

According to the surviving art, the Romans did stamp their presence on scale armor.

While most scale armor was standardized between1.4-2.8cm by 5.4-8cm, some scales have been found, and artistic rendering reflects, scales of different sizes. While smaller scales do not necessarily increase the armor value of squamata, it drastically increases weight.43 On the battlefield, increasing weight and not gaining protective advantage can be deadly. For this reason, it is thought that Romans relegated scale to the upper classes (officers), specialized

38 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 154. 39 Nefedkin, “Sarmatian Armor,” 435. 40 P.J. Styllianou, “Ephorus,” Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece ed. Nigel Wilson (New York: Routledge, 2013), 262.; Benjamin Isaac, “Proto-Racism in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” World Archaeology 38, no. 1 (Mar. 2006), 33. 41 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 154. 42 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 157. 43 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 156.

119 offices (centurions, standard-bearers, musicians), and cavalry forces.44

Additionally, the Romans tried to increase the strength of scale by adding a medial ridge to the scales themselves.45 By doing this, it increased the thickness of the actual scales putting

more defense between the weapon and the wearer. Doing this, however, removes one of the

advantages to using scale: the low manufacturing skill required to produce the product. No

longer could scales be simply punched out of sheets of material. They now required a trained

craftsman to make them. They did give the scale a very pleasing look, however. Historians are

unclear as to what is meant by the phrase lorica plumata, but the implications are an armor made

of, or to look as if made of, feathers. Artistic renderings and the few examples of medial ridged

scales found, however, make many believe that this type of scale is the plumata referenced in the

literature.46

An additional conceit added to scale armor is the silvering or tinning of the scales

themselves. This is most likely another adaptation developed in the Near East and imported into

the Italian Peninsula.47 Italy is, for the most part, metal poor. Access to most metals had to be

through trade. Experimenting with metals and using them in a wasteful way such as this would

go against the Roman needs, especially in the early years of the Republic when scale was at its most expansive use. In later eras, once Rome had gained control of metal producing regions,

Romans would have had little problem using precious metals like sliver and tin for the coating of scales, and, in fact, did so. Nevertheless, coated scale was never a widespread trend in the

Western Roman Empire.

44 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 156. 45 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 154. 46 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 156. 47 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 156.

120 Since scale had a Near Eastern origin, it is thought that the Romans had a special

prejudice against it. When compared to Greek methods of personal defense, the Romans

preferred the Greek method.48 They never mandated that other not use their cultural arms,

however. The Romans were more than accepting of Eastern peoples using scale. In fact, most

historians feel that scale found in sites dating to the Augustan period (27 BC-AD 14) and after are reflections of the eastern recruits and units the Romans absorbed into their military system.49 For instance, the only users of scale in Roman Britain were a unit of Syrian archers hired and transported to the area in order to support the local uprisings during the Severan periods.50

Scale left the Western Roman panoply for everyday use by legionnaires with the Celtic

revolution of the early fourth century BC. While images do indicated the continued use of scale in

the Western Empire, almost every instance of its use is seen either on auxiliary units or on the

highest level of officers.51 Evidence of scale all but disappears from any Western Roman

military site unless it also contains evidence of Eastern troops or auxiliary units as well.52 At this

point, the Romans replaced it predominately with chain mail even though scale’s use would

continue in specialized instances through the end of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th century

AD.53

The most distinctive style of armor worn by the Romans is the segmented, or banded,

plate armor of the early Imperial period. Called segmentata, this armor features multiple solid

48 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 147. 49 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 162. 50 H. Russell Robinson, What the Soldiers Wore on Hadrian’s Wall (Newcastle, UK: Frank Graham, 1976), 2. 51 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 161. Officers picked the type of armor they wanted to wear. There is no rhyme or reason for their choice of protective gear. 52 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 161. 53 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 162. Heavy use of lamellar armor (scales tied to each other instead of attached to a backing piece) continued in Byzantine and Russian artwork and manuscripts until the 15th century.

121 bands of metal riveted and hinged together to form a solid overlaying structure. It removed the

gaps common in other forms of armor while retaining some of its flexibility. This type of armor

did not emerge without antecedent, however. Many steps were required to develop the ability to

construct it.

The plate armor of the High Middle Ages, what normal comes to most minds when someone mentions plate armor, is the final product of millennia of development. The original pieces of plate armor were sheets of organic material such as hide or leather treated to increase their stiffness to the point where they could withstand the penetration of weapons. In doing this, man is able to turn the hide of beasts much thicker than human skin into still thicker pieces of protective wear. It also allows shaping so the armor can be fit to the ill-shaped human physique.

It is debatable if the practice of tanning hide comes from the Celtic peoples of Northern

Europe. While they might not have been the first people to develop this science, it is conceivable that they developed the practice on their own and transmitted it to the other peoples in their vicinity. This is largely conjecture based on the idea that the peoples of Northern Europe were the first to domesticate large herd animals from which most traditional leathers come: horses and cattle.54 It is also based on the linguistic study that has the Latin word for “to tan,” tannare,

based on the Celtic word for oak tree, tann: the bark of which is the main ingredient in ancient

tanning mixtures.55 If this were the case, this would give significant credence to the idea that

leather, and by extension leather armor, was an invention of the proto-Celts who then passed it

on to other peoples around the Eurasian continent as they spread the practice of herding large

animals. Unfortunately, there is no credible way to prove this as this particular science predates

54 Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1999): 98. 55 Douglas Harper, “Tan,” Online Etymology Dictionary. https://www.etymonline.com/word/tan (accessed on 14 June, 2018).

122 literacy, and no artistic or archaeological remains found can point to the development of tanning

anywhere in the historical record.

Be that as it may, man quickly noticed the advantages of leather over human skin or even

hide. It is preserved so lasts longer. It resist the elements better giving it a longer wearing life,

and, if prepared properly, it is thicker and more resilient than all but the toughest hides. To get

leather to this condition, it must be boiled at a low heat. This causes the leather to absorb water

making it extremely malleable as well as shrinking it. As it shrinks, it compresses in on itself

creating a denser mass.56 It can then be spread over a form and allowed to dry, or cure. Once

cured, the boiled leather will become very stiff and hard. It loses all of its malleability without

becoming brittle.57 In this way, leather is a much better defensive material than rawhide, which is

simply an untreated animal skin allowed to dry completely.

Boiled leather became the material through which most other armor forms were

invented.58 In almost all cases, leather versions of armor pieces existed long before their metal

counterparts. Archaeologists have found remnants of leather helmets, greaves, breastplates, and

vambraces. In most cases, these remnants coexisted with their metal counterparts. It is possible

that leather was simply a cheaper alternative than metal for soldiers. It could also have been a

liner for the metal piece to offer protection to the body part to which it was attached. In most

cases, the Romans did not use leather. It was highly susceptible to weather unless boiled making

it nearly useless as a protective material.59 The dearth of surviving evidence in the archaeological

record, however, implies that if the Romans did use leather as an armor medium, they moved on

56 Laura Davies, “Cuir Boulli,” in Conservation of Leather and Related Materials. eds Marion Kite and Roy Thomson (New York: Routledge, 2006): 97. 57 Laura Davies, “Cuir Boulli,” 94-95. 58 Jarva, Archaiologia, 18. 59 Pliny the Elder, Natural Histories, 8,39.

123 from it early in their history.

In warm climates, such as the deserts of the Near East and North Africa, cloth would serve this same purpose. Cloth could be woven into very thick sheets. When these sheets were combined into a mat, an exceedingly thick defensive garment formed. It could then be treated like leather, boiling it (with the addition of vinegar which leather did not need) and forming it to shrink it and give it shape.60 While not as good as leather in protective value, it was cheaper to make and cooler to wear in hot desert climates.

Once humans developed metallurgy to the point they could make sheets of it, the forms developed in the cloth and leather armor industry were readily adapted to the new medium of protective wear. This is the beginnings of metal plate armor.

The first recognized metal plate form is what has become known as the bell or muscled cuirass.61 While most think of the muscled cuirass as the anatomically correct armor pieces popularized in Roman art and by Hollywood, the phrase actually denotes any solid cuirass made of bronze.62 The history of this piece is complex.

Archaeologists think the beginnings of the muscled cuirass are found in ancient Egypt.

The Greeks then transferred the concept to the Balkans while working as mercenaries for the

Egyptians. In the process, they transferred the form to leather, leather being much easier to acquire than linen in Greece. Once the Greeks made contact with the Celts in northern Europe and were able to secure a steady supply of bronze, the form transferred again into the metal bell or muscled cuirass.63

60 Jarva, Archaiologia, 42. 61 Jarva, Archaiologia, 17. 62 Jarva, Archaeologia, 18. 63 Jarva, Archaeologia, 18

124 Most of the development of the muscled cuirass is conjecture. Evidence does show that

the Egyptians had something akin to the bell cuirass, the oldest form of the muscled cuirass,

made out of linen centuries before anything similar appears in Greek art.64 Art then depicts a

rapid development from linen to possibly leather and finally metal in the Mycenaean era (1650-

1200 BC). There is then a large gap in the artistic record during the Greek Dark Age where this

entire style of armor is missing.65 It reappeared with the rise of classical Greece and the

reestablishment of trade contacts with Northern Europe. This timeline has led to the rise of three

distinct developmental theories for the muscled cuirass.

One theory, proposed by H. W. Catling in 1972, posits that the muscled cuirass arose in

the Near East and spread throughout the rest of Eurasia from there.66 The problem with this theory is that in order to do this, the Near East would need a large supply of bronze in order to manufacture this. There were simply no metal sources in the region to develop this type of armor in metal in the Near East. This region also lacked the geographic necessities for growing the large amounts of linen needed to develop the form in cloth or to herd the large numbers of large grazing animals to develop it in leather.67 Finally, the artistic references throughout the ancient world are good enough for modern historians to determine that scale armor was widespread in the Near East, but no examples of any form of solid plate armor appear in those artistic renderings to establish the beginnings of the bell cuirass there.

A second theory, put forth by P. Schauer in 1982, offers the Far East as the land of origin

64 Jarva, Archaeologia, 42. 65 Jarva, Archaeologia, 28. 66 Jarva, Archaeologia, 28. 67 Sheep hide is more akin to human skin than the hide of other animals. As such, it does not thicken sufficiently to make an effective leather armor. Goats traditionally do not grow big enough for their hides to be used for large pieces of armor such as breastplates. They are useful for smaller pieces such as greaves and helmets, however.

125 for this type of armor.68 It was then traded via the Silk Road to the Near East and spread from there along Mediterranean trade routes. While the Chinese of the period did have the resources to make this type of armor, there is little in the way of artistic or literary evidence to support any form of heavy solid metal armor being produced except in very small amounts for elites. In fact, the generally accepted idea is that the Chinese readily adopted scale armor from Central Asian nomads who, in turn, acquired it from the Near East.69 If the Chinese had a superior form of body armor already to hand, why would they downgrade to a lesser type?

The last theory, developed by A.M. Snodgrass in 1964, is both the first chronologically and seemingly most likely of the lot.70 According to this theory, the origins of the bell or muscled cuirass came from the Minoan and/or Mycenaean cultures. They then spread it to the surrounding peoples via trade, specifically the Egyptians on Northern Africa and the Celts of

Northern Europe. When the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures fell, the technology of making this armor type disappeared from the region. Once the Greeks reestablished trade routes and had redeveloped to the point of being called civilized again, this form was reintroduced, most likely by the Celts who had improved the design in the intervening four centuries.

This theory would explain quite a few things. First, the muscled cuirass appears in Italy around the late eighth century BC.71 There is no indication of independent development in the

Etruscan lands prior to this form appearing fully finished. Furthermore, the style present in the

68 Jarva, Archaeologia, 28. 69 Simon James, “The Impact of Steppe Peoples and the Partho-Sasanian World on the Development of Roman Military Equipment and Dress 1st to 3rd Centuries AD,” in Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. eds. Markus Mode, and Jürgen Tubach (Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006): 366.; Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 162. 70 Jarva, Archaeologia, 28 71 Jarva, Archaeologia, 30.

126 Etruscan records, Type-II, does not appear in Greece until the mid-sixth century BC.72 Therefore,

the style had to exist in an area prior to both locations with which both areas would eventually

have trade contacts. The area most likely to fit that description is the Celtic region of northern

Europe.

The second, and probably most telling, support for this theory is the development of the

Type-IV cuirass. The earliest example of the Type-IV cuirass is in 560BC on a black figure

Corinthian vase.73 What makes this type distinct and important is the addition of shoulder plates.

Traditionally, the muscled cuirass is a sheet of bronze from neck to abdomen (for cavalry) or

hips (for infantry). For three distinct types, I, II, and III, it has nothing above the pectoral region

other than support straps to hold it in place.74 When Type-IV appeared, it had reinforced metal shoulder plates that added layers of protection to the shoulders, upper chest, and upper back. The only reason anyone would need this type of armor would be in facing enemies who strike down from above. This can be done in two ready fashions: from a raised striking platform such as from horseback or in a chariot, or from a weapon designed to be used in an overhand fashion. At this point in military development (c.600 BC), fighting on horseback was still in its infancy. Chariots

were still common throughout the Mediterranean regions and served largely as a mobile missile

platform.75 It was not until the early sixth century BC that we see the rise of cavalry units in place

of chariots, and most weapons designed for use from horseback were of the thrusting variety:

high cantle saddles and stirrups having not yet been invented.76 This means the most likely need

72 Jarva, Archaeologia, 30. 73 Jarva, Archaeologia, 34. 74 Jarva, Archaeologia, 20. 75 Ferrill, Origins of War, 40. 76 Ferrill, Origins of War, 83-85. While mounted cavalry units existed as far back as the Assyrians, it was not until the Lydians that mounted units dominated over chariot units in military formation.

127 for this type of shoulder defense is from an overhand blow. At this time, there is only one group

that fought with weapons designed to be wielded in this manner: the Celts. Therefore, while the

Egyptians and pre-Dorian Greeks, most likely developed the origins of the muscled cuirass, the

Celts perfected it and transferred the technology back to the Greeks after their Dark Age, as well

as to the peoples of the Italian peninsula.

The Romans kept this armor form as homage to the Greeks. Arguably, one of the most

admired military figures to the Romans was Alexander the Great.77 Alexander was commonly

depicted in a linothorax (the cloth version of the muscled cuirass), or a leather muscled cuirass.

Due to its supposed Greek origins and its tie to the storied Greek past, both through Alexander

and the writings of the Greek Age of Heroes, the Romans, given a choice, preferred the muscled

cuirass.78 It was so common in the Roman world that it became almost cliché. If one wanted to

appear martial and heroic, be depicted wearing the muscled cuirass. As a result, this form of

armor was favored by emperors, senators, the wealthy elite, and highly respected parade troops

(i.e. Praetorian Guards), especially when being depicted in art. There is very little evidence that

these were used for everyday or battle wear in the late Republic of after. It was merely a

cosmetic affectation.79

By far the most utilized armor for the Roman soldier throughout the history of the

Republic and Empire is chain mail. Called lorica hamata, the Romans adopted this form of body defense as early as the early fourth century BC and it saw continual use until the end of the

Empire in the West and beyond.80 This form of armor was practical, allowed full body

77 Lara O'Sullivan. "Augustus and Alexander the Great at Athens," Phoenix 70, no. 3/4 (2016): 360. The Romans highly regarded Alexander as a military leader while, at the same time, looking down upon his political acumen. 78 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 147. 79 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 147. 80 Martijn Wijnhoven, “The Iron Tunic from Vimose (Funen, Denmark): Further Research into the Construction of

128 movement, was of medium weight, highly resistant to the weapons of the era, and relatively easy

to maintain. A soldier could don it without aid from others allowing for speedy use in emergency

situations. It covered all vital areas of the trunk of the body from neck past groin to mid-thigh (if

made to an infantry length) or the groin (for cavalry). As an addition, this armor allow allowed

for the easy addition of solid plates to specific areas of the body without hampering the

functionality of the rest of the armor or damaging the actual armor in the process.81

Hamata (Latin for hooked) required an advanced set of smithing skills to produce. It was composed of two distinct types of loops. The armorer first punched loops out of sheet metal as solid rings. He then made a second set of rings by wrapping iron wire around a bar and cutting it.

This creates a series of opened rings. Those rings must then have both ends flattened and a small hole punched through each tab. As they are woven through the solid loops, each open loop passed through four solid loops, two above and two below. Once integrated, those loops are closed with a single rivet.82 While the method sounds simple, the processes involved in early

metalworking are quite advanced.

The first requirement is the ability to make sheet metal and to punch that metal. As this

ability had already been developed in the process of making scale armor, it was simple to

transfer the technique to the new armor type and material. The fundamental difference here,

however, is in the change from bronze to iron. Bronze, if mixed in proper proportions, is a

relatively malleable metal. It can be formed into sheets through cold pressing or rolling. As

rolling has a tendency to harden bronze, a light heating during the rolling process would re-

Mail Garments,” Gladius XXXV (2015): 78. 81 Brendan MacGonagle, “The First Chainmail,” Balkan Celts: Journal of Celtic Studies in Eastern Europe and Asia-Minor. https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/chainmail-2/ (accessed 14 Apr 2018). 82 Wijnhoven, “The Iron Tunic from Vimose,” 81.

129 soften the metal and rolling could then continue.83 Iron, however, cannot be manufactured in this manner. Iron soft enough to roll in the fashion mentioned above would not have the strength to resist the forces placed on it as armor. It must be hot forged. It must also be fullered to a thin enough sheet to allow punching rings. While this can be done by hand, it is much easier to do with trip hammers. There is no evidence of trip hammers in the Roman Empire prior to the first century AD. That evidence is from the Roman gold mines in Spain.84 If the Romans did not

acquire trip hammers prior to this, then their production of chain mail would have been laborious

and expensive. It would also indicate that they did not have the metalworking knowledge at a

sufficient level to produce this kind of armor, unlike the Celt-Iberians from whom they most

likely acquired the technology of trip hammers.

The second advance is in the making of the second loops. These loops are made from

very thin iron wires. This requires the techniques of drawing. To make wire, in any metal, a bar

of the metal is heated sufficiently to make it malleable enough to reform. It is then passed

through a series of dies that squeeze the metal into smaller tubes. In this manner, a piece of

standard bar stock can be reduced into a fine gauge wire. Again, precious metals and bronze,

being much softer than iron, did not require the heating factors needed to produce iron wire.

They can be drawn cold or at a warm room temperature. Iron requires heating to sufficient

temperatures to become malleable. Steel would require even more heat. The drawing process is

considered by many to be a Celtic innovation.85

Finally, the sealing factor is an innovation on its own. To close the open loops and

83 David A. Scott, Metallography and Microstructure of Ancient and Historic Metals (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1991), 25-26. 84 David Sims and Isabel Ridge, Iron for the Eagles: The Iron Industry in Roman Britain (London: Tempus Publishing Ltd., 2004): 132. 85 Brian Newbury and Micahel R. Notis, “The History and Evolution of Wiredrawing Techniques,” The Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, Volume 56, Issue 2 (February 2004): 34.

130 complete a suit of mail, armorers invented a specialized device to flatten small rivets through the tabs of the open links. It is thought they also invented a small device that would flatten and punch the ends of the open loops as well.86 Making a chain mail shirt standing by an anvil and wielding a hammer for each link would make the process time consuming and overly expensive.

Unfortunately, tools such as these rarely survive in the archaeological record. It is most likely an offshoot of a similar jeweler’s tool. If this is the case, this tool could have been invented anywhere precious metals were turned into jewelry and traded to the Celtic region along normal trade routes. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, however, that the Celts themselves also invented this tool as they are considered by many to be one of the more advanced metal working societies of the ancient and classical worlds and have a long history of working precious metals into jewelry and decorative objects.

When looking at the skills required for the construction of the first suits of chain mail, it falls well within reason to look to a culture known for its devotion to metalworking as the source.

On its own, however, that is not enough to credit the Celts with this invention. Prudence dictates other sources be consulted for conformation. Towards that end, we must examine the literary, archaeological, and artistic sources as well.

Literarily, lorica hamata is mentioned as early as the mid first century BC. The first mention is by the Roman historian Varro. He credits the Celts with the development of this iron shirt made of links.87 Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian form the mid-1st century BC, follow this. He claims the Celts were wearing this form of armor as early as the Sack of Rome in

390BC.88 Other writers of the ancient world also credit the Celts specifically with using lorica

86 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 164.; Wijnhoven, “The Iron Tunic from Vimose,” 85. 87 Varro, De Lingua Latina, 5, 24.116. 88 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 5, 30.3.

131 hamata but none actually credits them with inventing it. They also do not credit others with its invention either. It is simply not a topic of importance to those writers. Therefore, our earliest mention of lorica hamata in the written records is of Celtic use.

Most people picture the classic form of Greek art when thinking of Celts in the ancient world. In pieces such as the Dying Gaul (3rd century BC Greek) (Figure 5.4) and the Ludovisi

Gaul (2nd century BC Hellenistic), also called the Galatian Suicide (Figure 5.5), the main image of the Celt is depicted in the classical Greek manner of the heroic nude. However, to use this as the basis for all Celtic warriors would be the same as using the Riache bronzes (Figure 5.6) or the Frieze of the Parthenon to determine that classical era Greeks fought nude as well. Rendering a statue in the nude was considered a high artistic form in the Greek world: a way of showing the perfection of the human body. It was never meant as an historical interpretation.

Figure 5.4: The Dying Gaul (Source: ArtStor, https://www.artstor.org/)

132

Figure 5.5: Ludovisi Gaul (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ludovisi_Gaul_Altemps_Inv8608_n3.jpg)

Figure 5.6: Riace Bronzes. (Source: http://www.italymagazine.com/point-ofinterest/nationalmuseum-magnagraecia-and- riacebronzes)

133 A few ancient writers further confused the issue when they claimed that the Celts fought

nude. The main source for this is from the ancient writer Polybius. In his histories, he claims that

the Gaesatae, a specific group of Celts from the Alpine region near the Rhône, cast off their

cloth garments before a specific battle in fear that they would catch on the vegetation and restrict

their movement. They did not meet a heroic end, instead being devastated by the Roman javelin

forces.89 How this one specific example became applied to the whole of Celtic warrior class is

unclear.

There are explanations offered for why the Celts might fight nude. The first is that it

provided a form of psychological warfare. The Celts thought so little of you they were willing to

fight you naked. This is specifically pointed out by Livy in his discourse of the Celt-Iberians.90

There is also a religious idea offered. There is the possibility that Celts fighting nude are somewhat akin to the Viking berserkers. Berserkers fought with minimal protection and at the front of the battle line draped only in the skins of totem animals. Depictions of Germanic warriors of this type are found on Trajan’s Column.91 More recent ideas are based in a more

practical thought: medical. It is thought that fighting nude was preferable to fighting in only

clothing as the clothing tended to be very dirty and was a major cause of battlefield infection

from wounds.92 Whether the Celts actually had that sort of medical forethought is highly

debatable, but it does offer a reason for fighting nude. When all is said and done, it could be just

as Polybius said: they fought that way in this particular instance due to terrain, but might not

have made a habit of it, provided, of course, it was not simply Roman rhetoric commenting on

89 Polybius, Histories, 2, 22 – 28. 90 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 22, 46. 91 David Rankin, The Celts and the Classical World (New York: Routledge, 2003), 74. 92 There is no hard evidence to support this opinion other than modern medical common sense.

134 the barbarous nature of the foe.

Once the spectacular is removed and art is given a proper evaluation, however, the reality of warfare in the classical world becomes a little less dim. Several ancient pieces still exist that establish that the Celts were using chain mail long before any other civilization. Dating from the mid-fourth century BC, the Letnitsa Treasures (Figure 5.7) show definitively that Celtic warriors were dressing in chain mail. These pieces, small application added to horse gear, show warriors dressed in what has been interpreted as chain mail. This is seconded by the art rendered on the

Moglinska Tumulus Gold Jug (Figure 5.8). Dating to the second half of the fourth century BC, this piece, found in the grave of a noble woman in modern Bulgaria, depicts a pair of chariots, both driven by chain mail clad warriors. Both of these pieces establish that the Celtic peoples were using this form of armor by the beginning of the fourth century BC. When coupled with the literary evidence, it would indicate that this is the original source of this form of armor.

Figure 5.7: Letnitza Treasures (Source: http://www.omda.bg/public/images_more/letnitza_treasure.jpg)

135 Figure 5.8: Mogilansja Tumulus Golden Jug (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vratsa-history-museum-Mogilanska-tumulus-golden- pitcher.jpg)

The origins of this armor are debatable. The Romans most likely got it from the Greeks, but the Greeks appear to have gotten it from the Celts. The Celts did not originate it, however.

They seem to have gotten it from the Mycenaeans, and returned it to the Greeks after the Dorians forgot how to make it. In the process, the Celts heavily modified it enough to create a new type for it (Type-IV). Does this make it a Celtic or a Mycenaean invention? Or is it, as I would call it, a combined effort in development between the two?

Chain mail was the most used form of body armor throughout the Roman period. The

Celts invented it and introduced it to the Romans in the Celtic invasion of the late fifth/early fourth century BC. It proved to be effective, relatively cheap, and highly reliable. It also worked well with the Roman adoption of other Celtic military tools such as weapons and helmets.

136 Because of this, the Romans would make continual use of the Celtic armor system throughout their history and would pass it on to the societies of the European Medieval period.

The one attempt by the Romans to invent their own form of armor, lorica segmentata, failed. It went through three known permutations with a fourth, the Alba Iulia Type, implied in early third century AD artwork. Once the Romans determined there was no feasible way to make it a successful platform no matter what they did, it was abandoned in toto and the Romans returned to Celtic chain mail, which lasted through the end of the Wester Empire and into the

Medieval Period.

More modern pieces also show the Celts bedecked with chain mail. The Propylon of the

Sanctuary of Athena, built in the second century BC to commemorate Pergamon’s victory over the Galatians of Asia Minor, has a highly detailed weapons frieze of captured arms (Figure 5.9).

That frieze very clearly depicts a suit of chain mail in addition to spears and shields.

Furthermore, other section of the frieze from the Pergamon Altar depict Galatians in a style copied from artistic depictions of Celts from other Central European artworks.93 Finally, the

Vacheres Warrior (Figure 5.10), a first century BC Roman work, depicts a Celtic warrior with a full sized suit of chain mail. We do not have Romans depicted wearing chain mail, however, until the creation of Trajan’s Column, although there is still some argument on that point.

Current scholarship states that the Roman forces depicted on the column are wearing lorica segmentata (see below) while those in chain mail are all auxiliaries of some type.94 This would indicate that the Romans did acquire chain mail sometime after the Celts. Since the Romans had continual contact with the Celts from circa 400BC on, logic suggests that they acquired chain mail from the Celts.

93 Darbyshire, Mitchell, and Varder, “The Galatian Settlement,” 84. 94 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 9.; Robinson, The Armour of the Roman Legions, 170.

137 Figure 5.9: Detail from Pergamon Weapons Frieze.95

Figure 5.10: Vacheres Warrior. (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gaul_warrior_Vacheres_1.jpg)

95Rustoiu, Aurel. (2012). Commentaria Archaeologica et Historica (I). 1. The grave with a helmet from Ciumeşti – 50 years from its discovery. Comments on the greaves; 2. The Padea-Panagjurski kolonii group in Transylvania. Old and new discoveries. Ephemeris Napocensis 21, 2012, p. 159-183.

138 The final major form of armor used in the Roman period is lorica segmentata. Lorica segmentata is probably the most recognized form of Roman body armor and is the only armor of purely Roman make. This type of armor is a specific subset of a type of armor called lamellar.

Lamellar armor is made of individual plates of material, organic or metal, just like scale armor.

Unlike scale armor, however, the plates used in lamellar armors attach to each other instead of to a backing material. Usually this is done with wires, thongs, or cords at the four corners. The plates are tied to their horizontal neighbors to form rows. The rows are then tied on top of each other, the bottom edge of the row higher up the body is tied atop the upper edge of the row below, it to form the length of the piece.

The major difference between scale and lamellar armor is in the flexibility and maintenance of the suit. Lamellar is much stiffer and more cumbersome to wear than is its scale counterpart. This is due to the rigid fastening of the horizontal plates. By attaching plates to a backing material, scale armors gain small gaps between them than allows the warrior utilizing it a little bit of freedom of motion. That is severely restricted by lamellar. In addition, in scale armors, when scales are displaced through wear or combat damage, small gaps appear in the armor. If the integrity of the lamellar is compromised, however, whole rows of plates begin to unravel. This is especially true if the ties securing upper and lower rows should separate. As a result, most historians believe the Romans, while aware of lamellar armor, did not make much use of it throughout their history.96

The problem with this stance is that it is exceedingly difficult to tell the difference between lamellar and scale in most contexts. Since both are made of small plates of material with holes drilled through them in the four corners, plates found in the archaeological record could

96 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 153.

139 honestly come from either form. And since lamellar was worn atop an arming doublet

(subarmalis-Lat, or aketon-Grk) made of leather, as were almost every other form of Roman

armor, the artistic representations of scale and lamellar would appear almost identical. Since

none survived in whole to modern times, most historians assume the lack of use of lamellar. The

absence of something in the archaeological record, however, does not mean it was not used, but

at this point, the odds are highly unlikely.

All of that makes the use of lorica segmentata even more strange. This form of armor

existed nowhere else in the classical world save Rome. It is not even found diffused into other

cultures who readily adopted Roman forms in the creation or upgrading of their own militaries.97

This is most likely because it is a failed system.

Lorica segmentata is not a name from classical times. As far as modern scholarship knows, there was no specific name for this form of armor used by the Romans. The application of “segmentata” was given to this type of armor in the sixteenth century at the beginnings of

Roman military studies.98 As it is by definition a form of lamellar, the Romans most likely

simply called it lamellar. If historians are correct and lamellar was not a form of manufacture

used by the Romans in large amounts, the Romans calling this lamellar, or lorica laminata,

would have created little confusion.99

This form of armor is made by taking sheet metal and cutting it into strips. Those strips

are then bent into half hoop shapes. Manufacturers then take those bent strips, now called girth

hoops, and punch them to allow the attaching of straps and buckles so that the girth hoops can be

attached to each other. The bottom most hoop would have its lower edge turned or rolled to

97 Russell Gmirkin, “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” Dead Sea Discoveries vol 3 no 2 (July 1996): 118. 98 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 1. 99 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 1.

140 prevent damage to the soldier’s body. All other hoops were identical. This allowed for

adjustment to length of torso by simply adding or subtracting hoops dependent of the height of

the soldier. Evidence supports the idea that the girth hoops came in sizes to support a small,

medium, and large frame as well.100 Individual fitting was beyond the scope of this armor’s

manufacture. These girth hoops would cover the abdomen of the soldier, front and back. The top

hoop would buckle to pectoral plates on the front or shoulder plates for the back. The shoulder

plates would then flip over the shoulders and attach to the breastplates in a style reminiscent of

the shoulder guards developed for the linothorax and muscled cuirass. This would provide a

solid plate covering for the whole torso portion of the soldier’s body, from neck to thigh.

Originally, coming out from under the shoulder plates and the bottom edge at the thighs,

usually attached to the subarmalis, was a series of thick leather thongs, called pteryges. These

provided a small amount of protection to the upper arm and leg as well as the groin, and date to

the distant past as most forms of ancient Mediterranean armor shows these. Since they were only

attached to the subarmalis at one point, they did not restrict movement in any way.101 These are still seen in the panoply of officers, elite troops, and cavalry, but not in the depictions of soldiers wearing segmentata.102

The origins of lorica segmentata are debated. It is thought it could have origins with the

Sarmatians.103 It is a very simple form of armor, after all. The first real evidence of lorica

segmentata’s existence dates to the end of the Augustan era (c. 15 AD).104 It is thought that the

100 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 79. 101 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 149. 102 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 80. It is thought that pteryges may have been worn in the Antonine period, but there is no evidence to support this idea definitively. 103 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 18. 104 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 15.

141 armor made its first appearance during the last few years of the first century BC. This would

make sense as this form of armor, like most scale and lamellar armors, required a lot of semi-

skilled labor, but no real craftsmen to produce. It was also much faster to produce that the chain

mail popular at the time.105 Since the Roman government under Augustus was trying to make a

true effort to streamline the finances of the military, producing an effective armor that cost

considerably less than chain would have been of great benefit to the fisc.

By the time of Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117), historians think that lorica segmentata had

become the main form of armor for the legions.106 This is largely taken from the artistic evidence that exists from that period. Almost all Roman soldiers depicted on Trajan’s Column are dressed in segmentata. Auxiliary troops are usually depicted as wearing chain mail or, if it was especially exotic, cultural armor.

Most historians will agree that these municipal propaganda monuments are severely lacking in the proper details needed to give an honest representation of the armor as it truly was.107 Since their details are questionable, how much credence can be put on the concept of a

universal legion “uniform?”

No mention of this type of armor is specifically made in the written records. Trying to trace it that way is next to impossible. The only exceptions are a brief mention of Sarmatian horsemen dressed in a segmented armor by Tacitus, and a very brief description of scale by

Isidore of Seville108 Neither is very informative or forthcoming about Roman use of the

medium, however.

105 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 7. 106 H. Russell Robinson, The Armour of the Roman Legions (Newcastle, UK: Frank Graham, 1980), 7. 107 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 9.; Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 174. 108 Tacitus, Histories, 1.79. Isidor of Seville, Origines 18, 13.2.

142 All we are left with is the archaeological sources at this point. Again, the ravages of time

and humans have depleted the archaeological record. First, since this form of armor was made of

large pieces of solid metal, it was easy to recycle. Very little evidence of full suits of segmentata

have come to us through the centuries. Odds are those suits were never allowed to enter the

record in the first place. All that metal was much more easily repurposed than was chain. Where

we do find evidence of segmentata, it tends to be the odd piece left from a fallen soldier missed

during the after action clean-up, or, more likely, from the garrison repair facilities after the forts

were abandoned or captured.109

In fact, most of the evidence we have from this type of armor is in the way of fittings

While the large pieces of metal, such as girth hoops, got recycled, the majority of the small pieces, rivets, buckles, hinges, and the like, tended to simply be discarded. These pieces also tended to be made of metals other than iron.110 Brass and copper were very popular fitting

materials. These metals simply might not have been as popular for recycling as their intrinsic

uses were less than the iron. However, since there is an abundance of fittings found in almost all

garrison forts so far excavated, it implies that this armor type was subject to constant wear and

breakage.111 While the armor was designed to allow movement and provide protection, it seems

finding a reliable system of making this work was problematic.

Lorica segmentata went through three, possibly four, permutations in its brief two

hundred year period of use. The first subtype, Kalkriese Type, lasted about 50 years with the last

109 Joaquin Aurrecoechea, “New Perspectives on the Evolution and Chronology of Roman Segmental Armor (Lorica Segemntata and Manica), Based on Hispanic Finds,” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies vol 14/15 (2003/2004): 52. 110 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 77. 111 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 92.

143 known usage of this type being in AD 43.112 Even while it was in heavy use, fitting finds indicate that it was undergoing changes almost the entire time. Eventually, the Corbridge type would replace it.

The Corbridge Type, so named as complete sets were found at the abandoned garrison fort in Corbridge, England, is the most famous of the segmentata subtypes. Its existence is the result of one of those lucky archaeological accidents that brings whole rooms of building to the present undisturbed by man. This particular type is the Rosetta Stone of Roman segmented armor. Without this find, most of the information we have about segmentata would still be mere conjecture.113 That being said, it was just as weak and flawed as the Kalkriese Type.

Corbridge changed quite a few things from Kalkriese. It had new buckles and hinges. It

used tie-loops to secure the right and left halves instead of buckles, thus allowing more

movement in the armor. It was even more highly decorated.114 None of it worked, however.

Corbridge lasted barely longer than Kalkriese: 70 years.

The final known type, the Newstead Type, was the most successful of the three. It lasted

almost a century by fixing some of the design flaws in the other two types. It changed the straps

and buckles that connected the girth hoops to copper rings allowing better movement of the

plates and less grinding. It increased the size of the hinges on the armor giving them more

strength. Finally, in an attempt to eliminate the wear caused by rivets resting directly on the

metal plates, armorers began to use leather washers to help secure the fittings. While it did

increase the life of the armor, Newstead lasted only 90 years before the Romans returned to

112 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 23. 113 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 26. 114 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 31 – 43.

144 chain mail during the third century AD.115 Lorica Segmentata, the one truly Roman armor, while

cheaper and quick to manufacture, simply could not withstand the rigors of legion life and was

simply abandoned.

There is no physical evidence of the suggested fourth type. Speculation of its existence is

only through artistic renderings found at Alba Iulia.116 Whether it was a new style being

introduced when the empire decided to revert to chain mail, or an over imaginative artist, no one

knows.

The true question is: how much was lorica segmentata actually used? Trajan’s Column implies that every legionary in the Roman army used it.117 Unfortunately, there is nothing to back that up literarily or archaeologically. Furthermore, the archaeological record contains remnants of chain mail throughout the era segmentata was supposed to be the main armor used by the Romans. We know the Romans never threw anything away. Did they continue to use older forms of armor while implementing new systems, or was the chain mail simply evidence of auxilia present in the same camps with the legions? Most historians agree there was never a

“standard” Roman uniform. Modern scholars’ insistence that the Romans were all equipped the same is most likely a modern conceit. Officers are never depicted wearing this form of armor.

Funerary art shows the individuality of soldiers since it was created by the unit sculptor who actually knew the man being depicted. That art shows just as many men wearing chain as segmented.118 Additionally, when the Romans switched back to chain mail, there does not seem

to be a transition period. The segmented armor simply vanished.119

115 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 46-49.; Robinson, The Armour of the Roman Legions, 7. 116 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 62. 117 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 9. 118 Robinson, What the Soldiers Wore on Hadrian’s Wall, 3-4. 119 Bishop, Lorica Segmentata Vol 1, 91.

145 Segmented armor would continue in use in smaller forms. Cavalry troopers used it for

limb protection. The infantry then adapted it to provide right arm, sword arm, protection as chain

mail usually stopped at the elbow.120 No other indications of the use of segmented, or solid plate

armor, are seen in Roman evidences.

Conclusions

The Roman military system adopted and adapted all manners of defensive wear from

other cultures. They implemented any form of armor that was both cheap and efficient from any

culture they encountered. No one can tell whence leather armors came to Rome. It is highly

probable that they developed it on their own as did many other cultures around the world. It is

also possible it was introduced in the early days of Rome, or even in the pre-Roman Latin era, by one of the neighboring peoples: possibly by whomever introduced them to large herd animals.

The advent of scale and lamellar armors came, most likely, from the Near East via

Phoenician and Greek traders. This would have been in the orientalizing days of the proto-

Roman era. This technology was used throughout the Roman eras. Scale was reserved for highly decorative and parade uses. Lamellar was all but ignored until the experiment with segmentata.

Neither of them have a decided Celtic connection either.

The only lasting Greek form of armor used in the West was the muscled cuirass. Due to its ties to the heroic past and such greats as Alexander, the muscled cuirass became the most popular form of armor for the upper classes to wear, especially in posing for art. Because of this, it was used by the great generals of the Late Republic when they showed up on parade and crossed into the Imperial period as the chosen armor of the emperor. Once Augustus adopted it

120 Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, 186.

146 as his preferred armor, its place was set as the culturally approved armor of the well to do. None of them are ever pictured in anything else.

147 CHAPTER 6

SHIELDS AND SHAFTS

The oldest set of weapons used by any group of people is the spear and shield. Both are simple to conceptualize and construct. Both are imminently functional. Both provide needed advantages over other men and nature that ancient people lacked. Thus it should not be surprising that both of these military tools predate civilization by millennia.

The oldest known form of personal protection from any type of attack by Man or beast is the shield. This portable form of protection acts as a thin wall between the wielder and the source of danger. It is directional, clumsy, and prone to failure at inopportune times, but it was the best manner of external protection available to prehistoric humans.

Figure 6.1: Painting from Cave 7 at Dugat in the Altai Mountains. Depicts acircular hunting scene with figures wielding triangular shaped shields and clubs. (Source: “The Polychrome Rock Paintings in the Altay Mountains,” The Silk Road, accessed 17 March 2019. http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol3num1/4_polychrome.php)

148 Cave paintings of shields exist in all corners of the world. Some of the oldest are the

paintings found in the Altai Mountains of central Asia (see Figure 6.1). Experts project these

paintings to date to the late Pleistocene period (c. 12,000 BC).1 This would show that shields are

far older than any civilization yet known. That being the case, it is safe to assume that shields

arose almost everywhere humans lived in an indigenous developmental fashion. Therefore,

trying to trace the origins of shields to a single people is beyond the ability of science and history

as those disciplines currently exist. So we must content ourselves with the discussion of how the

peculiar Roman shield called a scutum came to be in the Roman world.

The Roman scutum is a curved oblong body shield. Polybius established the

measurements of the shield at four feet long (1.18m) by two-and-a-half feet wide (.74m). He also claimed the shield had a “palm’s breadth” thickness at the rim. This would make it about an inch

(2.5 cm) at the outer edge. Since he also said it was thicker in the middle around the boss, it would imply the central portion of the scutum would be around two inches (5 cm) thick.2 He

does not say how deep the bevel in the shield is in his description. If the shield was designed to

go from the outside of a bent arm to the center of the chest, then the bevel would be about twenty

inches deep.3

Unfortunately, the coverage distance of the scutum is purely conjecture. Since none of the

ancient authors left schemata of the shield, modern scholars can only go with the few written

1 Esther Jacobsen-Tepfer, “Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Rock Art from the Mongolian Altai: The Material and its Cultural Implications,” Arts (2013, 2):165. 2 Polybius, Histories, 6,23.; M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd Edition, 2nd Edition. (Oxford England: Oxbow Books, 2006), 61. Bishop and Coulston list the strips making up a three-layered shield found at Kasr al-Harit in 1900 as being 2.5 – 5cm (1 – 2 in) thick for the outer horizontal strips and 6-10 cm (2.5 – 4 in) thick for the interior vertical ones. This would make the shield as thin as 11 cm (4.3 in) thick on the edges and 20 cm (7.8 in) thick in the middle. As this is considerably thicker and heavier (roughly 20lbs) this may be the remains of a training shield instead of one intended for field use. 3 Michael J. Taylor, “Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment,” Historia: Zeitshcrift für Alte Gescheichte 63, 3 (2014): 307..

149 descriptions, such as Polybius, and the exceedingly rare finds of scuta in the archaeological record. The only full scutum found comes from Dura Europos (Figure 6.2). This find presents an almost intact shield from the late second century AD. The dimensions for this shield are 41.5 in

(105.5cm) tall, 16in (41cm) across, one quarter inch (6mm) thick, and 12in (30cm) deep. These measurements indicate that a scutum offered a frontage of coverage approximating 30 in (76.2 cm).4 It is missing most of its metal components, the desert being much harder on metals than on woods, so it is unclear if it was fitted with metal bands at the top and bottom as most ancient authors reported scutua had. The shape is almost cylindrical.5

Figure 6.2: The Dura Europos shield. The only known surviving scutum found. Excavated at Dura Europa in 1928-1937. Dates to mid-3rd century AD. (Source: “Ancient Art: Scutum (Shield),” Yale University Art Gallery, accessed 14 April 2019. https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/5959)

4 Taylor, “Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic,” 307. 5 “Ancient Art: Scutum (Shield),” Yale University Art Gallery, accessed 14 April 2019. https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/5959.

150 This is much rounder than what artists and reenactors traditionally present in reproductions of

Roman shields. This shield also comes from the middle of the Roman Imperial period. Most

scholars agree that the Roman development of shield technology had already occurred by this

period. If this is the case, where and when did the scutum arise?

Most of the ancient authors indicate that the Romans adopted the scutum from the

Samnites. At issue is the time of writing for these authors. The writings of the earliest Roman

historians, such as Quintus Fabius Pictor and Cato the Elder, did not survive on their own. They

only exist by quote and citation from later historians. Those second-generation historians such as

Polybius, Diodorus Siculus and Sallust wrote in the second and first century BC.6 If the Romans

picked up the scutum from the Samnites during the Samnite Wars (343-304 BC), then the

Romans had been utilizing this piece of equipment for two to three centuries by the time of

writing. As many modern historians comment, the ancients were not always true to the facts.

What had become tradition by their time they often presented as fact in their writings. This

allows for a large amount of anachronisms to assume the mantle of fact in their works. Since the

ancients were not truly concerned with the provenance of materials, reliance upon the ancients as

a definitive source is questionable at best, unless other forms of evidence can back it.

The other forms of evidence, artistic and archaeological, do not offer much to elucidate this question. As stated above, shields simply do not survive in the archaeological record. The generally organic nature of shields leads to rapid deterioration when discarded and left in the field after actions, or left in weapons hordes and buried when the Roman abandoned forts.

Because of this, very few have survived to modern times. The predominate form of information

6 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 23,2.6.; Sallust, Bellum Catilinae, 51,37-38.

151 archaeologically about shields comes from goatskin shield covers.7 How they survived when the

shield did not is unknown, but it might have something to do with the tanning process acting as a

preservative for the shield covers. Most that have survived, such as the Dura Europos shield

described above, do not date back to the adoption period of this particular piece of equipment.

This specific shield dates to the mid-third century AD. As such, it is six centuries past the

adoption date. With the centuries difference between adoption and the era from which the find

originated, there are bound to be some changes between what we see, the equipment as it was

when it the Romans adopted it, and what the authors described from roughly the halfway point

between the two.

The failings of archaeology mean the only thing left to back the written records is

iconographic records. Here, there is more to substantiate the origins of the scutum.

Unfortunately, the artistic sources tend to go against the written sources. In looking at the iconic

evidence from the Samnites of the mid first millennium BC, the largely accepted originators of

the scutum, we are again at the mercy of history. This time, however, it is human interference

instead of ecological. Much of the structural evidence of the pre-Roman Samnites succumbed to the ravages of World War II. The bombings and artillery barrages of the Italian Campaign (July

1943-May 1945) destroyed most of the surviving Samnite tomb sites and architectural ruins. The only thing left to go on are the few Samnite vases obtained from the urn fields outside of Capua, the description of the tomb paintings by early Samnite archaeologist F. Weege from the early

20th century, and some sketches and early 20th century era photographs of the tomb paintings that

were already crumbling at the time of photographing.8 This amounts to a very scant and sketchy

7 Chris Thomas, “Claudius and the Roman Army Reforms,” Historia: Zeitshcrift für Alte Gescheichte 53, 4 (2004): 449.

8 Gisela Schneider-Hermann, The Samnites of the Fourth Century BC: As Depicted on Campanian Vases and Other Sources (London: University of London, 1996): 3.

152 set of sources upon which to base the origins of one of the more iconic and important pieces of

Roman military equipment. Regardless, we use what we have.

According to the images that have survived, the Samnite panoply is very reminiscent of

the Hittite equipment seen in the artwork from Hattusas. It is also remarkably similar to the

Mycenaean equipment seen on artwork from Corinth dating to the 17th century BC.9 This would

indicate that the Samnites themselves were adopters of military equipment they found useful

from the east. The dates would match up to the rise of major Etruscan settlements in the northern

portion of the peninsula (see chapter 2). Common to the Samnite warrior was either a triple disc

chest piece or a muscled cuirass with the difference most likely based on class of the user. The

lowest class of warrior, some experts opine, used linen armor, a rare armor material for the

Italian Peninsula.10 They preferred an Attic style helm from Greece with the Celtic style helmet

being very rare.11 For armaments, the Samnites preferred the spear and shield. While swords can

be seen in the iconographic evidence, they are rare while almost every warrior carried at least

one spear (two spears was more common).12

Our main concern, however, is with the shields. If the Romans, according to most of the

ancient authors, adopted the scutum from the Samnites, then the extant images should be replete

with warriors carrying the oblong body shield. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The majority

of images of Samnite warriors show them carrying round shields.13 These shields are almost

identical to the Greek shield commonly associated with hoplite warfare. Images show them

9 Schneider-Hermann, The Samnites of the Fourth Century BC, 12.

10 Schneider-Hermann, The Samnites of the Fourth Century BC, 46 – 50.; Gregory S. Aldrete, Scott Bartell, and Alicia Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor; Unraveling the Linothorax Mystery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University press, 2013), 167 – 168.

11 Schneider-Hermann, The Samnites of the Fourth Century BC, 5.

12 Schneider-Hermann, The Samnites of the Fourth Century BC, 69.

13 Schneider-Hermann, The Samnites of the Fourth Century BC, 65.

153 going from shoulder to mid-thigh. They also employ the Argive grip (see Figures 6.3 and 6.4).

The Argive grip was a development of Greek city-states in the eight or seventh centuries BC.14 It employed a central loop that rested just in front of the elbow allowing the forearm to pass through and the wielder to grasp a handle placed just inside the rim of the shield. The result was a change in the way the shield worked.

Figure 6.3: Nola tomb frieze of Samnite warrior; 4th cent BC. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samnite_soldiers_from_a_tomb_frieze_in_Nola_4th_century_ BCE.jpg)

14 A.M. Snodgrass, “The Hoplite Reform and History,” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 85 (1965): 111.

154 Figure 6.4: Crater from tomb 1005 at Caudium 4th century BC (Source: Source: Di Giovangiulio, Renzo. La Figura del Soldato Come Eroe Antico. Rome: Ministry of Culutrla Heritage and Activities and Tourism (2016): page 10.)

When a shield has a central handle, it falls upon the user to carry the full weight of the shield on the wrist. Experts estimate most shields of this period to be between 12 and 20 pounds

(5.4-9 kg).15 This puts a lot of force on the off hand (usually the left) of the soldier employing the shield. It also takes a decent amount of training to get used to the weight of the shield and to teach the wielder how to employ it. Once trained, however, the shield becomes an extension of his arm. It has almost full coverage of his body, the only limitation being the rear right quarter.

He can defend above his head as easily as he does his front. He can also punch with the shield boss, giving him a 20 pound brass (or iron) knuckle in his off hand with which to strike.

15 Raffaele D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier: From Marius to Commodus, 112 BC – AD 192 (London: Frontline Books, 2009): 25.

155 The shield with an Argive grip changes this. By using a two point system, the weight of the shield distributes along the forearm instead of being placed entirely on the wrist. It also allows the shield to ride closer to the body giving the soldier a tighter form of cover that increases the defensive factor. Finally, while the Argive grip does have a handle, the user does not have to grasp it. The handle acts as a second loop that goes over the palm. This secures the shield in place but leaves the off hand free to hold something else, such as another spear or to place it along the shaft of a very heavy primary spear (the Macedonian sarissa for instance).

While this system does seem to be preferred, it limits the usefulness of the shield. With the shield, especially one of this size, strapped to the forearm in this manner, raising it above your head to protect from missile fire becomes exceedingly difficult unless you want to crouch down behind it. It also limits the defensive arc of the shield to the 180 degrees of the left side.

Swinging it around to protect the right side is nearly impossible. You also lose the punch of the shield boss. Admittedly, those who trained extensively with this form of shield (the Spartans for instance) could overcome these limitations. Those who did not, however, could only utilize the shield in its most basic manner. This is acceptable if your main user is a conscript or citizen soldier. If your main user is a professional soldier or your main enemy is one employing an overabundance of missile weapons, however, the central grip shield is preferred.

By using these shields, the Samnites clearly show a Near Eastern/Balkan influence in their military makeup. While ancient writers indicate that they did not adopt the full phalanx style of fighting, iconic evidence indicates they did adopt the equipment of their Greek and

Etruscan neighbors. Since this is the case, how did the Romans adopt the scutum from the

Samnites?

As the evidence does not support a Samnite origin for the scutum, we must look

156 elsewhere. In other areas of our investigations, we have looked to the Celts for the source of

Roman military technological innovation. Several modern scholars even credit the Celts for the

inspiration behind the scutum.16 Unfortunately, that will not work here. There is no evidence,

literary, iconographic, or archaeological, to support scutum style shields as anything more than a

rare outlier in the Celtic communities. While there was a Celtic community in the Iberian

Peninsula called the Scutati, they are not the originators of the scutum.17 These people were so

called by the Romans due to their use of a scutum-like shield, but the Romans were already

employing this style of shield two centuries prior to encountering these people. Furthermore,

these were the only Celtic people to utilize this shield type for foot troops. Most Celtic peoples

preferred a thick, rounded shield, made of planks of wood with a central handle and boss when

they deigned to use a shield at all.18 Celts commonly used two-hand weapons which precluded

the use of a shield altogether. The only Celtic warriors who would use a long shield akin to the scutum were cavalry. The need to protect from shoulder down to shin while sitting on a horse meant a longer shield was necessary. While the Romans may have adopted the Celtic cavalry

shield for use with their horsemen, a topic beyond the preview of this particular investigation, the

infantry shield does not match enough in dimensions to say it came from the Celtic cavalry

shield.

Since the traditional sources of Roman military inspiration have failed us, we must go

further back. It is by reaching back to a time more distant than the Samnite Wars (First Samnite

16 Micahel Simkins, The Roman Army: From Caesar to Trajan, (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1984), 22.; Juliusz Tomczak, “Roman Military Equipment in the 4th Century BC: Pilum, Scutum, and the Introduction of Manipular Tactics,” Folia Archaeologica 29 (2012): 39. 17 Dániel Varga, The Roman Wars in Spain: The Military Confrontation with Guerilla Warfare (Barnsley, England; Pen & Sword Military, 2015), 113. 18 Peter Wilcox, Barbarians Against Rome: Rome’s Celtic, German, Spanish, and Gallic Enemies (London: Osprey Publishing Ltd. , 2000): 68.

157 War 343-341 BC) that we find what we seek. The scutum design, albeit flat instead of curved,

was a shield common to the pre-orientalized peoples of the Italian Peninsula. The oldest

surviving evidence for a scutum styled shield comes from an aes signatum that dates to circa 290

BC.19 There is also evidence of scutum style shield in use by other Italic peoples, such as the

Oscans and Umbrians, dating to the pre-orientalizing period.20 Since it is known that the Oscans

in particular, used traditional or “outdated” equipment at the time the Romans began their

domination of central Italy, the Romans easily could have readopted this form of shield from

their “backward” Italic cousins.21 My theory is that the Romans, encountering problems with

both the Celts and the Samnites in the war torn fourth century BC, needed a shield that allowed

better defense against the superior armament of the Celts and the high use of missile weapons

from the Samnites. The Argive shield adopted from the Greeks through the Etruscans did not do

enough defensively for both of these emergencies. The scutum allowed for better defenses

against the skilled arms wielding (swords for instance) of the Celts, and its higher mobility

allowed for better defensive coverage against missile attacks of the Samnites. By returning to the

previous version of equipment, the Romans were better able to defend themselves and respond to

both threats.

The literary evidence supports this theory. Plutarch tells us that the scutum was brought

in to use by the Romans under the direction of Camillus.22 This roughly corresponds to the

19 Tomczak, “Roman Military Equipment in the 4th Century,” 52. 20 E.T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967): 65. 21 Eugene Stock McCarthy, “Military Indebtedness of the Early Romans to Etruria,” Memoirs 36, 1 (1917): 123, 129. 22 Plutarch, Camillus, 40.4. While the existence of a man named Camillus is generally acceded, the events attributed to him are thought to be the stuff of legend. Even the ancient Romans did not believe that Camillus was personally responsible for all these events, but, lacking any supporting evidence to the contrary, bowed to Roman tradition and left the exploits stand. [Livy, Ab Urbe Condita VI,1.; Georges Dumézil and Georges Edmond Raoul, Camillus: A Study of Indo-European Religion as Roman History (Berkley: University of California Press, 1980), 45 – 46.]

158 Roman military evolution away from the phalanx armies of the previous few centuries (see

chapter 3). During these reforms, Camillus required a change in Roman armaments to match

better the Celts who had just sacked Rome and were raiding Italy. Plutarch implies that the

change took place very quickly with little need for training in the new equipment or time to

manufacture it. This could only have happened if this equipment already existed for the Romans

to use.

Livy tells us that the Romans made the change to the scutum during the siege of Veii.23

According to modern dating, this siege took place at some point between 405-396 BC. The

adoption of these shields, if we believe Livy’s timeline, predates the Samnite Wars by half a

century. It is also the period in which, according to Livy, the Roman army began to be paid and

became somewhat professionalized. This means that the skills needed to use a full-body, central

boss shield like the scutum developed in the Roman soldiers. The need for simple tactics and

massed formation was receding as the Roman legionary became better versed in his equipment

and the needs of warfare. It also corresponds to what Plutarch tells us about the reforms

undertaken by Camillus since the siege preceded the Sack of Rome by only about a decade.

Artistic sources also support the existence of scutum-type shields at the beginning of the

fourth century. Etruscan tomb art, such as the Situla Arnoaldi, show a line of soldiers wielding

rectangular shields and carrying spears. (See Image 6-5) These shields are almost exact images of early Roman scuta. They reach from shoulder to shin (if scale is taken to be accurate), have a central boss and are of a spinal construction.24 The fact that this pail was included in an early

23 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 8,8.3. 24 A spina is a wooden midrib running from the top of the shield to the bottom through the boss. There will sometimes also be a cross spina horizontally through the middle. There is never a horizontal without a vertical, but there may be a vertical without a horizontal. The spina was added to increase the strength of the middle portion of the shield against heavy blows from large projectiles like stones or shot or against heavy hand weapons such as axes and two-handed swords.

159 fourth-century Etruscan grave indicates that this type of armament, while not the most popular in

Etruscan military circles, was common enough in Italy to be included in high end grave goods. It also shows that the Romans had access to this type of gear prior to any major confrontation with the Celts or Samnites.

None of this evidence is conclusive enough to declare that any of these theories is more accurate than another. All it truly tells us is that we do not know. The only thing we can definitively say is that the Romans began using the scutum in the early to mid-fourth century BC.

Whether they got it from another source or returned to a more “primitive” form of indigenous

Italian armament is unclear. That does not mean, however, that the Romans did not develop this piece of equipment on their own.

Like any other piece of military technology the Romans adopted, the Romans altered and improved upon the scutum throughout its use in the Roman military. The original scutum was a flat ovoid shaped shield with a central boss made of wood and a spina for extra support and strength.25 This changed in the early Principate. The Romans shortened the ovoid shield by truncating it and it began to take on the characteristic curve of the traditional scutum. At some point between the Mid-Republic and Principate periods, the spina disappeared as well.26 This is most likely due to a change in the construction technique used to produce these shields.

Originally, the Romans made shields by gluing together two layers of wood at right angles to each other. Ox glue held the layers together and nails around the edge increased the strength of the conglomerate. A circular hole in the center allowed a handle, which they then covered by a wooden (or possibly bronze) boss.27 During the Principate, the construction

25 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 25. 26 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 101. 27 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 24

160 changed. Scutum construction now consisted of three layers of plywood still arranged at right angles.28 One major difference between the two constructs is in the nature of the components.

During the latter third of the first millennium BC, shield wood comprised whole planks. By the time of the Principate, shield makers began to use smaller strips of wood to construct the shield body. This most likely allowed them to make better use of the wood by removing suspect material, around knots for instance, that could weaken the overall product and made the shields cheaper to manufacture. It also helped in introducing the curve to the shield as the thinner strips of wood could bend easier and with less overall distress to the finished product than could a solid plank. A side effect of doing this was to remove the need for adding the spina since the overall construction of the shield was now stronger even without one.

Construction finished only with the addition of the outer adornments. Most of the adornments aided the shield in resisting the elements or the enemy, but some only improved aesthetics. Most Roman shields received some type of organic facing, linen or, more likely, leather.29 This protected the underlying shield body from weather and prevented the seams from weakening. Each shield then received a u-shaped brass fitting to cover the edges of the shield.30

There is no evidence of this trim on early Roman shields, but the writings of the ancients indicate it was added about the time of the Celtic Sack of Rome and the Samnite Wars.31 This metal trim protected the shield from dirt and water when resting on the ground and from the downward stroke of an enemy’s weapon.

The final piece used in the construction of a Roman scutum is the boss, or umbo.

28 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 92. 29 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 101. 30 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 92. 31 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 61.; Plutarch, Camillus, 40.

161 Originally, these were wood. Nails held them in place and the spinae, if the shield had one,

radiated from this center.32 The fact that this piece was originally made of wood implies the

ancient origins of this form of shield. The boss serves two purposes. The first and main purpose

is the cover the hand of the soldier underneath it. The central handle, or ansa, was a vertical grip

in the center of the shield flush with the main body of the shield. By putting it flush, it allowed

the soldier to support the shield with one hand at its center of gravity. In order to do that,

however, the shield had to have a hole in the center to allow the handle to fit. This left the hand

of the wielder exposed to the dangers of combat. A boss protected the hand by forming a dome

over it. The second use of the boss was as a cestus. While not exactly a plated glove as a

traditional cestus should be, the wood, bronze, or iron dome that was the boss covered the closed

fist of the soldier wielding the shield. It is too much to ask a soldier equipped in such a way not

to try to hit his enemy with that boss. Instead, the Romans trained legionaries to do so.33 This

allowed the soldier to wield a second weapon alongside their spear or sword that delivered

tremendous amounts of damage if it connected.

Both of these uses of the boss expose its fault, however. Being an added piece instead of

an integral part of the shield makes the boss a weakness. The fasteners can give way under

extreme use exposing the hand underneath. Since wood is a breakable component and a boss

must be hollowed in order to function as it should by making the early bosses in wood, it implies

that the early Italic peoples made bosses well before they developed metallurgical skills to make

them out of bronze or iron. This adds circumstantial evidence to the idea that the scutum developed prior to the Near Eastern influence period of Roman history as an indigenous Italic military tool.

32 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 25. 33 Adrian Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare (London: Orion Books, 2007), 134.

162 Over time, the Romans would revert to the unbent oblong shield. This appears to begin during the Antonine period (second century AD).34 It is not surprising this reversion happened, and even less surprising it happened when it did. It is during the late Principate we begin to see a form of standardization happening in the Roman army. As we saw in the discussion of body armor, and we will see again in the discussion of swords, it is during the end of the Principate immediately prior to the Third Century Crisis that a simplification in Roman arms begins.

Equipment used by multiple branches, such as swords, shields, and armor, began to standardize under the needs of the most restrictive branch: the cavalry. When it came to shields, cavalry could not use curved shields. They needed them to be flat so they were usable from horseback.

They also could not readily use square shields. Cavalry shields need a taper at the bottom to wield effectively around the flanks of the horse. At this time, there was no system for general issue of equipment by the Roman government. The government did not enact that kind of system until the development of fabricae under the Tetrarchy in the late third century.35 Since it was simpler and cheaper for the Roman government to provide only one type of equipment for all arms, the infantry adopted the cavalry shield since the cavalry could not use the infantry version.

Thus Rome returned to the oblong flat shield used during the Republic period, although the curved scutum of the Principate still showed signs of usage and was slow to disappear from the legions.36

Other shields do appear in the Roman panoply, but are of limited use. The most common other form of shield is the Roman clipeus. This was the Roman version of the Greek aspis or

34 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 105. 35 Pat Southern and Karen Ramsey Dixon, The Late Roman Army (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 89. While government manufacture centers (fabricae) did not exist prior to Diocletian, these centers were established at large scale production centers that specialized in making military goods for use by the legions. It was only under Diocletian that these centers became government controlled. 36 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 137.

163 hoplon. It was a large round bronze shield with an Argive grip utilized by the Romans,

predominately during their phalanx period (c.625-400 BC). Once the Romans made the change to

the scutum, the clipeus fell out of general use and was rarely employed by Romans with one

exception. Officers in the Roman army used the clipeus.37 I would attribute the continued use of

this particular shield type a Roman respect for Greek tradition. In essence, the same reason

officers continued to use the muscled cuirass even after a better form of armor had developed is

the same reason they used the clipeus. It was good enough for Alexander.

As for other shield shapes employed during the Roman Empire, their use fell

predominately to auxilia. Auxilia used a variety of different shields, all of them flat. Shapes

could be ovoid, rectangular, or hexagonal.38 Curved shields were specifically limited to the

legions. Smaller versions of the clipeus, called a parma velitaris, were employed by the velites in the Pre-Marian Roman forces.39 With the elimination of Roman light troops, however, the use of

this shield ceased.

Shafted Weapons

The weapon most commonly used alongside a shield in the ancient world was the spear.

The spear is one of the oldest weapons known to man and dates back to at least the Middle

Paleolithic era.40 Since its invention, mankind relied heavily on the spear in most of his

aggressive pursuits, be that warfare or hunting. Because of this, the spear took on heavy

symbolic meanings as well as a martial one. It, along with the shield, is the basis of the symbol

37 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 49. 38 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 91. 39 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 49. 40 Arther Ferrill, The Origins of War: from the Stone Age to Alexander the Great (London: Thames and Hudson, 1985), 13.

164 for male (♂). Many cultures use it as a symbol for state power.41 The Romans used it as an

award for valor.42 They also used it as a ceremonial way to declare war.43

Like shields, spears are extremely difficult to determine origins. This is mostly due to the age of the weapon type in general. Spears are one of the oldest armaments known to Man.

Evidence of their existence dates back 70,000 years or more.44 From its invention, a version of

that weapon has been in constant use until the modern era. If you count bayonets on a rifle as a

spear then they are still employed by modern militaries. This makes the spear the single most

common weapon used in human history. Tracing the ultimate origins would be impossible.

Suffice it say, Rome was established with the use of the spear already known. This technology is

old enough to come to Italy with the initial migrations of humanity.

The most famous spears used by the Roman military system throughout its long existence

were the hasta and the pilum. The former was the name applied to the heavy infantry spear

dating to beginnings of the city. The latter is the name given to the Roman general use thrown

weapon. While the pilum is by definition a javelin, over time the use of that word refers to a specific weapon. A javelin is any spear-like weapon designed to be thrown and is used as a generic term. Pilum is a specific term used to indicate a spear composed of a wooden shaft and an iron shank.45

In looking for the origins of these weapons, hasta and pilum, we encounter the same

issues that plagued us with shields. Ancient authors do not usually remark on the origins of

41 Andrew Arföldi, “Hasta-summa Imperii: The Spear as Embodiment of Sovereignty in Rome,” American Journal of Archaeology 63, 1(Jan 1959): 3. 42 Polybius Histores, 6.39.3. 43 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1.32. According to Livy, the Romans traditionally declared war by having an official called a fetial recite an affirmation of faith and holiness in the pursuit of war and then cast a spear, either fire- hardened wood or iron tipped, across the border of the state against whom they are declaring war. 44 Ferrill, The Origins of War, 16. 45 M.C. Bishop, The Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2017), 11.

165 equipment. When they do, they often contradict each other. Artistic evidence is shaky and

unclear. This is largely due to the lack of needed detail in the renditions of the weapons depicted.

We can honestly forgive the artists, however. How does one indicate the difference between a

socketed and a tanged spear in stone carvings? Archaeologically, the spear does not survive as a

complete weapon very often. Largely made of organic materials, the spear commonly decays to

only the head and butt with maybe a few pins or nails by the times the archaeologists manage to

find them. The result is that one must rely on conjecture and circumstantial analysis to establish

the provenance of these military tools.

The first weapon to examine is the hasta. This is a heavy spear, usually between six and

seven feet (1.8-2.1 m) long with a metal, originally bronze and later replaced with iron, head and

butt. The spearhead was ordinarily leaf-shaped, although bodkins have been found, and usually socketed onto the shaft.46 Experts think the Romans used ash as the main wood type for spear

shafts.47 No evidence indicates whether these shafts were fire hardened or left natural. My

thoughts are that the Romans fire hardened them to increase durability. If they did not, these

weapons would be about as sturdy as a standard modern garden rake. Trying to use that to drive

a metal point through a shield or armored torso most likely would result in a snapped spear shaft.

The look and employment of the hasta is exceedingly similar to the spear used by Greek

hoplites. While the spear predates any of the classical civilization in the Italian Peninsula, odds

are the hasta is a specific variant of spear introduced to the Romans during the period of heavy

Greek military influence. I predicate this on a few pieces of evidence. The first is that the

Romans went through a known Greek phase of military development. During that phase, they adopted phalanx style formations and tactics (see chapter 3). In adopting the Greek style of

46 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 12. 47 Bishop, The Pilum, 27.

166 fighting, the Romans also adopted the equipment used by the Greeks in order to emulate properly

the manner of combat employed by their Mediterranean neighbors.48 This most likely means the

spear as well as the body armor and shield associated with a Greek style hoplite.

The second bit of information, however, lends credence to this hypothesis. Pliny the

Elder, in his list of military equipment origins, credits the spear’s invention to the Spartans.49 By

the time of Pliny’s writing, the Spartans had firmly established their reputation as warriors, so his

attribution of the spear to them could be a form of hero association used to give the Roman

military a better reputation. By doing so, however, Pliny indicates that this piece of equipment,

along with the helmet and sword, were Greek in origin. This would lead me to believe that this

particular style of spear used in the early Republic during the phalanx period of Roman warfare

was a Greek import.

Probably the biggest issue in assigning the origins of the hasta comes from the Roman

proclivity to use the names of weapons interchangeably.50 A quick internet search will reveal over twenty terms in Latin alone for spear. Most of these terms are specific types of weapons and the name indicates it. Several indicate the types of wood used in their construct, such as cornus

(a spear made of cherry wood). Others indicate a specific use for the spear, such as a venabulum

(a spear specifically used for hunting). The generic term for all of them is hasta, however. This

means that if the Romans changed to the traditional heavy footman’s spear, the hasta, at the time

of the Greek phase of Roman military development, the name of the previous Roman polearm

has been either forgotten or eclipsed by the new name for the new style of spear in use. By the

time of the extant ancient writers, hasta had become synonymous with spear so much that the

48 T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000 – 264BC) (New York: Routledge, 1995), 184. 49 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 7,56. 50 Tomczak, “Roman Military Equipment in the 4th Century,” 40.

167 Romans used it almost exclusively. The only difference considered in Latin writings was ethnic

use of weapons. The Romans did denote differing families of weapons by using the foreign term

for weapons carried by foreign troops.51 If a Roman writer used a Greek or Celtic term for a

spear (doru/longchê/sarissa or gaesum respectively), the soldier was most likely Greek or Celtic.

His weapon might not look appreciably different from the Roman form, though.

The hasta remained the main battle spear of the Roman infantry from its adoption in the

mid-first millennium BC to the end of the Western Empire. That is not to say that it was the main

weapon for that entire time. The Romans replaced it as the main infantry weapon with the

gladius during the last centuries of the first millennium BC (see chapter 7). Even though they replaced it as their main line weapon, however, the hasta remained part of their arsenal and saw use, especially by auxilia and garrison troops.52

The real problematic Roman weapon for the purposes of this investigation is the pilum.

This is the name traditionally ascribed to the Roman throwing spear. I do not call it a javelin

because the Romans had those as well and usually used a different term, telum, to reference

them. Other than the gladius, the weapon most associated with the Romans is the pilum. Rare is

it in modern popular culture that depictions of Roman soldiers, in print or motion media, do not

show them carrying this weapon. Its distinctive appearance shouts “Roman” almost as well as

placing a name placard on them. The origins of the pilum are just as difficult to ascertain,

however, as is its defensive counterpart.

The problem with ascertaining the origins of the pilum is not that there are no clues as to

51 Tomczak, “Roman Military Equipment in the 4th Century,” 40. 52 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 151. Bishop and Coulston show the continued use of heavy spears with metal butts well into the Antonine period of Roman history. These artifacts come from British, German, and Danubian sites showing their use across the Western Empire. Little iconographic evidence depicts legionnaires using spears, and those that do are found on the Danubian frontier where encounters with mounted enemies were more common. Auxiliaries, however, are stationed at all areas spears are found.

168 its genesis. Instead, any number of possible sources could have contributed this weapon to the

Roman panoply. Almost every society the Romans encountered had a version of the heavy

javelin, including the Romans themselves.53 Narrowing down the actual origins of this particular

weapon class is exceedingly difficult due to the popularity of this type of weapon, the inability of

the weapon to survive intact archaeologically, and the lack of knowledge presented from the

ancients.

In looking at the ancient authors, we see that even they are unsure as to the origins of this

weapon. Sallust claims the pilum is of Samnite origins.54 Athenaeus credits Punic origins with

the actual adoption by the Romans coming from contact with Carthage in Iberia.55 Festus tells us

this weapon is undoubtedly of Greek origin.56 Maurus Servius Honoratus, conversely, tells us that the pilum is a purely Roman invention.57 There are several problems with these authors,

however.

The first issue with all of them is the time of writing. The oldest writer among the group

is Sallust, writing in the first century BC. This is at least two centuries after the first appearance

of what can be called a pilum by arms historians.58 Artistic evidence of pilum-type weapons

come from a seventh century BC Etruscan copper situla from Certusa, Italy and from a tomb

fresco dating to the fourth century BC from Tarquinia, Italy (Figures 6.5 and 6.6). Additionally,

Gallic graves found in northern Italy dating to the fourth century BC have produced several

53 Bishop, The Pilum, 9. 54 Sallust, Bellum Caitlinae, 51. 37-38. 55 Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 6.106. 56 Festus, De verborum significatone, 327. 57 Maurus Servius Honoratus, In Vergilii Aeneidem Commentarii, 7.664 58 Bishop, The Pilum, 9.

169 pilum-type weapons.59 The others are even further removed having written in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries AD respectively. By this time, the Romans had so clouded the origins of the

pilum in tradition that it is doubtful if any of them truly knew whence it came. Additionally,

there lacks a consensus amongst a majority of the authors as to which tradition should

predominate. These factors would indicate that even the Romans did not know conclusively how

they came upon the pilum.

Figure 6.5: Situla Arnoaldi from tomb 104 at the Arnoaldi Necropolis c. 500-450 BC. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Situla_arnoaldi,_500- 450_ac._ca.,_da_tomba_104_necropoli_arnoaldi_03.JPG

Figure 6.6: Fresco from the Giglioli Tomb c. 300 BC. Source: http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi4163/files/tomb15.html

59 Bishop, The Pilum, 9.

170 There are several possibilities why this lack of memory might be. The first is that the

Romans in a fit of cultural pride and a sense of superiority did not wish to credit the origins of

the weapon to those from whom they took it. To do so might make that people appear better or

the Romans appear lesser in the eyes of those reading the histories. Since the peoples conquered

by the Romans seldom survived in any independent capacity long enough to write a history

themselves, the Romans could easily cover up the origins and steal credit for themselves. While I

would not put it past the Romans to do this, it seems odd that they would do it for this particular

weapon while not covering the adoption of all the other weapons and technologies. Either the

Romans so loathed the people from whom they took this platform that the Romans wanted to

cover up any mention of them, or, more likely, the Romans simply forgot from whom they

acquired this technology by the time historians managed to discuss the issue.

The second cause for the ancient authors to have a gap in their knowledge about the

origins of this weapon is that it was in such wide usage that figuring out the originators was

impossible even to the Romans. Archaeological and artisitc evidence shows that a myriad group

of people employed these types of weapons throughout sub-Alpine Europe. The earliest evidence of a pilum type weapon dates to the pre-Roman, Sabine peoples.60 Plutarch even credits the

Sabines with passing the weapon on to the Romans with the establishment of the city.61 Since so

many peoples used them, that the Romans used them as well is nothing of note to those earliest

historians. By the time it became an issue, the Romans had forgotten from whom they adopted

the pilum, and it was as much an academic question to them as it is to modern historians.

60 Eugene McCarthy, “The Genesis of Rome’s Military Equipment,” The Classical Weekly 6 #10 (Dec 21, 1912): 76. 61 Plutarch, Romulus 21.

171 The final possibility for the Romans questioning the origins of the pilum is that is truly is

a Roman invention. While other peoples used weapons that performed the same function in the

same manner of use, the Roman version of this weapon was thought to have to come from other

places as did so many other Roman era technologies. The Roman authors simply did not

recognize the steady evolution of the platform over time to create a truly unique weapon. After

all, they so rarely saw true technological development from within the Roman system. This left

them asking who developed the pilum when the answer was right in front of them.

Artistic information is just as nebulous. Images from around Italy depict pilum-like

weapons as far back as the seventh century BC. Most of these images come from the Etruscan

region of northern Italy (Figures 6.6 and 6.7). Unfortunately, there is no way to distinguish the type of spear depicted in the images as the images lack in details. Are these throwing spears the forerunners of the pilum, or are they artistic renderings of heavy spears with little attention paid to the details that distinguish a hasta from a pilum? The lack of detail is largely due to the artists not spending time on the spears, but instead simply squeezing them into the space left from the rest of the image.62 Due to this, modern researchers cannot even be sure if the scale is correct for

these weapons.

By the time the artistic renderings are clear enough to indicate these are definitely pila,

the establishment of the weapon as a Roman mainstay had already happened and the artistic

evidence is rather pointless for establishing origins. They are useful for looking at the

development and evolution of the weapon, however. The later artistic evidence, especially the

evidence rendered in tombstone depictions, is an excellent corroborator for the archaeological evidence, for it is from archaeology that the best evidence for establishing provenance comes.

62 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 76.

172 Figure 6.7: Chigi Vase: Protocorinthian style found in Etr tomb at Monte Aguzzo. Dated to 650-640 BC. First appearance of a fully dressed out hoplite (Source: “The Chigi Vase,” GJCL Classical Art History, accessed 17 March 2019. http://gjclarthistory.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-chigi-vase.html)

The earliest archaeological evidence that the pilum was definitely Roman dates to the late

third and early second centuries BC. These specimens come from Talamonaccio, Italy, Castellruf,

Spain, and Šmihel, Slovenia.63 These weapons became common throughout the Mediterranean

region by the mid-second century BC and remained in Roman military sites until sometime in the second century AD.64 Evidence of pilum use prior to and after this period is problematic to

determine due to the nature of the weapon itself.

The Roman pilum comes in two forms: light and heavy varieties. The light variety is

exceedingly difficult to distinguish from the plethora of other throwing spears used throughout

the Mediterranean region during the period. The javelin was an exceedingly common weapon in

southern Italy in the pre-Roman period with the oldest light pilum haft matching Polybius’s

63 Bishop, The Pilum, 11. 64 Bishop, The Pilum, 22.

173 description dating to the fifth century BC.65 Additionally, not only was it the most common

weapon found in graves from that era, often it was the only weapon found.66 As a result, remains of the light javelin, the weapon considered the forerunner of the light pilum, turn up in almost every military related dig site in the Italian Peninsula from the fifth century BC on.

Distinguishing between the light pilum and other versions of light javelin is nigh impossible.

Several scholars try to find similarities and point to the origins based on these findings.

The two earliest theories, based on the findings of early twentieth century archaeological

expeditions, spawned the discussion on the sources of the pilum. Adolphe Reinach in 1907

credits the pilum with Samnite origins based on the remnants of light javelins found throughout

central Italy.67 A few years later in 1914, Adolf Schulten proposed the Romans adopted it at the

same time as the gladius from the peoples of the Iberian Peninsula. He bases this on the

similarities between the pilum and the Celt-Iberian weapon called the solliferreum, so called due

to its being made out of only iron.68 Unfortunately, this same type of weapon is found in military

dig sites dating to second century BC throughout the Mediterranean basin. Due to this plethora of

other finds, one cannot conclusively say that the Romans attained this weapon from either the

central Italian or Iberian source. The result is a continuing argument as to the ultimate source for

this weapon.

The key to the answer to that question, however, does not lie with the light pilum. This

particular weapon has little to distinguish it from others of its ilk. It is usually about eight feet

(2.4m) in total length with a wooden shaft about 74 inches (188cm) and a metal shank ending in

65 Tomczak, “Roman Military Equipment in the 4th Century,” 44 - 45. 66 Tomczak, “Roman Military Equipment in the 4th Century,” 45. 67 Bishop, The Pilum, 7. 68 Bishop, The Pilum, 7-8.

174 a spear point between 16 and 35inches (40-90cm).69 Heads on the weapon tended to be

pyramidal instead of barbed, most likely to add weight to the front of the pilum to assist in

making sure it landed point first and to aid in armor penetration.70

Archaeologists find weapons resembling these throughout the Mediterranean. The oldest

rendition of this weapon found thus far comes from southern Italy and dates to the fifth century

BC.71 Unfortunately, none of the specimens found match precisely the description given by

Polybius.72 Furthermore, weapons closely matching this type commonly appear in the Celtic

cemeteries of the Po Valley and around La Tène as well.73 Some of these weapons resemble the

Celt-Iberian solliferreum (this particular word has many different spellings), but most are a hybrid wood/iron mixed weapon. What makes these different from the Roman version is how those two parts join.

An examination of spear points, both hasta and pilum, attached to a shaft through socketing found in museums shows the Romans had a propensity for attaching the two parts together by nailing them. This is accomplished by drilling holes in the metal plate of the socket.

The shaft is then driven into the socket and nails are used to secure the head to the shaft (Figure

6.8). Several specimen also exhibit seams in the metal socket. This indicates that, at some point,

the socket was forge welded (Figure 6.9). Odds are this was done in the construction of the

socket itself, rounding a flat piece of iron and welding it to itself to form the socket, but it does

not preclude the actual use of forge welding the socket around a shaft at the time of production.

69 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 67. For the purpose of this work, the word shaft is used to denote the wooden pole used in spear construction while shank is used to denote the iron portion of the pole that also contains an integral metal head. 70 Bishop, The Pilum, 12. 71 Tomczak, “Roman Military Equipment in the 4th Century,” 45. 72 Polybius, Histories, 6.22.4 73 Bishop, The Pilum, 9.

175 Unfortunately, no Roman arms construction manuals or details from historic writers survive, nor do artistic renderings provide enough detail to answer this question.

Figure 6.8: Roman light pilum socketed shank. From the Munich Archaeological Museum. (Source: http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-spear.html)

Figure 6.9: Two Roman iron spear heads form 1st-3rd century AD. While source is questionable, this image does show a large welding seam along the top of the first spearhead. (Image courtesy of Gabriel Vandervoort and AncientResources.com. http://www.ancientresource.com/lots/roman/spears-arrow-heads.html)

Socketing is the most common method of spear manufacturing in the ancient world.

Almost all spears utilize this method. It allows for ease in construction, provides a stable and

strong joint, and makes for easy repairs in the field. Because of this manner of construction,

determining the origins of a spear is exceedingly difficult based solely on the remains of the

weapon. The identification of most spears occurs usually in the contextual evidence surrounding

their finding. What other weapons were found with them? Whose grave was this? The spear

comes from the territory of what people? These are the criteria for identification. Spears are

simply too ubiquitous to identify by the few pieces that remain.

176 One of the few exceptions to this is the Roman heavy pilum. The heavy pilum, unlike its light counterpart, usually attached to the shaft with a tang instead of a socket. Tang construction is much more developed and time consuming than is socket construction. It requires not only the work of a smith and forge for the initial construction, but the work of a carpenter with at least a small amount of skill. The result is a much stronger and more reliable weapon, however. Most metal weapons such as swords and daggers use a tang construction. Spears may also use this form of construction, but it is rare due to the nature of the weapon.

Figure 6.10: Gladius hilt construction. The central triangular piece is the tang. This example is a through tang meaning it goes all the way from the blade through the entire hilt and out the back of the pommel. The scale in this case is a solid piece of bone (usually cow) that has been indexed for a secure grip. A solid wood or bronze pommel is then placed over the tang and the piece of the tang that sticks through is either heated and peened to hold the pommel in place, or the end of the tang is threaded and a nut is screwed onto the end to secure the pommel. The difference between peening and threading is usually the difference between officers and other ranks. (Source: Jacqui Watson, “A Composite Gladius Hilt from Dorset,” Center for Archaeology Report 28 (2004): 4)

In forging (or casting if making of bronze), weapons that undergo a shearing force (a

force imparted by a swinging motion), need a much stronger handle assembly than do those that

use a compressive force such as a thrusting weapon. To ensure that the handle stays attached,

early smiths developed the tang. The tang is the rear portion of the metal billet used to make the

main blade (Figure 6.10). Instead of removing it, the smith lengthens and thins out the remaining

metal to serve as the core of the weapon’s handle. The weight of a tang in ancient and classical

era smithing usually corresponds to that of the blade to assist in counterbalancing the forward

177 portion of the weapon.74 Since the same piece of metal comprises both blade and hilt, there are no joints to weaken the weapon.

This manner of construction makes a stronger overall build than a socket or simply riveting a separate handle to a blade as first generation swords did. The shearing force of use may still snap the tang off the blade destroying the weapon. It is simply less likely. In the case of a sword, scales are added directly to the tang in order to allow the wielder a comfortable grip with which to use the weapon. In the case of a shafted weapon, such as a spear or other polearm, the wooden shaft is split in the center of the front end and the tang inserted into the split.75 Then, either it is nailed in place or the end of the shaft is tied back together with leather thongs which securer the spearhead via the tang through a vise-like friction grip. This is usually not a good method for a thrusting weapon such as a spear. When a tanged spearhead hits a hard surface, there is a high probability that the force of the thrust will drive the tang of the spearhead further back into the shaft of the spear splitting the shaft and destroying the weapon. This is the reason most spears are socketed instead of tanged. The compressive force of a thrust on a socketed spearhead would only seat the head more firmly on the pole.

Several early peoples used tangs for javelins. In this regard, the Romans are not the first.

However, the weapon is not truly a pilum in the Roman sense simply because it uses a tang construction. A pilum is a specific type of weapon used in a specific way. Unlike most javelins, the pilum is a dual-purpose weapon. The pilum’s most common form of use is by casting, but it can also be employed as a thrusting melee weapon in the traditional manner. This fact was what separated the Roman heavy pilum from the general class of heavy javelins that existed

74 In overly large weapons such as a Celtic longsword, the tang normally is no longer than what can fit in two fists. This creates a two-handed sword. Increasing the weight to counterbalance the blade portion requires the addition of guards and pommels. 75 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 7.

178 throughout the classical world. It is in the development of this dual characteristic that the

Romans invented their own weapon.

For most students of ancient warfare, the pilum was a casting weapon that bent on impact to prevent its return use by the opposition. Unfortunately, popular culture has seized on an incidental facet of the weapon and missed its true purpose. The pilum was not a weapon intended to remove an enemy’s shield. It was meant to kill. The pilum’s design, especially the heavy version, evolved to puncture an enemy’s defenses and maim or kill the man behind it.76 If it simply entangles a shield, that is an acceptable side effect, but it was not the intent of the weapon.

A heavy pilum was approximately 6 feet 6 inches (2 m) long with the forward section

(roughly 16 to 36 in (40-90cm)) made of soft iron metal.77 In this regard, it was built along the same lines as the light pilum. This similarity indicates that the heavy pilum evolved from the light pilum. We know heavy evolved out of the light due to finding numerous examples of light pilum remain that are much older than the oldest version of the heavy pilum. The major difference between the two types comes predominately in the junction of the metal shank to the wooden shaft. In all heavy pilum, the junction is of a tang construction. What makes the Roman pilum a truly Roman weapon is the invention of the splice-block. In other tanged spear constructs, the junction is made as described above. The Romans changed this to strengthen the weakest point in the weapon: the wood to metal joint. In a Roman pilum, the wooden shaft

(usually ash) started as a round pole between one and two inches (2-5 cm) in diameter.78 At the junction point, the pole flared out into a block. The block was an integral part of the shaft and not

76 Bishop, The Pilum, 4. 77 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 67. 78 Bishop, The Pilum, 26.

179 an addition added afterward. This was a much stronger method of manufacture, but it required

the work of at least a semi-skilled artisan for the construction of the shafts, as they were not simply round poles. The thickness of the square boxes at the end of the shafts added another inch or two to the overall thickness of the pole which increased its durability at the weakest point.

Figure 6.11: Anatomy of a pilum: (A) Butt spike; (B) Close-up of a constructed pilum splice-block and tang; (C) A completed pilum from point to butt spike; (D) Parts of a pilum; wooden shaft with butt spike; metal shank showing tang; attaching rivets and washers; (E) close-up of the splice-block and bodkin point of the spearhead. (Source:. Bishop, M.C. The Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2017), 25.)

The final piece in constructing the splice-block was to include the splice. This is vertical

gap in the center of the box.79 The incision is just wide enough to allow insertion of the tang of

79 Fernando Echeverria Rey, “Weapons, Technological Determinism, and Ancient Warfare,” in New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, eds Garrett G. Fagan and Matthew Trundle (Boston: Brill, 2010): 23.

180 the metal shank of the pilum. The tang was then riveted in place to ensure a secure hold of the

shank to the shaft (Figure 6.11). This innovation is what made a true Roman heavy pilum. It is

also the only way to identify a true Roman weapon in artistic or archaeological evidence. This is

why the pilum was a truly Roman invention. No other civilization shows a weapon with this particular type of construction.

With the addition of the splice-block, the heavy pilum increased in weight to

approximately five pounds (2.3 kg) total weight. This was in comparison to the approximately

two pounds (0.9 kg) of the light pilum.80 The increased weight added to the penetrative power of

the weapon making it a true armor-piercing weapon. According to the reports of Julius Caesar, it

would even go through multiple shields.81 Experiments with reconstructed pila based on ancient

descriptions and measurements taken from artifacts indicate that the heavy pilum could easily

pierce three-quarters of an inch (20mm) of plywood and just over an inch (30mm) of solid fir

plank.82 Caesar again tells us that these weapons could also pierce body armor and helmets.83

While the traditional three-layered shield of the Romans themselves seemed to be able to

withstand these weapons better than the single layer plank shields of most non-Romans, they

were not impervious.84

Over time, the Romans modified this weapon in order to improve its function. Again, the

purpose of the pilum was to overcome the defenses of the enemy and either kill him in spite of

his armor and shield or to maim him seriously enough to remove him from the fight. It was not to

80 D’Amato, Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 67. 81 Julius Caesar, Bellum Gallicum, 1,25.2-4 82 Bishop, The Pilum, 24. These experiments were conducted A.J. Reinach in 1907 and again by M. Junkelmann in 1986. 83 Julius Caesar, Bellum Africum, 78,10 84 Bishop, The Pilum, 24.

181 simply remove the shield making him easier to kill.85 Towards that end, the Romans continued to

improve the stability and functionality of the weapon.

Analysts throughout the centuries have credited Marius with replacing one of the iron

rivets with a wooden pin during his reforms86 (see chapter 3). This is counter to the use of the weapon. Replacing a metal pin with a wooden one weakens the weapon. This is not beneficial to the Romans. They needed the weapon stronger. Additionally, ancient writers indicate that the

Romans used the pilum as a main line weapon after the abandonment of the hasta in favor of the gladius (a reform also attributed to Marius). Adding a wooden pin would weaken the weapon enough to make it too susceptible to damage when used as a thrusting weapon.87 Because of that,

we should not credit Marius with this particular innovation. Instead, it could be possible that

Marius, in an effort to strengthen the pilum, increased the rivets from one to two. That would

account for the myth that has arisen about this particular issue, but there is no proof to back this

at all.

What we do know is that the Romans improved the pilum during its centuries of use.

Sometime during the first century BC, they added a third rivet to the splice-block increasing the overall durability of the weapon. They also added an iron collet to the end of the splice-block.

The collet was a metal ring that fit over the end of the splice-block and squeezed it together after insertion of the tang. This helped stop the shaft from splitting by preventing the tanged shank from being driven further into the wooden shaft upon impact.88 Also during the late Republic

period, the spearhead changed from a flat flanged or barbed head to a solid pyramidal bodkin

85 Bishop, The Pilum, 4. 86 Plutarch, Marius, 25. 87 Bishop, The Pilum, 15. 88 Bishop, The Pilum, 15.

182 point.89 This increased the armor penetrating power and most likely corresponded with the

Romans fighting heavily armored opponents: themselves during the Civil Wars for instance.

Towards the end of the first century AD, the Romans added a weight to the shaft.90 The

weight served two purposes. It increased again the penetrative power of the weapon, once more

coinciding with the increased armor capability of their opponents. This time, it was the adoption

of the semi-plate lorica segmentata by the Romans themselves (see chapter 5). The weight

allowed for more force on initial impact allowing the pilum to overcome the three-layered shield

and still have enough impetus to punch through the steel plate behind it. The second reason is to

prevent the splitting of the shaft. The weight generally rode behind the splice-block on the pilum.

By clamping the weight there, it generated compressive force behind the block where the tang would split the block. This increased the resistance in the wood and prevented the splitting of the shaft. The first evidence of this comes from the Cancelleria Frieze dating to the Flavian Dynasty at the end of the first century AD (Figure 6.12).

Figure 6.12: Cancelleria Frieze-Domitian departing for Sarmatian War 92 AD (carved 93-95 AD). (Source: “The Cancelleria Reliefs,” accessed 17 March 2019. https://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/)

89 Bishop, The Pilum, 16. 90 Bishop, The Pilum, 19.

183 The strengthening of the pilum is important to the development of Roman warfare.

Traditionally, the Roman fighting method had soldiers march in line to within a few dozen yards

of the opponent, hurl their pila, and then charge with the sword. The impression is that the

Romans won the world by the point of the sword. New evidence promotes a theory that the

battles of the Roman took longer than originally though and involved more an exchange of

missile weapons than a clash of swords.91

Evidence shows that the leaders reported as killed in battle most often received death at

the point of a javelin or spear instead of by sword blade. Since these leaders died in the middle or

end of a battle, missiles must have been used well into the conflict and not only at the opening.92

If this were the case, where did the Romans get their missiles for a protracted exchange of fire?

The answer is simple; they picked up spent weapons from the ground and reused them.

The pilum is perfect for this. While general belief is that the pilum bent upon impact, it

did not. Instead, the pilum only bent when human interaction caused it to.93 The pilum shank was

weak. It was made of soft iron. This kept the cost down for making the weapon, a general

concern for the Roman government from the initial professionalization of the army until the

collapse of the Empire.94 By making the metal portion of the pilum out of soft iron instead of

steel, the Romans can use a cheaper version of the metal, and the labor required does not need to

be of the skill level needed to produce solid steel weapons. The tip of the soft iron shank is then

91 Alexander Zhmodikov, “Roman Republic Heavy Infantryman in Battle (IV – II Centuries BC),” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 49, 1 (1st Quarter 2000): 70. 92 Zhmodikov, “Roman Republic Heavy Infantryman in Battle,” 68-69. 93 Bishop, The Pilum, 42-43. 94 Bishop, The Pilum, 28. Estimates are that making one legion’s worth of pila (2 per man) required 67.5 tons of charcoal, 4.4 tons of iron, 50,000 man hours of at least partially skilled labor, and 5000 manufactured ash poles (labor does not take into account the making of the poles).

184 case hardened into steel.95 This allows the pilum to have the penetrative power of steel without

needing to be made entirely of steel. It also allows for the unique characteristic of the pilum, the bend.

The pilum does not bend automatically upon impact. We know this because the Roman historians report many times in their battle narratives that the Romans picked up used pila and

reused them.96 This would not be possible if the pilum automatically bent upon impact. In reality,

the soft iron shank bent upon interaction with humans. If the pilum missed and landed on the

ground, something bound to happen frequently unless the Romans had a perfect hit rate with

their missiles; it bent as soldiers stepped on the shaft with the point lodged firmly in earth while

closing with the enemy. If the pilum hit a shield or armor, more often than not it would puncture.

This did not bend the shank. Instead, it bent as someone attempted to remove it by wiggling it

back and forth. Compressive force is not enough to cause the pilum to bend. Instead, it takes

some form of lateral movement coupled with the overall weight of the weapon.97 The result is

that the pilum is capable of multiple uses in the same battle.

Conclusions

The spear and shield is a mainstay in any ancient or classical era army. They are each one

of the first forms of offensive and defensive technology invented by Man. Over the centuries,

both have seen improvements in make and design that increase their dependability and function.

The scutum, hasta, and pilum of the Romans are no different. Trying to ascertain the origins of

95 Case hardening is the process of adding carbon to the outer layer of low carbon iron to turn it into steel. This is done by placing the portion to be hardened in an oxygen poor environment and “bathing” it in carbon. This can be done in the same way wood is turned into charcoal. It is not known if the charcoal listed above in the requirements for making a legion’s worth of pila includes the charcoal needed for case hardening. 96 Zhmodikov, “Roman Republic Heavy Infantryman in Battle,” 75. 97 Bishop, Pilum 42.

185 these technologies, however, is one of the most difficult goals of this entire project.

The Roman army made several changes in shields throughout its existence. Early evidence shows something akin to the scutum, a flat oblong shield, in use in the founding days of the city. This shield was popular throughout central and southern Italy until an influence from

Greek colonies caused an overall change in the fighting system from a system of warrior bands led by elites to a formation based on the phalanx system (see chapter 3). At that point, the round

Greek shield with the Argive grip became common defensive gear throughout a large portion of the peninsula.

This changed again with the Roman involvement with the Celts and Samnites in the fourth century BC. During this century, the Romans reverted to the old oblong shield common in the early days of the city. Experts argue if it was needed to replace losses from huge defeats such as the Sack of Rome or the Battle of Caudine Forks or if it was a better defensive platform for facing armies that employed large amounts of missile weapons. In either case, the Romans chose to switch away from the round clipeus and readopt the scutum.

Romans tinkered with the shield and improved its design and structure over the centuries it stayed in use. They truncated the original oval shape and made it a rectangle. They changed its construction from two to three layers. They added metal to certain points like the rim and the boss. Finally, they gave it a curve. This created the shield we currently associate with the Roman army.

When and how this developed is open for much debate. This is largely due to the ancient authors’ seeming negligence in discussing the development of weaponry in general, and the shield specifically, the lack of detail by artists making surviving iconographic evidence difficult to interpret, and the inability of the organic materials used to manufacture shields to survive long

186 enough to be found by modern archaeologists. All we can say for sure is that the Romans adopted this shield sometime around the fourth century BC. It developed until it became the iconic shield of the Roman army by the first century BC. It stayed the main Roman battle shield until the end of the third century AD when the Roman army underwent a complete overhaul and the older form still in use by cavalry forces became the main defensive armament of all Roman forces.

Spears are much the same when it comes to figuring out their origins. Being one of the oldest weapons known to man, the spear common to the Roman army existed in much the same form as that employed by the Romans prior to the founding of the city. It was the first armament employed by the early Latins and stayed the main armament of the Romans until the switchover to the gladius under Marius in the first century BC. Throughout that time, there is little to distinguish a Roman hasta from a Greek doru. Most spears are so common in appearance that archaeological finds of spears from any culture are identified predominately through the other material with which they are found.

The one exception to this is the Roman pilum. This is one of the few weapons that can be said to be of Roman development. While javelins of all types are common throughout the ancient world, the Roman heavy pilum is unique. Its design, while it may mimic that of others, copies nothing found in other societies.

The main distinction is the development of the splice-block. While many societies, the

Romans included, use both tang and socket methods for the manufacture throwing spears, the

Romans are the only ones to utilize this particular method of construction in any continued or large-scale manner. Unlike other spears that appear in the Roman arsenal as a completed product, the pilum showed definite periods of advance and development. No other weapon in the Roman

187 system showed the evolutionary evidence that the pilum does.

The Romans used javelins from the beginnings of the city. They are such a common weapon that the Roman authors had trouble themselves determining the origins of the platform.

Iconographic evidence is unclear at best due to the artists’ propensity to include spears and

javelins as an afterthought in their carvings instead of lavishing attention on them as they did

other aspects of their art. Archaeologically, spears have the same problem surviving in the

artifact record as do shields. They were made of organic materials that do not last. With all that

in mind, the evidence does support an indigenous Roman growth for the pilum.

The metal pieces of composite spears appeared throughout the ancient world almost from

the beginning. This indicates that the process of making spears of a combination of metal and wood was an old art. Most of those spears were of socket construction, however. Socketing was a much better design for spears due to the compressive force put on spears through the thrusting nature of their use. Few spears prior to the Roman introduction of the heavy pilum regularly used

a tang design in construction because of this. Once the Romans began to make throwing spears

in this manner, all forms of evidence show that they continued with it until the tanged heavy

pilum began to disappear at the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century AD, giving it a

total life of approximately half a millennium. Authors discuss the evolution of the heavy javelin

in their discussions of illustrious Romans and battle narratives. The iconographic evidence,

especially that of the legion tombstones carved by the soldiers themselves, shows the distinctive

elements of the heavy pilum; the splice-block. Archaeologically, the hardware needed in the

construction of the tanged pilum shows up in almost all Roman military sites from the second

century BC through the third century AD. No other society show evidence of spear/javelin use

akin to these. They all continued to use the same socketed spears and javelins used prior to the

188 Roman development of the heavy pilum.

By looking at these two pieces of equipment, we can see that the Romans are somewhat different in their approaches to military technology. They are more than willing to adopt from other cultures if they feel the developments supersede what they currently employ. In fact, they seem to prefer it. They are also willing to revert to an older system if they feel it better suits the needs as they see it.

Finally, the Romans also developed their own version of weapons as the need arose if there was no other better option available to them. While technological innovation was not a

Roman strong suit, they did have the ability to improve upon the ideas of others. This ability allowed them to take the best of what they encounter, make it their own, and modify it for the needs they had at any given time.

189 CHAPTER 7

HILTED WEAPONS

The weapon most associated with the Roman military is the gladius. It is ubiquitous in all modern imagery of the Roman military whether it corresponds to the actual period depicted or not. It is the main weapon shown in movies and television with anything associated with Rome, be that soldiers, gladiators, or Romans used as secondary persona such as in biblical topics. No other image is more synonymous with ancient battle prowess and might than is this sword.

This short sword, defined as a sword with a blade length greater than 12 inches but less than 24 inches (30-60 cm), is the one of the deadliest weapons in history prior to the invention of the gun.1 Moreover, with proper accounting, it is probably responsible for more deaths than any weapon introduced prior to the twentieth century.2 It was the main armament of the Roman military for almost five hundred years. It is safe to say that this weapon, along with the pilum and the scutum, built the Roman Empire.

While the gladius dominated Roman armaments, its smaller cousin, the pugio, also became very popular in the Western army for several centuries. Popular from the end of the second century BC to the mid-third century AD, this weapon provides some of the best-preserved artifacts recovered from those centuries.3 They are certainly some of the most decorative and diverse military artifacts left to us via the archaeological record.

Both of these weapons showed up in the Roman panoply as completed forms. This simple fact tells us that the Romans did not do much by way of initial development of these weapons. There are no prototypes found in Roman archaeology. There are no literary discussions

1 Robert L. O’Connell, “The Roman Killing Machine,” Military History Quarterly 1, no. 1 (Autumn 1988): 38. 2 Richard A Gabriel and Karen S Metz, From Sumer to Rome (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991), 34. 3 Marco Saliola and Fabrizio Casprini, Pugio – Gladius Brevis Est: History and Technology of the Roman Battle Dagger (Oxford: B.A.R. Publishing, 2012): 5.

190 of sword use or development prior to the adoption of the gladius. Even the artistic sources that have survived devote little to depicting swords until the gladius becomes the chief sidearm of the

Roman legions. Since this is the case, we must ask where did the Romans acquire these

weapons?

That the Romans adopted successful military technology from other cultures is not

questioned. Since there is little evidence to support an indigenous growth of hilted weapons in

the Roman system, we must look further afield for the source of this special set of armaments.

The most likely sources are Greek, Egyptian, Persian, and Celtic. Of these sources, the one most

likely to provide the Romans their greatest weapon was the Celts.

Tracing the origins of this weapon, however, are problematic. Unlike body armor whose

types developed independently in various regions, the sword developed at roughly the same time

throughout the ancient world. Differences can be seen in blade specifications from the various

regions (cut or thrust, preferred length and thickness, material used, etc.), but the fact that this

particular weapon dates back almost to the beginnings of human warfare hampers efforts to

pinpoint its source of origins.

Swords come in two basic divisions: cutting/slashing and thrusting/stabbing. Each of

these developed out of a different weapon and did not develop as an original weapon in its own

right.4 The easiest way to demonstrate this is with is the thrusting sword. One distinguishes this

sword type by its long, dual-edged point. Its main manner of employment is with an underhand

thrust into the vitals of an opponent. The origins of this weapon are with the dagger.5 The dagger

4 Arther Ferrill, The Origins of War: from the Stone Age to Alexander the Great (London: Thames & Hudson, 1985), 19. This first triad of weapons consists of the dagger, hammer, and axe. Each weapons delivers one of the basic types of attacks: thrust, crush, and cut. Each are easily made by attaching stone to a wooden handle or by using shaped stone alone. All other weapons are thought to grow out of one of these. 5 Radomir Pleiner, The Celtic Sword. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, 5.

191 is a first triad weapon invented at the beginnings of human history.6 It sports a dual edged blade

of less than twelve inches (30cm). The edge is what differentiates a dagger from a knife as the

later only has a single edged. With a wrapped handle at the base, this weapon was easy to

manufacture out of stone, replace if lost or broken, and exceedingly serviceable as both a weapon

and a tool. The one major drawback to the dagger was the lack of any extended reach. To employ

a dagger successfully, one must get up close and personal with the target. This proximity puts the

wielder in danger of wound or death at the hands of the opponent, be it another human or animal.

The solution was to attach the stone dagger blade to a wooden shaft to create the needed

distance.7 With that modification, man invented the spear.

The spear is little more than a dagger blade on a pole. While the head can vary by length

and width depending on its intended purpose, it is commonly about twelve inches long. The

width of the spearhead varies from very narrow, needle-like points to wide-bladed hunting

spears. With these, the wielder had the range to engage the target while allowing a somewhat

safe distance for personal protection. The problem with this situation was when the target got

under the point of the spear. Once the target moved under the spear, this weapon became more of

a hindrance to the wielder than an asset. What was needed was a weapon that allowed a longer

reach than did the dagger to take into account the safety of the wielder, but one that would stay

useful at closer distances than a spear with a four to six foot shaft. This development was the

thrusting sword.8

6 Ferrill, The Origins of War, 19. 7 Zach Zorich, “The First Spears,” Archaeology, March/April 2013, https://www.archaeology.org/issues/81- 1303/trenches/523-south-africa-earliest-spears. (accessed 21 July 2019). While scientists think humans have been using spears for over 500,000 years, they think that man has been stone tipping them for at least 250,000 years, and maybe for as long as 460,000 years. 8 Stephen V. Grancsay, “Irish Bronze Age Weapons,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 7, no. 7 (Mar. 1949): 183.

192 The thrusting sword was made of a solid material. In most cases, this was metal. Stone,

while suitable for a dagger or spear point, is too weak when placed under extreme torque stress.9

This leads to fractures and breaks. While it is conceivable that ancient man did make swords from stone, few if any have survived in a recognizable form to allow us to support that as the beginnings of sword making. Other materials, such as volcanic glass (obsidian) are used in different parts of the world, but, as the Spanish showed in conflict with the Aztecs, when those swords strike a hard material, they tend to fracture or shatter. If the opponent is restricted to hide, cloth, or other forms of natural materials in the construction of their protective wear, obsidian is a viable option for a sword. If anything harder were available, then the sword would need to be made of the harder material in order to survive. This means, the first generations of swords, lacking newly discovered evidence to the contrary, were most likely made of copper alloys in the first metal age.10

Because swords did not truly rise until the advent of metalworking, the first swords

originated in societies in which metalworking arose. These swords tended to follow the

construction patterns of daggers and spear points, albeit in slightly larger proportions to the

others.11 The oldest swords found in the archaeological record date to the 33rd to 31st centuries

BC at Arslantepe in the Euphrates Valley. They measure between 17.5 and 23.5 in (45-60 cm) in length including hilt (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). As shown, these blades are mostly point. They have a

9 Ferrill, The Origins of War, 39. 10 Pure copper is almost useless in making swords as the pure form of the metal is much too soft to hold form under stress, very similar to gold. With the additions of trace amounts of metals, as little as 1% in some instances, the nature of the copper changes enough to take on new characteristics while not changing enough to warrant calling it a new metal. The most well-known copper alloy is bronze. Bronze is made of an 85/15 mixture of copper and tin. This shows that copper reacts dramatically with the introduction of other elements. A mixture of as little as 1% arsenic creates arsenical bronze which has as much as a 30% increase in hardening capacity over pure copper. [Christopher P. Thornton, et al., “On Pins and Needles: Tracng the Evolution of Copper-based Alloying at Tepe Yahya, Iran via ICP-MS Analysis of Common-place Items,” Journal of Archaeological Sciences v29 n12 (Dec 2002), 1451 – 1460.] 11 Radomir Pleiner, The Celtic Sword. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, 5.

193 flat cross section and a relatively small hilt. This would indicate that they were one-handed weapons and that their main use was by thrust.

Figure 7.1: Copper swords found at Arslantepe dating to the early 4th Millennium BC. Some are inlaid with silver.

Figure 7.2: The Necdet Dilek Sword (front and back images) from the private collection of Necdet Dilek. Its providence is unsure as it was traded on the antiquities market. Experts place it as originating in the same region and about the same time as the other Arslantepe swords. (Source: https://www.tf.unikiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/backbone/rb_1_1.html, accessed 2 Dec, 2018)

At the time of writing, these were the earliest swords discovered in the archaeological record. This would indicate two things. First, the origins of swords in general, as with so many things, are in the Fertile Crescent. Second, the first sword developed was a thrusting sword based

194 off dagger and, possibly, spear point designs. If the gladius were merely a thrusting sword, this

would be enough for us to declare the Middle East its ultimate place of origin. However, the

gladius is a much more technologically developed weapon than these simple swords. It has a

dual purpose: cutting as well as thrusting. This means an examination into the origins of the

cutting sword is warranted.

Archaeologists consider the first swords designed specifically for cutting to have

originated from the axe.12 The axe allowed the user to bring extreme force down on the target from above or the side. This allowed for the penetration of tough hides or the overcoming of armor and splitting it in twain. The cleaving force allows the edge of heavy weapons, such as axes and two-hand swords, to penetrate into the body of the target. It differs from blunt weapons in that blunt weapons, maces and hammers for instance, spread the force out over a larger area and do not generally break the skin, instead bludgeoning the soft tissue and bone underneath.

What early humans wanted was a weapon as devastating as the axe, but using less metal, less prone to breakage, and functional in tighter spaces. The force of an axe is created predominately by the weight of the head. The heavier the head, the more force generated.

Because of this idea, the head of the axe is a metal intensive piece. This weight was necessary in

order to make a weapon with the offensive punch needed to overcome body armor. For close to

2000 years, the socket axe was the only weapon that could readily overcome the early body

armors developed.13 To make axes of this power, however, the metal axe heads required a

greater amount of material to fabricate.14 Civilizations in metal-poor regions such as the Levant

12 Richard A. Gabriel, The Great Armies of Antiquity (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), 26. 13 Gabriel, The Great Armies of Antiquity, 26. 14 If we use the basic physics formula F(orce)=M(ass) x A(cceleration), then we can see, since the human body is only capable of moving so fast, in order to get more force delivered into a blow, more mass is required. In order to make the weapon deliver more force, the weight needs to be increased since the acceleration of the weapon cannot be.

195 or Egypt would need more of an already rare material, tin, in order to outfit an army of axe men

making this weapon too expensive for general issuance to the rank and file troops. By developing

a weapon that delivered the same type of blow as an axe, but requiring, less metal to make, a

more prolific use of that weapon became possible.

The axe also suffered from practical concerns that weakened the overall durability of the

weapon. First, the axe head is usually attached to a wooden handle. While some ancient axes

have been found made entirely of metal, these tend to be ceremonial and display pieces and are

not intended for use on the battlefield.15 The usual axes found in the archaeological record are little more than the axe head. The handle used organic materials that did not survive the aging process. While is it conceivable that early axes used bone handles, wood is the more logical choice. Bone tends to become brittle as it dries out. Additionally, most bones large enough to form axe handles are hollow. While wood is more reliable than bone, it also has a tendency to fracture and break when put under repeated stress. Ancient axe handles would be no better than a tree limb. Fire-hardening did help the durability, but handles were readily prone to breaking. By replacing the wood of the axe with the metal of the early sword blades, ancient man created a more reliable weapon.

The other detriment to the axe is the space needed by each wielder to use it properly.

Axes, to get their full benefit, require enough space for the wielder to swing the arm at full extension. While this is not much of an issue for the warrior leaders and “heroes” of the armies of the ancients, it prohibits the close order tactics preferred by the undertrained foot soldiers that make up the rank and file of ancient era armies. These men performed better with the close moral support of their brethren. Spreading them out to achieve enough space to use an axe would

15 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword,5.

196 require them to be able to stand on their own: something the ancient soldier was not truly capable

of doing. Weapons also needed to be easy for the ancient fighter, to wield.

The result was a sickle sword. This sword used less metal than the standard axe head

making it cheaper to produce, and required a smaller radius of use than did a full battle-axe. It was sharpened on one edge with a thicker spine to give support to the blade, and cast as a single piece (head and shaft) to remove the need for another rare commodity, wood, in its construction.

It was very similar in shape to a sickle, the farming tool, common to most of those who would eventually wield it. It was even generally used in the same manner making training in its use almost second nature.16

The oldest evidence of the sickle sword is from Mesopotamia on the Stele of Vultures

(Figure 7.3). This sword exhibits a very long contact surface with a blunt point. The curve to the

blade allowed for hooking an opponent in several ways to disarm or overbalance. The outer edge

was sharpened (if any edge was sharpened) while the inner edge was thicker to give support to

the contact surface and blunt.17 The shaft of the sword (not a true blade as it was never intended

to make contact with the enemy) was made of the same material and the entire weapon was cast

as one piece. This removed structural variances and made for a much more reliable weapon. It

also tended to balance out the weight allowing for easier use by the wielder. As the Stele

exhibits, the sword was still primarily the weapon of nobles and kings. Ordinary infantrymen

used spears predominately (Figure 7.4).

16 Frederick Wilkinson, Edged Weapons (Garden City, NY: Doubleday , 1970), 10. 17 Richard Burton, The Book of the Sword (NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1987), 262.

197 Figure 7.3: Picture of Mesopotamian noble in a war cart holding a sickle sword in his right hand. [Stele of Vultures reverse side second quarter]. (Source: http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=stela_of_vultures (accessed 8 Dec 2018.)

Figure 7.4: Picture of rank of footmen wielding spears, with panel shields and leather helmets. [Stele of Vultures reverse side first quarter.] (Source: https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/newsphoto/sumerian-civilization-25th-century-b-c-steleof-the- news-photo/122222046 (accessed 8 Dec 2018)

198 With the development of two distinct swords, it was only a matter of time until someone

put the two together. We have distinct evidence of the development of the combined thrust/slash

sword was in use by the early 12th century BC. The evidence comes from artistic renderings of

the Sea Peoples at Medinet Habu in Egypt (Figures 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7). These maritime raiders are

shown employing swords and shields. What makes these swords different from previous versions

is the length of the blade. The previously cited thrusting swords were a total of 24 inches long at

the extreme. This length includes the hilt. If the hilt is a standard one-handed hilt, the distance

from end of pommel to beginning of blade after the ricasso would be approximately 8 inches,

leaving a blade of only approximately 16 inches.18 That length does not allow a sufficient

striking surface to permit a blade of this size to be used effectively as a slashing weapon. The

blades of the Sea Peoples, however, are much longer. If the artistic rendering is in proportion, the

blades wielded by these maritime raiders appear upwards of three feet long (not including hilt).

This would give the weapon an effective surface area with which to use in a slashing motion as well as a sharp point for thrusting. However, this information begs more questions than it answers. Whence came these peoples? Did they develop this weaponry on their own or did they take it from others?

The origins of the Sea Peoples is one of the great mysteries of ancient history. Many different civilizations throughout the Levant and Near East encountered them, but none seems to offer concrete evidence as to their origins. There is a hypothesis that these peoples came either from the Black Sea regions or (less likely) Europe.19

18 A ricasso is the unsharpened portion of a blade immediately above the beginning of the hilt. It is generally thicker than the rest of the blade adding stability and strength to a blade to help the tang (the continuation of the blade inside the hilt) resist the shearing force of blows. 19 W. Sheppard Baird, “The Origins of the Sea Peoples,” MinoanAtlantis.com, https://www.minoanatlantis.com/Origin_Sea_Peoples.php (Accessed 30 Jan 2018). Baird’s theory is that the Sea Peoples were Minoan colonists from Spain cut off from the main Greek region by the eruption of Santorini

199 Figure 7.5: The actual carvings on the wall of the mortuary temple of Rameses III at Medinet Habu (c.1190 BC). Due to the difficulty in seeing the images, they are traditionally presented in blackline (see Figs. 7.6 and 7.7).

Figure 7.6: Above figure (7.5) rendered in blackline drawing. The images depicts an attack of the Sea Peoples during the reign of Rameses III. The Sea Peoples are distinguished by their dark colored headgear (usually indicative of metal helmets). c.1630BC. Their contact with the proto-Celtic (Urnfield) culture in the region would explain the differences seen in artistic renderings made by the Ancient Egyptians.

200 Figure 7.7: A close-up of the top left corner of Fig. 7.6. It depicts two boats engaged in combat. The left hand boat is filled with Egyptian fighters. They are shown wearing no protective gear other than a cloth/leather skullcap and wielding spears. Their opponents to the right (the Sea Peoples) are shown wearing dark helmets, presumed to be metal, and basic body armor on the torso and upper legs. They wield long tapering straight-bladed swords and carry shields with a central handle and, presumably, boss.20

If this hypothesis were so, then the rampages of these Sea Peoples are possibly some of the first records of early Celtic attacks/migrations mentioned in the ancients’ histories. The period of Sea

Peoples’ movements through northern Africa and the Levant would correspond to the Bronze

Age/Hallstatt-A period (c.1200-1050 BC) of Northern Europe.21 If this is the case, then these peoples very easily could have originated the combined sword that will ultimately see its technological perfection in the gladius employed so effectively by the Roman army.

The ultimate question we are asking here is, did, in fact, the gladius make its way into the

Roman panoply via Celtic hands? To answer this, we must examine several sources. None of them contains the outright answer, and, at times, they can be contradictory. The Romans

20 Source for Figs. 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7: https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Rel302/Medinet%20Habu%20and%20the%20Sea%20Peoples.htm (accessed 9 Dec 2018 21 Peter S. Wells, The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 42.

201 themselves cite the source of the weapon as the Iberian Peninsula simply by the name they give

it: gladius hispaniensis. The word gladius simply means sword. Over time, it has come to mean a

particular type of sword used specifically by the Roman army, but in the ancient past, it simply

meant sword.22 By adding the adjective hispaniensis, the Romans indicate that this particular

sword comes from Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula). Other words the Romans used for swords,

mucro and ensis, became more specified over time, mucro meaning the sword point or edge (i.e.

the dangerous parts of the sword), and ensis, meaning a generic sword, and being relegated to

poetic uses.23

Other words that crop up in the classical lexicon for swords have an obvious non-Roman

origin. For instance, the chalcos, xiphos, phasganon, and aor, were all differing types of hilted

weapons that came to Rome via the Greeks.24 The chalcos referred to a copper blade made

specifically for sacrificial purposes, and aor became a word used for sword in Greek poetry

much as ensis did in Latin.25 The two sword of interest here are the phasganon and the xiphos.

The phasganon is a straight, leaf-shaped, usually very short, thrusting blade. It makes a very good close in weapon and may have developed into a dagger overtime. Experts believe its designs originated from the spear point and ancient warriors used it as a miniature version of the same.26

When examining the evolution of the sword, one would naturally start in the Near East.

Since the oldest forms of this weapon found originate in that region, it would make sense that the

weapon’s evolution would continue there. Oddly, sword use diminished to the point of

22 M.C. Bishop, The Gladius (Oxford: Osprey, 2016), 6. 23 Richard Burton, The Book of the Sword (New York: Dover, 1987), 254. 24 Burton, The Book of the Sword, 222-3. 25 Burton, The Book of the Sword, 223. 26 Burton, The Book of the Sword, 235.

202 disappearing from the region shortly after its development.27 Instead, the armies of the Near East

became almost exclusively spear armies. The predominate secondary weapon of these armies

was the dagger. Swords simply are not found in the archaeological record. This would indicate

one of two possibilities. They either were never very popular or were not produced in large

numbers. Their lack of production is highly probable. The mainstay of Near Eastern warfare

continued to be close ordered formation. This type of formation precludes the use of weapons

that require room for wielding. The reliance on close order weapons would diminish as the

professionalization of armies continued, but in the Near East, that would take centuries.28

Additionally, bronze was expensive and hard to come by in the Near East through most of the ancient period. Thus, making and issuing weapons made entirely of rare metals was not cost effective. The second possibility is that, since they were made of metal in a metal poor region, as new, upgraded models came into existence, these older pieces were recycled for their materials.

Recycling was a common practice in the ancient world, especially for metals.29 If this were true,

however, it would seem that more of them should have survived in the archaeological record

than actually have. It is highly unlikely that the peoples in the region practiced complete

recycling of all outdated tools and weapons. Therefore, the first possibility is more than likely

the reason for their lack: the sword simply did not make much sense in this region of the world.

The Balkan Peninsula was a different case, however. According to both the

archaeological and literary record, the Greeks utilized swords almost from the beginning of the

27 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 6. 28 Ferrill, The Origins of War, 165. Professionalism for militaries is largely considered to have begun in the late 7th or early 6th centuries BC. 29 Christopher Huth, “Poor Belgium, Rich Belgium: Some Reflections on the Nature of Metalwork Depositions in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age,” in Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, ed. Jean Bourgeois, et al (Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002): 49.

203 Mycenaean era (c.1600 BC-c.1100 BC). The most popular of the Greek swords was the xiphos.

This sword is a leaf-shaped, short (19-24 in including hilt), dual-edged, straight sword. It served

as a secondary weapon in hoplite warfare. This was the main secondary sword in use by the

Roman army prior to the adoption of the gladius at the end of the third century BC.30 These

swords were most likely adopted along with the rest of the Greek panoply used in hoplite warfare

during the orientalizing phase of Roman development in the mid-first millennium BC.

An additional sword to note is the kopis. This sword, also known as a machaela, was a one-handed, single-edged, sword with a curved blade.31 The sharpened edge was on the inside of

the curve. Popular in the Spartan region, this sword most likely evolved from the sickle swords

of the ancient Near East and Egypt. Some believe that the sword is the forerunner of the spatha,

although there is little hard evidence to support this theory other than the generally longer blade

of a kopis in relation to other swords of the era.32 This blade, like other curved blades such as the falx in Dacia (modern Romania), and the slashing swords and scimitars of the Near East, most likely evolved from farming implements used by peasants in time of need.33

With all of these sword types in use around the Mediterranean, how did the Romans end

up with the gladius, which, thus far, has not appeared anywhere? The real answer comes after

considering a few side elements: fighting style, and need. Societies generally begin to use a weapon because it fits a need at the time of adoption. Aesthetic appeal may be a reason for adopting a weapon, but those types of weapons generally became the purview of the upper classes and higher ranks. Individual soldiers also received fancy weapons as awards for various

30 Bishop, The Gladius 10. 31 Burton, The Book of the Sword, 236. 32 Burton, The Book of the Sword, 224. 33 Burton, The Book of the Sword, 95.

204 reasons. To explain a weapon like the gladius becoming a new and dominate weapon platform,

we should primarily look for an explanation in Rome’s military needs, along with attendant

economic factors.

Early in the history of the Roman state, the military system mimicked the Etruscan and

Greek mass formation systems (see chapter 3). These systems relied highly upon close order

formations and the unified actions of the individual soldiers. As such, the spear was much more

effective as it allowed for tight and highly defensive formations. Weapons such as swords and

axes required much more space to wield properly, and did not offer the range of the spear.

Additionally, they required much more training to use meaning that the soldiers had to devote

more time to personal training than that required by the spear. Their use would make warfare

inefficient or untenable by the normal populace that traditionally provided their own arms and

equipment. Because of this, swords went out of common use for the majority of the

Mediterranean world.34

It is here we see the demarcation of swords in Europe. The Mediterranean cultures

eschewed the longer swords (those over 20 in) in favor of the long dagger or dirk.35 This is most

likely due to the poor metal qualities of the era. Longer swords made of poorer quality metals

were likely to fail. These weapons also required much more metal to construct than did the spear.

In a metal poor region such as the Near East or the Balkan Peninsula, this major economic

constraint resulted in the favoring of the spear. Additionally, the longer swords of the period

could not withstand the structural stress imparted to a blade when swung instead of thrust

resulting in the breaking or bending of the blade of longer swords making them unreliable in

34 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 12. 35 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 12.

205 battle.36 The result was that circa 700 BC, the Mediterranean peoples returned to the thrusting

dagger instead of the sword as a secondary weapon to accompany the spear.37

Within a century, the long sword had all but disappeared from Europe. The Thracian and

Illyrians were only using the short sword: machaira and akinakes patterns (see Figures 7.8 and

7.9). The Baltic Celts had abandoned them in favor of the spear, knife, and axe. The Greeks and

Italic peoples had adopted the dagger (double-bladed hilted weapon under 14in) as their main secondary arm. Perhaps the most surprising was that even the super-Alpine Celts had made the

switch to the spear by 600BC.38 With their change, the sword had all but disappeared from use by

the major European cultures. By removing it from the panoplies across the continent, this

allowed a new system of sword use to rise. This new system would be able to challenge the

dominate spear systems in use during the second half of the first millennium BC. The question remains, however, who originated this system, and why did it prove more effective than the spear? The answer to these questions most likely provides the answer to the origins of the gladius.

Figure 7.8: Iron Machaira style sword. 5th-4th century BC. (Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/257576)

36 Polybius, Histories 2.33. 37 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 12. 38 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 12-15.

206 Figure 7.9: Iron Akinakes. 6th-5th cent BC. Image found on an auction site so providence is questionable. (Source: http://www.goantiques.com/rareancient-scythian-70262740)

With the disappearance of the long sword (the combined cutting/thrusting sword) from the Mediterranean, finding its origins requires searching further afield. Fortunately, the answer seems close to hand. The lack of any long swords in the archaeological record in the Near

Eastern region would indicate that this arm did not continue there once the transition to majority spear armies had developed.39 Therefore, the development of the gladius did not come from this region. The Mycenaean shaft graves yield long thrusting swords dating to the end of the Bronze

Age.40 These swords died out with the end of the Mycenaean era, however. Most likely, the peoples replacing the Mycenaean people in the region, usually thought of as the Dorians, did not have the technological skill to continue making this type of sword. This leaves one place: super-

Alpine Europe. The archaeological record has yielded upwards of 3000 swords from the Rhine and Danube basins. This does not take into account other finds in the Alpine regions, the

Northern European Plain of Gaul, or the Iberian Peninsula. These finds date as far back as the

39 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 6. 40 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 7.

207 mid-Bronze Age (c.1350 BC) and end at roughly the early Iron Age (c. 400 BC).41

The sheer number of finds indicates that these weapons were intended for general-

purpose use and not as display pieces or weapons reserved only for the elite, such as the thrusting

swords found in Mycenaean graves. Due to this, these weapons show a lot of advancement

through time. Hoplologists can trace a clear line from rudimentary daggers and knives to the long

swords of the Celtic peoples through this particular record.42 By having the various stages of

development represented, it is possible to see the advancements made in metallurgy and

artisanship that indicate development through experimentation. Nowhere else in the European

region do we find this amount of work on sword development. In fact, in the Roman regions

specifically, there is no prototype or previous generation swords found at all in the archaeological record. This would indicate that the Romans put little to no effort into the development of this class of arm. Instead, they adopted it in its completed form from another culture.

This next question is: why did these Northern European peoples continue to develop this

type of weapon when their “more advanced” counterparts to the south had passed them over in

favor of the spear? There are three possibilities. The first originates with a theory proposed in

1959 by Georg Kossack. He speculated that the abandonment of the sword by the Celts in the 7th

century BC resulted from the importation of the hoplite system of the Mediterranean.43 If this is the case, there required a certain amount of social organization and general expansion of wealth through the social strata to allow individuals to provide their own arms and equipment. This

41 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 6. 42 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 7. 43 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 15. While most hoplites carried swords as a secondary weapon, by the time of the Persian Wars (c.500 BC) most Spartans were using a sword only about 14 in (36cm) in length. Technically that would make it a long dagger or a dirk instead of a sword. Also, there is no indication if other city-states followed this model. [Burton, The Book of the Sword, 238.]

208 would imply that the Celts had adopted the yeoman farmer model of the Mediterranean cultures

in order to fulfill the requirements of putting together an army of this nature, thus the removal of

a warrior elite class in the Celtic region.

If the Celts reverted to the sword as a main armament instead of the spear, then a

breakdown of this economic system would be the main cause. The inability of the polities to

field a reliable army due to lack of manpower would mean that local leaders would have to revert

to the patronage system, trading economic rewards for physical support, in order to field a

military force. If this is the case, then those with more skills and better able to perform on the

battlefield could demand higher remuneration for their services. This would bring back the

warrior elites leading to a resurgence of weapons with high skill-factors for use such as swords,

maces, and axes.

S. Frankenstein and M.J. Rowlands proposed the second possibility in 1978. They posited

that the adoption of the hoplite system and abandonment of swords corresponded with an

expansion of centralized political and economic control over the region, which, in turn, reduced

the amount of internal conflict between Celtic groups.44 In essence, they saw the beginning of a rise in a proto-Celtic unified polity. This reduction in hostility and a need for constant defense against ones immediate neighbor allowed for a softening of cultural martial requirements. Again, as in the above hypothesis, since the warrior elite was no longer needed, the use of high-skill factor weapons receded and was replaced by large formation weapons such as the spear.

If this theory were true, then a breakdown in the centralization of the proto-Celtic state arising in the early Iron Age would result in a fracturing into the various clan groups that existed before. If this happened, general distrust and competition would return to the forefront requiring

44 Susan Frankenstein and M. J. Rowlands, “The Internal Structure and Regional Context of Early Iron Age Society in South-west Germany,” Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology London 15 (1978): 73-74.

209 the return of martial prowess on the part of the population. Again, the better one performed, the

higher the social standing and the greater the possible economic success for the individual, thus

the return of the sword.

The final theory, advanced by Venceslas Kruta in 1979, proposes that the re-adoption of

the sword corresponded with the mid-first millennium BC expansion phase of the Celtic

peoples.45 These groups, thought to be fringe groups, economically destitute, and/or

disenfranchised by the main Celtic political groups, became warrior marauders as a way to

economically enrich themselves. This led to a return to warrior elite status by those best able to

bring in resources, defeat enemies, and protects the main tribal group from outside threats. Since

these people devoted themselves to a confrontational way of life, devotion to weapons skills was

a better way to advance their personal cause and become more economically secure. The side

effect was that it created internal competition between the warriors. This may have prevented the

Celts from better organizing, and developing a higher level of military science: an area in which

ancient writers feel the Celts were seriously deficient.46

One thing is certain: the Celtic societies of Northern and Central Europe were

predominately responsible for the advancement of swords in Western history. This is largely due

to them being the only ones to put any significant emphasis on sword use prior to the adoption of

the sword by the Romans in the Late Republic. Most other societies throughout the

Mediterranean region preferred the spear as a more efficient and user-friendly weapon that was

also cheaper to make and maintain than was the sword. Nevertheless, these societies viewed

sword-wielding peoples as dangerous and fear inducing. Whenever possible, they tried to use these peoples as mercenaries. This may be the beginning of the Celtic mercenary tradition. Their

45 Vencenslas Kruta, Die Kelten: Aufstieg und Niedergang einer Kultur (Vienna: Herder, Freiberg, 1979): 40-41. 46 Polybius, Histories, 2,17 – 31.

210 use of the sword may have enhanced their reputation and led other societies to believe that

having them on their side was the difference between winning and losing.47

The archaeological record supports the fact that the sword all but disappeared from the

Mediterranean region in the second quarter of the first millennium BC. Likewise, the same record supports the continuation and use of the sword as a main battle weapon north of the Alps in continental Europe. What, then, caused the Romans, a culture securely ensconced in the Greek military traditions of spear use and close ordered formations, to switch to an entirely different military system: that of the barbarian Celts? The short answer is that the Romans saw how effective the Celtic system was against the rather limited system they were employing at the time: the phalanx.

The Sack of Rome around 390 BC best exhibits the answer. During this event, the

Romans had a field army destroyed by Celtic invaders. The resulting embarrassment in front of

all of their allies and enemies in the Italian Peninsula by this marauding group of “greater

barbarians” from the north prompted Rome to affect a change. As the Romans commonly did,

they adopted the weapons of their greatest enemy and turned those weapons against them. They

had done this with the Etruscans and the Greeks previously.48 They would do this against the

Carthaginians.49 They would even attempt to do this later in their history against the marauding

peoples of the mid-first millennium AD, albeit with much less success. What they truly needed,

however, was a military system that allowed them to make full advantage of the “Roman way”

while still employing the new weapons of their most dangerous foe at the time.

47 J.N.G. Ritchie and W.F. Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 55.

48 T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000 – 264BC) (New York: Routledge, 1995), 149. 49 Polybius, Histories, 1, 20.

211 Doing this would take several centuries of development. Most scholars agree that the

changes started sometime around the Sack of Rome. Plutarch credits that particular event as the

impetus behind the material and training changes attributed to Camillus.50 These changes would

continue until technical and military scientific evolutions conducted by various leaders reached their conclusion under Marius at the beginning of the first century AD some three hundred years

later (see chapter 3). During this long and drawn out process, the Romans encountered the

weapon they needed to make it successful: the gladius.

The problem in examining the evolution of Celtic swords is that there are several families

of swords to examine. Each tends to be localized in a geographic region with little crossover

between them.51 The two sword types of note here are the ones that would become the gladius

and the spatha. Experts consider both of these weapons to be of Celtic origin, but each comes

from a different region of the Celtic world.52 It is not until the Romans extended control across

each region that the legions adopted these weapons for general-purpose use.

When investigating the origins of the gladius, the Romans indicated specifically that this

sword came to them from the Iberian Peninsula.53 Experts believe the Romans first encountered

this weapon when they fought the Celtic mercenaries employed by Hannibal in the Second Punic

War.54 If they did, the weapon did not yet make an impact on the Romans as they did not make

any change to the legions in Italy during the entire war. Instead, the change from spear to sword

occurred in Spain under the direction of P. Cornelius Scipio. This change took place, most likely,

50 Plutarch, Camillus, 40 51 Polybius, Histories, 3,11.43. Polybius makes a decided distinction between Iberian and Celtic swords. This would indicate that there is enough of a difference in basic design to tell the difference immediately between the two. 52 Bishop, The Gladius, 18. 53 Burton, The Book of the Sword , 256. 54 Fernando Q. Sanz, Gladius Hispaniensis: an Archaeological View from Iberia,” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies vol 8, (1997): 256.

212 prior to his assault on Carthago Nova. Polybius indicates that, while assaulting the battlements of

the city, the Roman arms were “very well suited” for dispatching enemies along the top of a

fortifying wall.55 Since fighting atop the wall meant scaling ladders to get there, the use of a

heavy spear like a hasta does not seem plausible. A short sword carried at the waist up the ladder and then employed in the limited space along the battlements is eminently more practical.

Historians also think that the efforts to pacify the Iberian Peninsula led to a major phase

the Roman army evolution: what came to be termed the Marian reforms. Most of the conflict in

Hispania was of the small raid and ambush style.56 The Romans had trouble countering this. The

legions were too large to chase down these small bands effectively. To respond to these raids, the

Romans began sending out individual maniples to pursue the raiders. These maniples, however, proved to be too small to take on those guerilla bands.57 They also carried weapons that hindered

their activities more than they helped: hastae.

The solution the Romans came up with began the change to the cohort system. As the

cohort was a larger formation than the maniple, it offered enough manpower to overcome the

raiding groups when encountered.58 They were able to move faster than a full legion, and they

had enough strength to defend themselves from ambush. This was important, as the central

region of the Iberian Peninsula is very rough geographically. Ambush and guerrilla warfare were

the mainstay tactics of the Iberian peoples.59 The Romans, having little experience with this type

of warfare, were at a decided disadvantage when attacked in this way unless they had the

55 Polybius, Histories, 10,15.1. (μεγάλα συμβαλλομένης αὐτοῖς τῆς 2ὁπλίσεως πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ γένος τῆς χρεία, Loeb edition) 56 Dániel Varga, The Roman Wars in Spain: The Military Confrontation with Guerilla Warfare (Barnsley, England; Pen & Sword Military, 2015): 126-127. 57 Adrian Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare (New York; Collins Books, 1999), 114. 58 Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 114. 59 Varga, The Roman Wars in Spain, 126 – 127.

213 strength of numbers on their side.

The terrain also had a negative impact on the weapons of the Romans. The Iberians

learned very quickly to attack the Romans in rough and broken terrain. This prevented the

Romans from utilizing formations against them. Fights became one-on-one contests. By this time, the Roman soldier was just as skilled in wielding his weapons as was his Iberian counterpart.60 The difference was reach. The Romans’ main weapon was a six-foot heavy spear.

The Iberians used a new type of double-bladed short sword. Outside of formations, the spear is a clunky and slow weapon. While it has the advantage of reach, once the opponent gets past the tip and inside the radius of the spear, it is little more than an overlong and heavy club: unwieldy and ineffective. This is the main reason the Romans made the change from the spear to the short sword. Since the need for adaptation arose in the wilds of Iberia while fighting an enemy that

wielded a highly effective short sword, the style of sword used in that region was the one the

Romans adopted.

The gladius is relatively long for a short sword. It averages between 24.5 and 26 inches

(62-66cm).61 This keeps its radius of use relatively small. By doing so, the distance between men

in line of battle can be kept at about three feet (1m).62 This offers enough room to wield the

sword effectively while keeping the men in a tight enough formation to offer general protection

on the sides and moral support in battle.

The main method of use was still the thrust. The Romans had a decided prejudice against

60 Polybius, Histories, 10,10.2 – 4.; Bishop, The Gladius,10. Polybius explains the Roman training regimen used by Scipio in Spain. It includes one day in four devoted to weapons practice. In this, he specifies that the weapons used were javelin and sword. 61 Maximum length for a short sword is generally considered to be 28in (71cm). 62 Adrian Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003): 179.

214 slashing weapons. In their minds, the slash wounds but the thrust kills.63 The origins of this

mentality are unclear. It is most likely associated with the barbarian origins of slashing weapons,

as most slashing weapons familiar to the Romans come from the Celtic regions of Europe.

Thrusting, however, is associated with the spear and the societies of the eastern Mediterranean: a region admired and emulated by the Romans. Regardless of reason, the Romans trained their soldiers to thrust.

The gladius was equally effective as a slashing sword, though. The original gladius is nearly impossible to trace definitively. Modern scholars figure its design was derivative of other swords, the Celtic La Tène Type I and Greek xiphos being the most likely models copied.64 The

first standardized Roman variant, called a Mainz Type, did not solidify until the early Principate

period. This model is distinct in its exaggerated leaf-shaped, waisted blade.65 While this shape

does not preclude being used in a slash, it is not as effective at slashing as a parallel bladed

sword would be. Instead, the leaf-shaped design opens large wounds when thrust into an

opponent. These wounds tend to be overly graphic, causing a psychological impact on others,

and much harder to heal than a slashing wound. This on its own would lend credence to the

Roman mantra mentioned above.

The hilt of the gladius started at an oval hand guard. This provided protection from other

blades deflecting off the gladius blade as well as stopping the hand from sliding forward onto the

blade. The grip was usually made of an organic material; wood, bone and ivory being

preferred.66 To aid in gripping, artisans made the handle in indexed, segmented sections. It is

63 Burton, The Book of the Sword, 255. 64 Bishop, The Gladius, 10. 65 Bishop, The Gladius, 12.

66 Raffaele D’Amato, Arms and Amrour of the Imperial Roman Soldier: From Marius to Commodus, 112 BC – AD 192 (London: Frontline Books, 2009): 15.

215 unclear if it was leather wrapped or not. This, most likely depended on the preference of the

individual soldier. The hilt ended in a large pommel: usually oval. This provided a stop for the

hand of the solder to prevent the weapon from slipping out of the hand over the back end, and a

counterbalance to the forward weight of the blade.

According to the archaeological record, the gladius originated in the Iberian Peninsula.

Modern scholars believe it evolved from the La Tène Type-I sword.67 These swords are

predominately thrusting swords. They have a long tapering point, which would have given way

to the leaf-shaped blade of the gladius (see Figure 7.10). They also have a mid-rib down the

length of the blade to add strength to the blade.68

Figure 7.10: Image of a La Téne Type-I sword form the British Museum. These swords are characterized by a long tapering blade (this one is 33cm) with a sharp point and mid-rib down the length of the blade. (Source: https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx ?objectId=829460&partId=1; accessed 29 Dec 2018)

The earliest blades of this type date to the second century BC in the environs of Seville

and Alfaro in modern Spain.69 Unfortunately, the archaeology of this region is not nearly as

advanced as in other places. This is largely due to restrictions on archaeology under the Franco

regime that dominated Spain until 1975.70 In the past few decades, archaeology has begun in earnest in the area and further evidence as to the origins of this sword should be forthcoming. As archaeology in these regions continue, it is possible that new evidence will confirm the origins of

67 Varga, The Roman Wars in Spain, 116. 68 Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 61. 69 Varga, The Roman Wars in Spain, 116. 70 Varga, The Roman Wars in Spain, 7.

216 the gladius or point in new directions to seek that genesis.

Outside of Spain, the earliest evidence of the use of the gladius comes from the Šmihel

region of modern Slovenia and dates to 175BC. 71 If the timeline that most scholars support holds true and the Romans did not begin adoption of the gladius until Scipio’s time in Spain, then the

spread of the gladius borders on meteoric. P. Cornelius Scipio the Younger was not elected to the

proconsulship of Hispania until 211-210 BC.72 If he began the conversion of Roman forces to the

use of the Spanish weaponry immediately, which is highly unlikely considering he would need to

actually get to Spain prior to doing this, It would take several years to not only train the men in

the use of a new weapon system, but to acquire the weapons to do so. No matter when he started,

probabilities are high that the conversion had taken place, at least in the western legions, by the

time of Zama in 202 BC. According to Appian, the Romans “destitute of missiles, […] now fought sword in hand in close combat” at Zama.73 While possible that the source may be in error,

the word used in this passage is ξίφεσιν. This translates as swords (plural), and not a generic

sword or poetic devise. This specifically refers to the Bronze and Iron Age double edged leaf-

bladed short sword used in the East as a secondary weapon. As Appian was Greek, he used the

Greek term for sword instead of the Latin, gladius. Is it accurate, however?

Just like most ancient sources, one must be careful with what one takes as fact and as

lore. By the time Appian was writing, the Punic Wars had been over for three hundred years.

Most of the stories associated with them had passed into Roman legend. While most consider

71 M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (Oxford England: Oxbow Books, 2006): 56. 72 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 26.18.: T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistracies of the Roman Republic vol 1 (New York: American Philological Association, 1951), 280. These dates are as close as modern experts can figure based upon matching events depicted in the ancient sources to known times of events from other sources. 73 Appian, The History of Rome, 8,45. οὔτε δὲ ἵππων σφίσι παρόντων οὔτε ἀκοντίων ἔτι ὄντων, ξίφεσιν ἐς ἀλλήλους ἐχρῶντο καὶ συνεπλέκοντο, Loeb edition)

217 Appian a highly skilled historian, the fact that the Romans employed the sword as the main

martial weapon was fact for the past three centuries. No one doubted it. Add to that the

inattention paid to the technology and armaments of the Roman army by Rome’s own historians

and it is exceedingly easy to see where Appian simply assumed the Romans were using swords

then instead of spears, ignoring the fact that this was during the changeover period in Roman armaments.

When Scipio was appointed consul in 205 BC, he was not given a full field army, only the

disgraced legions posted in Sicily and permission to call for volunteers.74 He raised 7,000 men

with the call for volunteers and took them with him to Sicily and later Africa to combat the

Carthaginians. He was responsible for equipping and training these volunteers. Since his most

recent stint as commander had been in Hispania where he trained his men to use the Spanish

sword, he most likely chose the gladius to equip his new force. With these men, the Sicilian legions and the volunteers, Scipio won several high profile victories, ultimately defeating

Hannibal outside of Carthage itself at Zama in 202 BC. The effective use of the gladius in dispatching the greatest enemy Rome had ever known guaranteed its acceptance in the Roman military. Once the Roman army adopted the gladius, it was only a matter of time until it moved on to what would become a traditional long sword (defined as any sword of over 28in (71cm)).

For the Romans, this sword was the spatha.

The spatha is, traditionally, either side of thirty inches long (76cm). Its design allows for one hand use with a dual edge.75 Unlike the early gladius, the spatha has a parallel blade design.

This improves its ability to slash over the waisted Mainz-Type gladius (Figure 7.11). Unlike the

gladius, the evolution and adoption of the spatha is evident in the archaeological record. It also

74 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 28,45.; Broughton, The Magistracies of the Roman Republic, 301. 75 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 82.

218 coincides with developments in first century AD super-Alpine Europe: a period of social and political development in the Latinizing Celtic communities.76

Figure 7.11: A blade diagram of the basic blade shapes for the major gladiu types used by the Roman army. (Source: https://www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?/topic/22649-gladiusdimensions/)

Technologically, the needs for improvements in the gladius were evident. As

metallurgical skill improved, the enhanced quality of metal used in the production of body

armors led to an advantage in defensive armaments. In order to keep up, offensive weaponry

needed to improve to overcome the defensive advantage. When the Roman enemies were

wearing cloth, leather, or low-grade metal armors, the Mainz-Type gladius was more than suitable. As more and more peoples began adopting the top end armors and the quality of materials used to make those armors improved, the force delivered by the gladius became inadequate. This is largely due to the insistence by the Romans on using a thrust.77

While thrusting a weapon can do significant damage, it reaches its maximum potential

76 Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: the Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 5. 77 D’Amato, Arms and Amrour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 85. It is thought that the change to the parallel sided Pompeii type gladius marks a change in fighting style of the legions form a thrust dominate style to one in which thrust and slash were used equally.

219 not with the weapon, but with the user. A human can deliver only so much force with the

sharpened tip of a sword. As it takes only 2 foot-pounds of work (ft-lb) to penetrate the human

body, any weapon against an undefended human is effective. To penetrate bronze or iron armor,

however, between 151 and 251 ft-lb are required. The thrust of a gladius only produces 21 ft-

lb.78 Efforts can be made to improve the tip delivering the thrust imparting a mechanical

advantage to the sword wielder, and they were. The thin, surgical tip of the first generation gladii

proved ineffective against the heavy armors of the Romans’ opponents of the early Principate,

especially the semi-plate armor of the Romans themselves. To aid in lethality, the tip evolved to

a chisel pointed tip, or bodkin. This tip design functioned much better against metal targets, but

did not penetrate human flesh efficiently, although it would. Over time, even this modification

proved inadequate. The defense provided by the armors of the day forced the Romans to employ

the gladius in a hack or slashing manner in order to overcome them. Doing this increased the

force of the delivered stroke to upwards of 100 ft-lb.79 This meant a change was needed in the

overall geometry of the gladius blade, which led to the development of the Pompeii-Type

gladius.

The Pompeii-Type gladius is a true hybrid sword between the early Mainz-Type gladius

and the forthcoming spatha. The Pompeii-Type kept the short length and proportional width,

although it averaged out in the middle of the Mainz-Type size range. It had a more pronounced

handguard than did its predecessor.80 This indicated a need for better hand protection. Most likely, this is due to the general adoption of sword type weapons across the Roman world. As swords cross, they slide down the blade. If an inadequate guard is on the blade, the opposing

78 Gabriel, The Great Armies of Antiquity, 24. 79 Gabriel, The Great Armies of Antiquity, 24. 80 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 80-81.

220 blade can jump it and slice into the hand.

The Pompeii-Type also featured a smaller, and more flattened pommel.81 This indicates

two different things. First, the need for a blunt striking platform for the weapon diminished. Most

people do not think of using a sword as a blunt force weapon, but a large pommel allows just

that. Failing that, striking with the flat of the blade instead of the edge can deliver the blunt force

needed. Having a non-lethal mode of attack is important in some instances: peacekeeping

opposed to combat for instance. With improvements to body armor, however, the amount of

force delivered with the pommel of a sword is not sufficient to overcome the defense provided

by the upgraded helmets of the day. Second is a lighter weapon with a better balance. The pommel traditionally provides a counterbalance to the weight of the blade allowing the wielder to have better control of the weapon. Since the pommel was getting smaller, there was less weight forward in the blade needing to be counterbalanced.82

The reason there is less weight forward on the blade is the most significant change in the

Pompeii-Type sword. The Mainz-Type sword was a leaf-shaped blade. This means the blade

came off the hilt and narrowed for a few inches. It then flared into a wider section. The result

was a blade that ended up looking like the leaf of a beech or an ash tree (or a woman’s

waistline). This waisted blade, while efficient for both thrusting and slashing, was primarily a

thrusting weapon. The Pompeii-Type sword changed this. The blade of this sword was parallel

from the ricasso to the taper of the tip. This had multiple effects on the blade. First, it streamlined

the balance of the blade, which now required less of a pommel. It also allowed for more of the

blade edge to make contact in a slash than the previous type. Thus, the Pompeii-Type gladius

81 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 80-81. 82 Albion Swords, “About Swords,” Albion Swords Limited, https://www.albion-swords.com/swords/sword- terms.htm (accessed 23 July 2019).

221 becomes a true dual threat weapon. It had a sharp, bodkin point for thrusting, and it had a long

narrow parallel blade for slashing.

These changes coincide with a dynamic period of Roman history. The archaeological record indicates the beginning of the Pompeii-Type as during the Principate.83 In fact, the name

originates from several examples of this weapon fond at Pompeii, which was buried in the

eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD 79. While its exact date of origin is indeterminate, it is safe to say that the beginnings of the change in the shape of the sword corresponds to the Roman Civil

Wars. There are two plausible reasons for this. First, the Romans’ main opponent during the

Civil Wars was themselves. The legions were all equipped with the best arms and armor of the day. In order to overcome the better armor, changes to the weapon needed to take place. Since the thrust had reached the end of its usefulness as a predominate form of attack, a sword better suited to slashing was needed. As slashing allows a much heavier blow to be delivered, a sword with an improved slashing platform better overcame the heavy armor (lorica segmentata) of the opposing legions.

The second reason had to do with manufacture. In the early days of the gladius’ adoption, the Romans acquired the swords needed from skilled craftsmen in Hispania. Since the sword most likely came from there, they were best suited to make them. As the need for more and more swords arose, the manufacturing process needed to be simplified and cheapened. Making a straight bladed sword instead of a waisted sword required less skill from the artisans and less time to manufacture. The result was a cheaper version of the weapon that a less skilled workforce could then produce in sufficient quantity. This second reason is probably the most likely for the changes.

83 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 79-80. Earliest possible remains of this sword type are thought to date to c.60AD..

222 Along with these changes came a social change in the military system of the Roman

army. As Rome spread out further from the Italian Peninsula, the source of men serving in the

legions spread with it. By the end of the first century AD, the primary source of manpower for the legions was the provinces.84 As the Celtic peoples inhabited most of the Western provinces at

this time, the legions became filled with Celts. The Celts had long been users of slashing long

swords, even when they were not practical. Polybius writes of Celtic sword bending in battle and

being useless until straightened.85 This indicates that the Celts, in experimenting with sword

designs, had surpassed the ability of the metal quality of the day to perform in the way

intended.86 It was fine for a short sword that received less stress from a full swing, but from a

longer sword, the metals could not withstand the pressure and bent. Over time, the improvement

of metal and smithing techniques erased this defect allowing for the longer swords, as shown by

the lack of comment on this issue by later historians.

This, more than anything else, allowed for the adoption of the spatha in the mid-third century AD.87 In appearance, there is little difference between the spatha and the Pompeii-Type

gladius. The only major difference is length. Where the gladius has approximately an 18 inches

long (45cm) blade, the spatha’s blade is around 30 inches (76cm).88 Archaeology indicates that

the spatha was already in use through the first century AD. It was relegated to use by auxilia and

84 Sara E. Phang, . “New Approaches to the Roman Army,” Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World, ed. Lee L. Brice and Jennifer T. Roberts (Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 2011), 130. 85 Polybius, Histories, 3,33.3. 86 When a sword bends upon impact, it indicates that the temper was improperly done. The longer the blade, the harder it is to temper. The fact that the Celts used swords that bent in battle indicates that the smiths making them were not yet able to temper swords of that length properly. The fact that Polybius comments upon this indicates that this was a systemic problem and not just an isolated incident. 87 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 154. 88 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 82.

223 cavalry units which suggests that this weapon came from non-Roman sources.89

The Romans were lackadaisical about equipment requirements for their auxiliary units.

The Romans generally allowed auxilia to provide their own weapons and armors.90 In some

cases, such as with archers and cavalry, the Romans required certain allied peoples to provide

specific types of troops. This allowed the Romans to round out their military needs while at the

same time gaining the best abilities from their allies. Where the Romans ran into an issue is

resupplying these units. As most auxilia served away from their home provinces, they needed

resupply from Roman manufacturers. This is especially true with the beginning of the Imperial

Era. From this point on, the Romans began manufacturing military gear in government owned

fabricae.91 This meant that the Romans needed to become proficient at making any weapon

needed by any soldier fighting in a particular area. The Romans, moreover, regularly inducted

those having craft skills with military applications into the support system of the legions in an

area.92 This helped ease manufacturing issues as it placed all artisans needed to produce any

piece of equipment within easy reach of the legions. When they could, however, the Romans

unified the weapons of all those serving. Streamlining to one weapon instead of several made

sense and eased the logistical and economic constraints warfare put on a nation. Since both

infantry and cavalry needed a sword, amalgamation of both arms with the spatha resulted. As

those who served of horseback could make little to no use of a short sword, it became necessary

for the infantry to adjust to the longer swords of the cavalry.

89 D’Amato, Arms and Amrour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 153.

90 T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000 – 264BC) (New York: Routledge, 1995): 367 – 368.; Graham Webster, The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998): 26, 145. 91 Pat Southern and Karen Ramsey Dixon, The Late Roman Army (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996): 89. 92 Michael Grant, The Severans: The Changed Roman Empire (New York: Routledge, 1996): 177.

224 This leads to why the cavalry were equipped with the spatha in the first place. The

Romans outsourced specialized military duties to those peoples within the Roman hegemony that

could best perform those duties. Skills such as slinging fell to the Balearic Islanders and

Rhodians. Archery was a common pursuit of the Near Easter allies such as the Syrians and

Cretans. Cavalry in the Western Empire was the purview of the Celts. The Romans felt that the

Celts were the best horsemen in Europe.93 Due to this, the Romans continually allowed the Celts

to field cavalry units for the Roman field armies. Even after the conquest of the major Celtic

home regions (Gaul and Hispania), the Romans utilized them for this purpose. Since the Romans

allowed allied units to use their own ethnic armaments when raised as auxilia, the Celts took

their long swords with them. This introduced the long sword to the Roman arsenal.

By the third century AD, the Roman military system was employing both gladius and

spatha. The gladius saw use predominately along the frontier.94 This indicates its changing role

to a garrison weapon instead of a main line legion weapon. Since the garrison troops usually only

sallied against raiders and local uprisings, both of which usually comprised foes which did not

use the most advanced armors, giving them older weapons was cheaper and more efficient. The

main legions employed the longer spatha. These men were more likely to encounter heavily

armed and armored opponents, and men on horseback. They needed the longer weapons.

The final hilted weapon of this period in the Roman panoply is the pugio. This dagger is a

smaller version of the Mainz-Type gladius and hails from the Iberian Peninsula just like its

larger counterpart.95 Historians debate how legionaries employed it, but not that they had it.

These weapons are found in almost every major military site in Western Europe, and they yield

93 Ritchie and Ritchie, “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” 44. 94 Bishop, The Gladius, 32. 95 Saliola and Casprini, Pugio – Gladius Brevis Est, 5.

225 some of the most artistically and elaborately decorated pieces in Roman archaeology.

This weapon, while practical and fully functional, is considered more of a display piece

or an honorific given for conspicuous service.96 The reasons for this are several. First, the highly decorative nature of the hilts and scabbards are well beyond what most would consider practical for a general issue side arm. As the Romans were an imminently practical people, issuing highly

decorative pieces to all legionaries was not within their character. Additionally, the amount of

precious metals used to adorn these pieces as well as the high-end engraving and scrollwork on the hilts and scabbards indicate a fair amount of time, or money, spent in the production of these pieces. Considering that very few full swords, gladii or spathae, were adorned in such a way, it would indicate that the pugio was singled out for special consideration in this regard.

Most historians consider the origin of the pugio to be Hispania.97 While pugio finds are

abundant after the Second Punic War, there is little to no indication of its existence in any

Roman capacity prior to this war. This would indicate that this particular dagger had its origins

in areas Rome occupied because of that war. Those two areas are The Iberian Peninsula, and the

western portion of North Africa. To narrow it down, one would need to look at where we find

these particular artifacts.

The area of propagation is the strange thing about the pugio. While found in almost every

Roman military dig of Western Europe, it is not found outside a certain area. Roman digs from

the Iberian Peninsula east to the Rhine Valley and the upper reaches of the Danube all yield this

weapon, as do the Alpine regions as well as peninsular Italy. It is not found, however, anywhere

outside of those regions as anything more than a rare occurrence. More are found along the limes

96 Saliola and Casparini, Pugio – Gladius Brevis Est, 40. 97 Saliola and Casparini, Pugio – Gladius Brevis Est, 7.; Varga, The Roman Wars in Spain,162.

226 than in interior communities.98 This would indicate that this dagger was significant to peoples of

the western part of Europe and not to other places. Additionally, it would indicate its importance to the less Romanized parts of the Empire than to those fully Latinized. This corresponds succinctly with the major Celtic region of Western Europe.

We know that the Celts put a high significance on swords and sword related items. Often,

communities provided new weapons for the burials of important people. Those of lesser means

or social status had to make do with their normal, everyday sword. Due to the expense of acquiring swords, it is possible that the Celt societies saw daggers as a more economically expedient expression of rewards and signs of status instead of swords. This would work well with what we know about the pugio.

Figure 7.12: Evolution of the Roman pugio from its beginning of use by the Romans in the 2nd century BC, through the Principate period, to its final use in the 3rd century AD. These images show the evolution of the bilglobuar hilt. (Source: Saliola and Casprini 2012, 5)

98 Saliola and Casparini, Pugio – Gladius Brevis Est, 30.

227 The pugio is traditionally a very short, 6-8 inches (15-20 cm), waisted, biglobular, double-edged dagger with an extended tip.99 By all accounts, it looks like a miniature version of

the early Mainz-Type gladius, albeit with a distinct handle (Figure 7.12). Furthermore, the

evolution of this dagger mimics the changes made in the gladius throughout the life of the dagger

in the Roman army.100 It had a small guard, indicating it was not much use for duels.101 Finally,

its distinctive hilt, while decorative and aesthetically pleasing, could be a hindrance for

prolonged use.

The hilt of the pugio employed a unique design. Most hilts will have a guard of some

type between the hilt and blade and a pommel at the back end of the hilt. In the middle, the actual

handle is usually indexed in such a way as to allow the hand to comfortably hold the weapon in

such a way as to make full use of it without having to think about blade placement. It is here that

the pugio differs from other weapons. In addition to a small guard at the fore and a pommel of

some type at the rear, the hilt has a second, rounded adornment in the center. There is nothing to

indicate the reasons behind adding this second globe (hence biglobular) other than decoration.

Originally, it was oversized and highly decorative. As the Romans made use of the dagger,

however, the middle hilt globe shrunk to make the weapon more conducive to use. Additionally,

the oldest forms of this weapon tend to have exaggerated proportions. They are overly wide and

too short to allow for anything resembling military use. As the pugio became more common in

the Roman system, these exaggerations reduced and the weapon became more functional.102

99 D’Amato, Arms and Amrour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, 24. 100 Saliola and Casparini, Pugio – Gladius Brevis Est, 5-6. 101 Saliola and Casparini, Pugio – Gladius Brevis Est, 5. 102 Prado, Eduardo K. and Fernando Q. Sanz, “Pugio Hispaniensis between Celtiberia and Rome: Current Research and Analysis on the Construction of Sheaths,” Limes XX: Proceedings on the 20th Internationals Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Leon, Espana, Spetember 2006 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), 2009: 397.

228 Very few societies made showpieces out of daggers. The only major one in the Roman world

who did was the Celts.

Over time, the pugio went out of style as an issued weapon. The reduction in issuance of

this type of dagger seems to correspond with the Germanization of the Roman legions along the

Rhine/Danube limes.103 The Germanic peoples of Central Europe had different ways of honoring warriors and symbolizing rank that did their Celtic counterparts from Western Europe. As the cultural need for the pugio faded, so did the use of this particular type of dagger. Finally, by the mid-third century AD, the pugio was all but forgotten and disappearing from the archaeologic

record.104

When added together, the above facts indicate that this weapon was also of Celtic origin.

Its first encounter by the Romans was in Hispania during the Second Punic War. Its use was

almost strictly relegated to the Celtic region of Europe, even going so far as to die out in the

Romanized regions of Celtic Europe. The Romans issued the pugio predominately as a

showpiece instead of as a functional sidearm.105 This was also the piece most commonly

decorated by the soldiers themselves showing that adorning these weapons had some

significance in camp life. Finally, it disappeared from general usage at the end of the third

century AD. This period corresponds to the replacement of the Celt as the main recruit for the

Roman military with the Goths and other Germanic peoples. These societies had different ways

of honoring their heroes and indicating status and did not need the pugio anymore. If there was

103 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 205. While the pugio does not disappear entirely, during the Dominate, there is a decided drop off in archaeological finds of pugiones while, at the same time, a decided increase in specific forms of Germanic armament. 104 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 134. 105 While the artistic evidence shows the pugio in almost all instances of Roman legionnaires depicted in the first through third centuries AD, they are all shows sheathed. The pugio is thought to be a secondary weapon and was most likely used that way, but no evidence can definitively say that is the case.

229 ever a more Celtic weapon than the pugio, archaeologists have not yet found it.

Conclusion

The Roman military was well versed in adopting that which made it stronger. They did not care whence it came, only that it worked for them. When they ran into the Celtic peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, they discovered their current system of military organization and tactics did not render the results sought. The guerrilla warfare that was such a part of life in Hispania was too foreign for the Roman system in its current configuration to handle. Therefore, they changed their system to match their needs.

These systemic changes, taking place over the next century, needed more than just organizational changes to make them work. It required technological changes as well. The long trusted spear of the Roman army was no longer serviceable in all situations. Something had come along and proven to be better. In order to counter this new, better weapon, the Romans simply adopted it from their Celtic rivals. The gladius became part of the Roman system and proved to be close to the ultimate weapon of the Classical Era.

Over time, other considerations developed that necessitated a further change. Beginning in the third century AD, the Romans began encountering more and more enemies on horseback.

This meant they needed a longer weapon than the short gladius to fight them effectively. At the same time, constant civil wars put the Romans against enemies equipped with the best armor of the era. This made the traditional gladius less and less effective. The Romans modified the sword as needed until it became apparent that the technology had caught up with the need for a long sword. At this point, the Romans took the spatha as the long sword of choice from the long sword innovators of Europe: the Celts. This sword would serve as the germ for all long swords of

230 European design, from Viking and Germanic, to the massive two-handed swords of the European

Renaissance.106

Since this weapon, as well as the gladius, were Celtic in origin, the Romans had little problem inducting Celtic peoples from the newly conquered provinces into their military system to use them. These people were considered big, strong, and war-like. Moreover, by using them, they could reduce the reliance on the Italic peoples in Southern Europe, thus relieving some of the social pressure back in Rome. With the enlistment of Celts as a major portion of the Roman army, the Roman system had to change to match the Celtic conceits about valor and reward.

Thus, the adoption of the pugio to satisfy those troops in a culturally appropriate style. Once the main body of troops filling the Western legions evolved to be Germanic and Gothic, the need for the pugio died out, and the Romans changed to other means to reward those who served with conspicuous valor. In all instances, however, the mainstay of Roman hilted weapons originated with Celtic experimentation and artisans from the Second Punic War through the end of the third century AD.

106 Asa Bruhn Hoffmeyer, “Introduction to the History of the European Sword,” Gladius 1 (1961): 44.

231 CHAPTER 8

MISSILE WEAPONS

This is the final topic in our examination of the Celtic impact on the Roman military

system: missile weapons. For this discussion, we define missile weapons as any weapon that

fires a projectile at an enemy beyond the physical reach of the weapon itself. For the Romans,

that means bows and slings. Spears and javelins, while they have a missile component to them,

are a hybrid weapon and have been relegated to shafted weapons (see chapter 6).

These weapons are not to be confused with artillery style weapons. We define artillery weapons as machines serviced by a crew of men. The crew can be as small as two and as large as needed. This category includes most of the familiar Roman war machines such as catapults, ballistae, and scorpions. While these are an important part of the Roman military system, they go beyond the scope of this investigation, which is focusing solely on infantry soldiers of the

Roman military system.

In looking at the development and implementation of the missile weapons of the Roman military, the easy answer is to say there was no development at all. The Romans themselves never advanced beyond the basic sling and self-bow introduced to Italy in the earliest days of peninsular inhabitance. That is not to say that the Romans did not have use of other, more advanced, missile platforms within their military structure, but the users of those platforms were predominately allied troops raised from other ethnic peoples dominated by and incorporated into the Roman system.1 The Romans did not use them en masse themselves.

The main reason for this is that the societies imparting the main influences on the Roman

military system never developed these types of weapons themselves, nor put much emphasis on

1 R. Miller, et al., “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” World Archaeology 18 2 (Oct., 1986): 179.

232 the development and use of ranged weapons. From the fourth century BC through the end of the third century AD, the Celts were the major influence on the Romans in regards to military development. Prior to that, the Romans mimicked the Greek and Etruscan military systems (see chapter 3). Due to this, the Romans took up the Greek/Etruscan martial philosophies and then the

Celtic military cultures in the process of adopting their technologies. When a culture adopts one aspect of another culture in toto, they invariably include the cultural constraints and conceits within that system at the same time.2 This means the Romans, even if they did not mean to do so, absorbed the anti-bow attitudes prevalent in those other systems.

All three influencing cultures, Greek, Etruscan, and Celtic, shared the same attitude when it came to the bow. They saw it as a useful hunting weapon, but not one that a warrior would use in anything but a desperate combat role. There are two main reasons for this attitude. The first is a geographical concern imparted by living conditions in the early developmental stages of these cultures. The second is a cultural motive predicated on the social structure that ended up dominating these societies.

Geographically speaking, when looking at the Celts, Greeks, and Etruscans, they did not live in bow friendly physical environments. Most of the important developments in the bow derive from the steppe nomads of Central Asia.3 These people lived in regions defined by wide- open spaces and rolling grasslands. In this area, the need to strike an enemy from a distance was vital to survival. Speed was of the essence here. Predators that threatened the herds upon which the steppe nomads depended came from hidden pockets in the ground and attacked with little to no warning. Human antagonists seeking to aggrandize themselves at your expense used these

2 Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas Larsson, “Contacts and Travel During the 2nd Millennium BC: Warriors on the Move,” in Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, ed. Ioanna Galanaki, et al (Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005), 28. 3 Miller, “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” 180.

233 same methods. To combat these threats, the steppe warriors needed a weapon that could strike

from a distance with enough force to take down a large predator or knock a man off a horse.4

This led to the development of weapons that could strike effectively from a distance: bows.

In Europe, the geography is vastly different. Two major physical features dominate the

European landscape: the central Alpine Massif and the Great Northern European Plain.5 Both presented problem to the development of powerful, ranged weapons. In the highland regions

(Alpine Central Europe, the Italian, Iberian, and Balkan Peninsulas), the ruggedness of the

terrain prevented most forms of distance combat. The restrictiveness of the terrain meant that

enemies could rarely sneak up on you without warning (provided you were paying attention). It

also meant that needing something that could strike from a distance was a luxury. It was nice to

have for a hunt or for fun, but not a necessity in combat. Instead, combat was up close and

personal.6 It benefitted to develop greater defensive abilities and better ways to kill within arm’s

reach. The result was the lack of development in technologies needed to construct much more

powerful bows, as well as the cultural emphasis on learning to use them. Instead, conditions

dictated that warriors learn to fight hand to hand instead.7 This led to the cultural development

that put major emphasis on the close-combat warrior and detracted from the archer: the reverse

of what developed on the Eurasian steppe.

Both the Greeks and Celts are Indo-European peoples. Less is known about the origins of the Etruscans, but it is possible they migrated to Italy from Anatolia and developed on their own

4 Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow (New York: Bramhall House, 1963), 33. 5 National Geographic, “Europe; Physical Geography,” https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/europe- physical-geography/ (accessed 3 Sept. 2018). 6 Victor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Ancient Greece (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 27. 7 Hanson, The Western Way of War, 31.

234 from there8 (see chapter 2). These cultures form the backbone of the Roman military culture;

ergo the Roman military culture is an Indo-European culture, even if the entirety of Roman

culture is not.9 Due to that, there is tremendous overlap and imitation in the Roman and

Greek/Celtic military cultures.

In all of these cultures, the warrior elite resided at the top. This is predominately due to

the need of the warrior to defend the resources of the collective from predatory attacks by

animals and other humans. By being the better fighters in the community, these warriors were

able to impose their will and control on the rest of society. The result was that these warriors rose to dominate society. Those seeking advancement in society found the surest ways to do this required their participation in the military subculture of the community.10 Historians think this

need to fight revolved around the access and control of exotic prestige goods.11 These goods

were usually exotic foods and wine, feasting utensils, fine pottery, and the like. Only those who

could guarantee a supply of these goods rose in society. The best way to secure these goods was

to fight, either to protect trade routes or take the goods from others who had them. In either case,

fighting became mandatory to achieve this. The better a man fought, the more goods he could

secure. The more he secured, the higher he rose in society.

Examples of this cultural paradigm are found throughout the region. Most of the elite

Celtic and early Greek graves found by archaeologists contain grave goods. Those goods are

8 Herodotus, Histories, 1,94. Recent DNA analysis also backs this position although that analysis is questionable due to the age of the DNA acquired and the methodology used to evaluate it. [Alessandro Achilli, Anna Olivieri, et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Variations of Modern Tuscans Support the Near Eastern Origins of Etruscans,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 180, no 4 (Apr 2007): 759.]

9 T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000 – 264BC) (New York: Routledge, 1995), 32. 10 Nortmann Hans, “Dead Warriors and Their Communities in the Hunsrück-Eifel-Culture,” ,” in Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, ed. Jean Bourgeois, et al (Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002), 143. 11 Marian Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods: New Perspectives on “Celtic Barbarians” in Western and Central Europe (500 – 250 BC (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001), 7.

235 largely feasting utensils and weapons.12 Even for females, the inclusion of military gear is not an unheard of occurrence.13 This shows the heights to which warriors rose in these cultures.

What stands out about these grave goods, however, is the lack of ranged weapons. The weaponry included in the graves of males habitually contains a spear and shield. Other common elements include daggers and horse gear.14 Rarer objects include swords, maces, axes, and bows.

This is indicative of a few things. First, the main weapon of those early warriors was one designed for close-in fighting: the spear. Secondly, the use of metals in the construction of weaponry was limited in the early days of these societies, hence the lack of metal intensive weapons such as swords and maces. Archaeologists consider those graves that did contain metal rich grave goods to be of the upper tier elites.15 This is most likely due to the difficulty in either mining the ores or finding a source of the metals needed, such as tin.16 Metal is not a major component of bows, however. The lack of bows in these warriors’ graves speaks to their lack of use or respect for the weapon. Since the weapon did not require large amounts of expensive or rare material, a conclusion is that use of this particular weapon was not common to become symbolic of the warrior culture. Due to this, ancient societies did not consider bows as necessities for the journey through the afterlife.

Many Celtic graves do yield arrowheads in the recovered grave goods. They are not, however, found in most of the lower echelon warriors graves. This would indicate that the arrows are part of the leisure activity goods for the upper tier elites instead of a standard

12 Peter S. Wells, The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 36. 13 Celtic Arts and Culture, “The Woman,” Categories of Gender and Class in the Celtic Grave, http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/grave/TheWoman.html (accessed of 5 Sept 2018). 14 Barry Cunliffe, The Ancient Celts (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 93-94. 15 John Haywood, The Celts: Bronze Age to New Age (Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2004),11. 16 W. H. Manning, “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1995), 317.

236 warrior’s weapon. These arrowheads tend to be made of bronze more often than they are of iron.

They also are of a trilobate (three blades around a central mounting socket) design common to

the Scythians of the period. This would indicate that the technology of bows and arrows came to

the Celts from the East either through trade or through mercenary activity. There is no record of

the use of bows by Celts in any of the smatterings of writings concerning conflicts between the

Celts and other peoples, however. There is not even a mention of Celts even carrying bows on

the field.17 This would indicate that the bow, while a useful tool and hunting weapon, was not a

favored weapon on the battlefield. It is possible that bows should be associated with chariots in

the ancient Egyptian manner. Unfortunately, researchers and catalogers have not yet done

enough cross-referencing between chariot and horse gear remains in grave that also contain bow

and arrow remnants. With more study and analysis, the role of bows in Celtic warfare may

become clearer.

It would be a reach to assume the bows saw little use in warfare, but it is safe to assume

they were not a main weapon. If bows were more prevalent on the battlefield, finds of bow

remnants would be more common in graves than they are. The art and literature would also

depict them more often than they do. Most warriors depicted in Greek pottery (Celts being more

inclined to geometric designs than to human scenes) wield spears with a few swords. Very few

battle scenes show archers in Greek dress.18 Hunting scenes, however, are replete with archers in

Greek dress.19

17 Cunliffe, The Ancient Celts 94.

18 Spyros Bakas, “The Shooting Method of the Archers of the Ancient Greek World, 1400 BC – 400BC,” The National Association of Archery for All Organization (WTAF, Cheonan City, Chungnam-Do, Republic of Korea, 2014): 15. The majority of Greek potteries depicting combat archers show those archers in Scythian dress. Debate has arisen if those archers are really Scythians or if they are Greeks wearing Scythian cultural garb. Knowing the affection Greeks had for themselves, I cannot see why they would depict Greeks in Scythian dress. I fall on the side of seeing these archers as Scythians, probably mercenaries, instead of Greeks in Scythian clothing. 19 Ancient and classic Greek artistry had a proclivity of depicting human figures nude. This makes it difficult to

237 The idea developed through these cultures is that you express virility and worthiness

through direct confrontation with your antagonist. A true leader does not fear danger. He does

not hide behind a tree or a wall and shoot from a distance.20 Honor comes from being able to

enumerate, by name, those you have faced and bested in personal combat.21 There is no honor in

simply lobbing an arrow into the air and letting it fall upon a random person.

The Greeks express this mentality throughout their epic literature. In combats detailed in

the Iliad, the hero strode out to the field of battle with his shield and spear at hand ready to do

combat with any who would dares oppose him. At best, they would bring a bronze disc designed

to hurl at the enemy from a close to middle distance. If worse came to worse, then the throwing

of spears was acceptable as was the picking up and casting of stones. The best example for all of

this is the combat between Hector and Aias in Book VII of the Iliad. Both warriors close upon

each other and let fly their spears when in close range. They then pluck each other’s spear from

their shields and cast them back. Bereft of ranged weapons at this point, Hector picks up a stone

from the ground and hurls it with enough force to break his opponent’s shield. Aias, in return,

picks up the same stone and fires it back destroying Hector’s shield. They then both draw swords

and move into close combat only to be stopped by priests from each side and the approach of

night.22

In all cases, this form of ranged combat was perfectly allowable to the Greeks as well as

the Romans who adopted Greek military styles in their early years (see chapter 3). In Greek heroic warfare, ranged combat is allowable if the person using the ranged weapon can see and,

identify the ethnicity of the person being depicted. 20 Homer, Iliad 3,1-57. When Homer introduces Paris he does so by indicating he carries a bow instead of a spear as do the other warriors. He then immediately shows Paris as craven when he cringes away from single combat with Menelaus. 21 Victor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 17. 22 Homer, Iliad 7,283 – 335.

238 most importantly, be seen by his opponent.23 If this is the case, then ranged combat is an extension of individual combat. Each warrior gains or loses honor because each knows two important things: who he is trying to kill, and who is trying to kill him. This being the main requirement for Greek heroic combat, short-ranged weapons such as spears, the discus, the shot, and even stones were allowable. The Greeks' major issues were with long-distance weapons.

They looked upon these weapons with scorn as they allowed anyone to kill the heroic warriors and kings from hiding places without facing the opponent directly.

If we return to the Iliad, we see the disdain afforded those who fight with only a bow.

Throughout the work, Homer depicts Paris as effeminate and cowardly even though Paris appears consistently as the consummate archer. He does his best work with the bow, even killing the greatest warrior of his age, Achilles, with one. This attitude towards Paris is largely due to his desire to avoid the dangers of the battlefield and to hide from confrontation: characteristics the bow easily affords him. He constantly eschews physical combat, preferring to spend his time in the women’s quarters instead of on the field defending the city he brought under attack through his action. When finally forced onto the field to defend his and Helen’s honor in single combat against Menelaus, he comes across as weak, cringing and unmanly; ultimately losing the fight and avoiding death only through divine interference.24 In the Greek mindset, it is only natural that this sort of man would use a bow. Regardless how well he wielded it, his courage was always in question.

While it is safe to assume that the attitudes towards bows in the Iliad are somewhat stereotypical and exaggerated, there was definitely something in the Greek culture that was anti- missile weapon. In the subsequent battle stories related by Herodotus, he heaps constant praise

23 Hanson, The Western Way of War, 15. 24 Homer, Iliad 3.

239 on the heavy infantry in the phalanges while saying little about ranged weapons involved in the

fighting. The best example of this is the battle of Thermopylae between the entirely shock-

combat Spartans and the Persians who were heavily reliant upon massed archers. While the

Spartans eventually lose, history (and by history we mean specifically the Greeks) considers their

defeat one of the most heroic. The Persians, on the other hand, are constantly presented as

lacking in military skill and courage. At the end, when they finally have the Greeks surrounded,

the Persians stand back and barrage them with missiles instead of facing them in hand to hand

combat.25 While not said outright, the implication is that even at the end, the Persians were still

too cowardly to finish the Greeks in a heroic and manly fashion. It is not until Thucydides that

ranged weapons appear regularly in the battle reports of the Greek armies.26 By this time, the

Persians had shown the effectiveness of the ranged weapons, especially against better-trained and equipped foes. Adopting them seemed to be a logical and effective upgrade to the Greek military system. It also allowed the less skilled Athenians to match the Spartans on the battlefield with some hopes of winning. Nevertheless, while it became acceptable to use bows in order to win, the heroism of the individual archers are rarely if ever extoled in epic tale.

This attitude towards missile weapons seems to prevail throughout the Indo-European groups that migrated into Europe. Geographical constraints pushed these groups away from ranged weapons and into a preference for melee weapons. Unfortunately, this particular idea is almost impossible to prove definitively. All of the evidence that supports it is circumstantial.

Most of the pre-Classical Indo-European groups were pre-literate. Their stories, legends, myths,

25 Herodotus, Histories, 7,206 – 230. 26 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 2,13. According to the numbers presented here, the Greek army comprised of roughly 20000 men only 2000 (or 10%) of which were archers. [Thomas Nelson Winter, “The Place of Archery in Greek Warfare,” Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 1.]

240 and history do not come down to us the same way the Greeks’ did. We are left to interpret their

cultural ideologies through material remains and the writings of their erstwhile enemies. While

those can give an inkling into the philosophies and beliefs of these peoples, there is no concrete

backing to support those notions. Would we have as good an understanding of the early Greeks

without the Iliad and the Odyssey? It is highly doubtful. It can be assumed that the Celts had those type of stories as well, passed down orally for centuries. Those stories, however, were

lost.27

Relying on only physical remains is also problematic. While the weapons we attribute to

the warrior elites, spears, swords, and the like, are largely made of metal or have major metal

components, the missile weapons of the period were predominately organic in nature.

Traditionally, bowyers utilized wood, sinew, and horn in the construction of bows. Those

materials have very low probability of surviving the ravages of time to persist to modern times.

Therefore, even if those societies interred their warriors with more advanced bows, the odds that

those bows survived are low. The only thing metallic that would indicate bows would be

arrowheads. The problem with this is two-fold. First, arrowheads are small. When full suits of

armor corrode into dust and smatterings of parts, what chance does a small individual piece like

an arrowhead have? It could be that arrowhead remnants have survived, but since they were

made of the same material as the armor, they simply melted into the remaining corroded mass

the armor became. The second issue is the arrowhead itself. The only indication between a self-

bow and a more powerful bow fond in arrows is the heaviness of the arrow. A self-bow could not

shoot as heavy an arrow as could a compound or complex bow.28 Unfortunately, a lot of the

27 Haywood, The Celts, 17. 28R. Miller, et al., “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” World Archaeology 18 2 (Oct., 1986): 179

241 weight of an arrow is found in the shaft, and those do not survive. Finding the arrowheads only

indicates a bow was present, not the kind of bow present.

Due to these issues, modern scholars are left with little more than the surviving artistic

impressions found scattered throughout the regions inhabited by these peoples. As noted

elsewhere, the Celts were not inclined towards representing humans in their artistic endeavors.

Instead, they seemed to prefer geometric patterns and depictions of nature29 (see chapter 4). This means that the pieces of artwork that have survived depicting warriors from Celtic sources are exceedingly rare. Rare enough that they do not provide a large enough sample size from which to draw general conclusions.

The final deterrent to the development of bows in the European region is the geographic separation between the peoples north of the Mediterranean littoral and the bowyery homeland of

Central Asia. These two groups do not have extensive direct contact in the pre-Classical period.

While this is not definitively provable, there are few elements of cultural similarity to show any form of diffusion between the two. Arguably, most elements of one shown in the other can be attributed to trade along the Mediterranean trade routes. Because of this, the technologies of bows had to diffuse across several cultural groups to migrate in to super-Alpine Europe. If any of these intervening groups did not adopt the technology, the chain broke. We can trace the exchange of bow technologies from its origins in the Central Asian steppe through the Near East to the North African coast.30 When it is poised to cross into Europe via contact in the Balkans,

however, it stops. Early evidence exists that the technology was there. The people simply failed

to adopt it in any scale larger than individual.31 As a result, the technology never made it as far

29 Cunliffe, The Ancient Celts, 119. 30 Miller “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” 179.

31 Evidence exists that heavy bows existed in the Greek region as early as 800BC. The story of Odysseus using a bow

242 as Northern Europe.

Other factors are at play in preventing the Romans from adopting advanced bows. The

first is an offshoot of the warrior culture discussed above. The Romans gained their military

culture from the neighboring cultures of the Greeks and the Celts. Both of these cultures

followed the warrior-elite model in the early Bronze Age to establish their class structure.32 Men in these societies earned their place by braving the rigors of combat and warfare. In the early days, this meant individual combat. Fighting methods were up-close and personal.33 A perfect

example of this comes, again, from the Iliad. The work is replete with episodes of who killed

whom, or aristeia. Homer constantly pulls the heroes of both sides out of the main combat

scenes for inspection. Under this inspection, the bard extols the warrior by enumerating all of his

adversaries and their gristly demise with all of the glorious carnage arrayed as decoration.34 This is how warrior elites rose in society: by being able to list the great warriors you have killed.

Nowhere in this system is there room for listing those you shot from the top of a wall with a bow.

The organization of the Roman military in its earliest system exhibits this mindset clearly. We have already discussed the veracity of the Servian Constitution. Whether one believes it is an honest document designed to monopolize manpower for the martial efforts of the city or it is a way to politicize the efforts of the citizenry in such a way as to secure some facsimile of order is not really at issue. What is at issue is the way the Romans chose to organize their citizens. Recognizing that the citizenry was responsible for providing their own equipment

of such power that only he could bend it in The Odyssey Bk XXII shows that these bows existed. There is no evidence to support the mass production or implementation of these types of bows, however. 32 Diepeveen-Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods, 6 – 7. 33 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Histroica, V.31.; Cunliffe, The Ancient Celts, 101-102. 34 For examples of poetic aristeia, see Homer’s Iliad: Diomedes (book 5), Hector (book 8), Agamemnon (book 11), Patroclus (book 16), and Achinlles (book 21).

243 and that the city needed a well-rounded military system, the Romans set up the contributions of

those involved in such a way as to get the most out of each class. The majority of martial

responsibility fell upon the first three classes. The state required each of these classes to provide

men to fill out the ranks of the heavy infantry. These men equipped themselves, prior to state

military sponsorship, to fill out a phalanx. The lowest of these classes (Class III) required each

man to provide himself with a heavy spear, a sword, a helmet, and a shield.35 This would allow these men to participate as main line warriors in battle. The other two categories of draftees

(Classes IV and V) provided the support portions of the military by becoming ranged fighters.

In neither case were these classes asked to provide bows. The Constitution required men of Class IV to equip themselves with a medium spear and javelins.36 They provided the

skirmishers and screens for the main battle line. These men required no armor. It was thought

that providing even a shield and helmet would be beyond the ability of those in this class to

afford. Class V had even fewer resourced with which to outfit themselves. The state required

them to acquire slings and stones, and allowed them to fill the role of mid-range missile troops.37

This shows the importance of economics in the outfitting of the Bronze Aged Roman military

system.

The use of these non-bow weapons served culturally specific functions as well. For the

javelineers of Class IV, participating in the military system was important to fulfilling their civic

duties and responsibilities.38 It also allowed them to carry a spear into combat “as a true warrior

should” instead of having to use a lesser or more cowardly weapon. This is a reflection of the

35 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1,43. 36 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1,43. 37 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1,43. 38 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1,42.

244 warrior elite mentality beginning to prevail through the Roman military culture. Whether or not

the Romans actively considered the psychological impact on its soldiers when it made this

decision is highly doubtful. Odds are they chose this because that is what the political leaders,

warrior elites who designed this system, would have wanted for themselves.

Class V had differing considerations all together. The people who filled out this class

were amongst the poorest in the city. Most of them were small subsistence farmers and

herdsmen.39 They lived just a couple of steps above abject poverty. They did not have the

financial ability to provide much beyond their person to the defense of the city, but, as property

owners, they had a stake in defending the city.40 By allowing them to equip themselves with a

weapon that they can make themselves and with which they already have familiarity, this system

allowed them to fulfill their civic duties in an honorable way that still advantaged the Roman military.

The sling, additionally, was as good, if not better, than the bows the Romans employed.

Throughout the Republic era, the Romans themselves made due with the Cretan short bow.41

This bow was only about four feet in length overall and had a relatively weak draw. Due to this,

those using this bow could only draw it to the chest instead of getting a full draw back to the

39 Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome: from Prehistory to the First Punic War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005), 111 – 112. 40 Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 187. 41 A Cretan shortbow is a simple a short bow, possible with a double-convex design. Cretan archers are famous in the Mediterranean world for the same reason Rhodian and Balearic Island slingers are. The Cretan population had a cultural attachment to using the bow that dates back to at least 1700 BC. As bow use, like sling use, requires constant practice, societies that have an attachment to ranged weapons tend to do much better using them whole than those who do not have that attachment. Cretan archers were no better than other ethnic archers, they were just a specific group of them. When confronted with archers from different culture groups, the Persians for instance, the Cretan archers usually suffered greatly from lack of range with the Cretan bow and the lack of body armor. [Raffaele D’Amato, Early Aegean Warrior 5000 – 1450 BC (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2013), 8-9.; Xenophon, Anabasis III, 3.7.]

245 ear.42 Drawing a Cretan bow further than the chest would overstress the staff and break it. The

result was a bow that could only fire an arrow at about 25mph (40kmph). It also could not fire an arrow of any great weight. The consequence was a bow that could fire an undersized projectile up to around 200 yards (23m).43 It also had little to no penetrating power. Finally, the

Cretan bow had a tendency to wear out quickly. Due to its weak structure, any form of heavy use

would render the bow permanently bent and in need of replacement.44 The Romans intended this

method of service for their poorest citizens. The cost to procure and maintain this weapon is not

reasonable for these people considering the benefit gained on the battlefield, especially since the

sling would give this much and more for much less cost.

In looking at the sling in comparison to the Cretan bow, the sling equals or outmatches

the bow in all categories. The sling had a range equal to all but the best self-bows of the day.45

The Romans could extend that range with the use of specially shaped lead or ceramic bullets in

place of stones. The rate of fire for the two weapons is comparable with the bow being slightly

faster.46

The biggest difference between the sling and bow is in damage. The sling delivers much

more punch than does the bow. According to archaeological finds, the weight of a sling stone or

bullet and an arrowhead are about the same. Neither has enough power to overcome body armor

except in rare instances.47 The difference is in type of damage. The arrow delivers piercing

damage. For it to cause damage of any sort to a foe, it must penetrate the body somewhere. If it

42Miller, “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” 179. 43 Wallace McLeod, “Range of the Ancient Bow,” Phoenix 19 1 (1965):14. 44 Miller “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” 180. 45 Vegetius, Epitoma ReiMilitarius 2,23. 46 Arther Farrill, The Origins of War: from the Stone Age to Alexander the Great (London: Thames & Hudson, 1985), 66. 47 Ferrill, Origins of War, 22.

246 does, it can damage internal organs and cause bleeding damage that can debilitate the target over

time. The sling, on the other hand, causes blunt force damage. Because of this, the sling bullet or

stone does not actually have to penetrate armor in order for damage to result. The force of impact

by the missile is transmitted through the protective wear into the soft tissue underneath. This can

break bones or even damage internal organs through armor.48 Blows to the head can concuss the

target removing his from combat for the next few minutes or even the day. This is not something

an arrow can do. In fact, the only instance where the Cretan bow out performs the sling is in the

psychological factor of seeing comrades bleed.

When these traits are coupled with the economic cost of getting and maintaining a bow,

the sling is much more desirable a weapons platform. Slings are cheap to the point of being free

to make. Most are made with recycled materials: cloth, leather, or even woven grass.49 Slingers

acquire ammunition for them by picking up stones from the ground as they go from place to

place. Thus far, the cost outlay is next to nothing. Over time, the Romans would eventually begin

to make specially designed sling bullets out of lead or ceramic. Individual soldiers made these on their own time.50 Armorers handed out molds and soldiers could sit around a normal campfire

melting bits of lead provided and forming bullets. This was a common enough activity that most,

Roman, garrison sites yield piles of bullets. Ceramic bullets require a little more to make, but not much more. Soldiers formed the bullets from clay in their spare time and fired large amounts at once.51 In either of these cases, the cost of using this weapon was low. This is one of the main

48 Ferrill, Origins of War, 45. 49 Edward C. Echols, “The Ancient Slinger,” The Classical Weekly 43 15 (Mar 27, 1950), 227. 50 S.J. Greep, “Lead Sling-Shot from Windridge Farm, St Albans and the Use of the Sling by the Roman Army in Britain,” Britannia 18 (1987), 189 – 190. 51 M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006), 88.

247 reasons the sling stayed a major part of the Roman arsenal until the collapse of the Western

Empire.

Everything about the bow, on the other hand, was costly. Bows required a specialized

craftsman, a bowyer, for their construction. This artisan needed specialized materials that were

not readily available to the soldiers on the march. This required the Romans to trade or harvest

these materials and transport them to manufacturing centers as the preferred materials were not

readily available in the Roman region.52 After the acquisition of the materials, the bowyer would

then need to take up to six months to construct a bow.53 That bow would then need replacing

several times during the training process of teaching a soldier to shoot, as well as after every

major engagement and many of the smaller one. This made the bow a very expensive platform:

much too expensive for the poorest members of society to afford. Additionally, these costs are

only for the bow itself. They do not include the cost of ammunition, which also required

specialized materials and a trained artisan, a fletcher, to make. With the kind of outlay required

of the Romans to outfit their military, any way to save money was highly desirable. Eschewing

the bow in favor of the sling was an obvious choice.

Archaeological evidence shows that the Romans did not restrict the style of arrow used to

a single type. They have found various styles of arrowheads within the same garrison fort: flat

leaf-shaped blades, both barbed and unbarbed, single barbed Celtic style, Middle Eastern

trilobate, and more modern bodkin points.54 This would indicate that they would use the services of local artisans to construct the ammunition needed. These craftsmen made arrowheads in the

52 Miller “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” 183 – 184. The preferred materials for bows were poplar, maple, and ash woods and gazelle and water buffalo horn. Other common woods used were acacia, ziziphus, and tamarisk: all oasis and desert woods form North Africa. [A.C. Western and W. McLeod, “Woods Used in Egyptian Bows and Arrows,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology vol 85 (1995): 50.] 53 Miller “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” 183 – 184. 54 Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, 55.

248 style with which they had familiarity. Since the Romans tend to show regimentation in areas

where they could, it would indicate that the arrowheads are not being produced by or for ethnic

Roman archers. It also lends credence to the idea that the Romans outsourced their missile weapons needs to various differing people who provided their own weapons and ammunition as part of their service to the Romans.

Conclusion

Ranged weapons give an army the ability to weaken an enemy over time without exposing its own forces to greater danger than necessary. It allows them to negate terrain and defensive emplacements in certain instances in order to bring an enemy to battle. Finally, they break up enemy formations prior to closing in for hand-to-hand combat. In order for the Roman army to be a well-rounded and complete army, it needed ranged weapons.

Unfortunately, there were several factors working against the Romans in establishing their own, indigenous missile force. The Romans, not being great military innovators themselves, had little to no early contact with societies that produced advanced forms of ranged weapons.

They, therefore, did not employ these weapons themselves. Additionally, the societies from which the Romans took their military technology developed a warrior elite system that looked down upon bow use. By adopting the military systems of these societies, the Romans inadvertently included the anti-bow prejudices. This meant that the Roman people looked upon the bow as a weak and cowardly weapon, and preferred the use of close quarter weapons in order to satisfy both the needs of the battlefield and the needs to extol their virility in society.

Once the Romans encountered societies that made marked use of improved bows, the costs associated with the production and implementation of those weapons was beyond the desire of the Romans state to provide. Allowing allied peoples already familiar and skilled in the use of

249 these bows to use them on Roman behest was not only allowable, but also desirable as it gave the

Romans the use of these weapons without having to go through the trouble to make, supply, or learn these weapons on their own. This attitude towards the bow did not change throughout the

Western Imperial timeline.

250 CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSION

This work proposes that the technology of the Roman military system was predominately

a copy of the military systems with which it came in contact, and, ultimately, a copy of the Celtic

military technology. At the beginning, it developed an indigenous system based on small units and local strongmen. This is similar to the “heroic warfare” model of the Bronze Age Greek system. It worked by regional leaders raising men to follow them into battle. Those men followed based on the promise of reward and economic advancement attained by supporting a winning war leader. This system very quickly proved untenable when faced with a much more highly organized system. The result was the domination of Rome by neighboring powers until

Rome could throw off those powers.

Rome was able to emerge from the shadows of its neighbors, the Etruscans and Greeks, when it developed its own more advanced system. Not having the need to develop an entirely new system, the Romans simply adopted the ones used by their rivals. During this orientalizing phase, so called because the Romans adopted a military system from Eastern influences, the

Romans developed a phalanx style army. This army was able to hold its own against the Greek and Etruscan cities around it as well as dominate other Latin cities that were still fighting in the old “heroic warfare” model. This phalanx system lasted for a good two centuries (c.600 -400 BC)

when the Romans encountered a new enemy that was able to readily and habitually defeat the

phalanx system. This new enemy was the Celtic peoples of Northern Europe.

The Celtic peoples began forcing their way into the Italian Peninsula in the region of the

Po Valley. They continually battled the Etruscans driving them out of the Po region and helping

bring about their defeat with the aid of the Romans and other peoples. These Celts, now firmly

251 ensconced in the Po Valley of northern Italy were not content taking on the Etruscans, however.

They made their way down to central Italy and eventually defeated the Romans. It is at the Sack of Rome, c.390 BC that the Celts proved to the Romans that they were capable of defeating

Roman phalanges. This encouraged the Romans to change again. This change would dominate

the Roman military system for the next six and a half centuries.

The Celtic period (c. 390 BC-AD 235) saw the Romans change their major weapons and

defensive systems to the Celtic family of weapons and armors. While arguments can be made

that the Romans never fully abandoned the old orientalized weapons, those weapons became

secondary at best, mostly relegated to the auxilia. Instead, the Romans began to use the Celtic

family of military tools, albeit employed with their own version of organization.

The reason this concept is important is that the adoption of a foreign system of combat

requires the adoption of cultural and social elements from the lending society into the civilization

adopting them. In order to use a society’s military artifacts, swords or armor for instance, one

must learn how to manufacture and use those tools. The only way to learn that is to pick up the

techniques of manufacture and training from the originating society as well as its weapons. This

means that while the Roman army is switching to a Celtic-dominated weapons and armor

system, it needs to adopt Celtic manufacture and training techniques in the same way it picked

up Greek and Etruscan elements. Since the Romans did not pick up much from the Celtic system

that applied outside the military sphere, the Roman military took on a decidedly Celtic cultural

stamp that put it at odds with the predominately-Mediterranean civilian system.

The prevailing trend in modern Roman military studies centers on the social and cultural aspects of military history. This is lacking because most modern historians studying Roman military matters look at those matters through a decidedly Mediterranean, that is Greek, lens. The

252 Roman military, especially by the time of the Principate when the Romans are finishing the

conquest of the Celtic peoples and adopting them into the army in large numbers, is not wholly a

Mediterranean institution. It exhibits large amounts of Celtic military culture due to the extensive

and long-lasting reliance on Celtic weaponry. This is a major reason for the military problems

associated with the late Western Imperial period. As the Romans were adopting Eastern methods

of warfare to better counter the new threats from Eastern peoples, the Western Empire’s military,

which was largely Celtic at least in part, did not fundamentally mix with it. The Eastern peoples

had been evolving towards the new methods of warfare for centuries as the steppe peoples of

central Asia moved closer to the settled areas of the Near East. The Celto-Roman peoples of super-Alpine Europe, however, had not been. With the sudden and drastic change to the military system associated with the rise of the Dominate, those expected to fight had little familiarity with the system. This is largely due to the change from an infantry based system to a mounted warfare system shown to be more effective in the open plains of Eastern Europe and the Near East. The more traditional forces based on the old Celtic system were relegated to garrison troops and removed from filling the role of field armies. Trying to get the people filling the ranks of the

Western forces to change from the Celtic system successfully employed for two-thirds of a millennium and with which they identified culturally and socially with little time to grow and adapt crippled the Western Roman military system. While not the sole reason for the fall of the

Western Empire, this is a contributing factor.

In the past four chapters, we have looked at the major equipment systems employed by the Roman army from the Sack of Rome to the mid-third century AD, roughly seven hundred

years (c.400 BC-AD 235). We have seen the Romans transform from a largely Greek influenced system of massed formations employing spears and round shields strapped to the forearm to one

253 utilizing looser organization, smaller personal weapons, such as swords, and rectangular shields

held in the center. At the same time, a Northern European style chain mail that would carry on for at least another millennium supplanted the bronze, plate armor of the East.

Archaeological as well as literary evidence indicates the genesis of these systems as the

super-Alpine Celtic peoples. The sword originated in Spain with the Celt-Iberians, although there

is evidence that they modified other blade patterns that originated in the central Alpine highlands

of Europe. The chain mail armor seems to stem from the Celtic peoples of the eastern European

foothills around the Black Sea, commonly called Galatians. Further research would also likely

indicate that Roman helmets and horse gear also had a Celtic origin.

Let’s assume for now that this is accepted by you, the reader. Why should we care? What

purpose does this serve? Yes, the Romans copied other peoples for their military hardware. Few

doubt the Roman propensity for pilfering useful technology from anyone who had it. Why

should this matter to anyone?

The purpose of this work is three-fold. The first is to provide a unified work on the origins and development of the main military accouterments used by the Romans from their establishment as a major regional political entity, c.400 BC, to the end of the Severan Dynasty

and the beginning of the Third Century Crisis c.235 AD. During that period, Rome based their

military technology on Celtic adoptions with Roman improvements. At the end of that period,

Rome sees a rise of Eastern influences in their military technology causing a full-scale change in how their main battlefield armies functioned.

The second purpose of this work is to provide a basic overview of the development of each of the major offensive and defensive system utilized by the Romans during their dominant periods, Early-Republic to Mid-Imperial (c.400BC-AD 235). Up to now, there has been little done

254 as a comprehensive overview of the entire system. Many historians have worked on this topic but

in isolated themes with little crossover. Because of the specific nature of these works, modern

historians are missing an overarching impact on the Roman military: the cultural development of

the whole system.

Finally, the third point is to show that by studying the Roman military system, not just the

battles and leaders, but the organization, life of the soldiers, and other social and cultural aspects

of the Roman military, we can get a better view of Celtic culture and society. Since the Roman

system is largely Celtic, studying the military system gives a much fuller and clearer picture of

Celtic life, at least the more aggressive and wilder side, than other sources currently being used.

This is especially true from the end of the first century AD through to the end of the third century.

During the Early- to Mid-Imperial periods, modern historians think the ethnic majority of the Roman army was Celtic. According to modern scholarship, the provinces, largely Celtic in their original culture and social make-up, provided the vast majority of the recruits filling the ranks of the legions. Additionally, a large portion of the auxilia also hailed from Celtic regions.

While the more pastoral settlements of Gaul, Hispania, Illyricum, Moesia, Pannonia, Noricum,

and Haetia may have been largely Latinized, the reverse is true of the military.

Since there is little evidence of an eastward migration of peoples during this period, and

the Romans did not depopulate the Celtic regions, the Celts found a way to live with the

Romans. The elements of Celtic society that would have had trouble fitting into the Romanized

system being created would have been those that made up the warrior elites and the thrill

seekers. Those, seeking a way to continue their cultural traditions of battle and raiding, would

have looked to the Roman military as a means to carry this out. This makes the military the last

window into the Celtic pre-Roman world that has yet to be tapped for information. By studying

255 the Roman military, we can gather information on a major population group that has had its voice significantly reduced in the historic record. The Celtic peoples left no written records or stories for us to study, but the Roman military left vestiges everywhere in Europe. If that Roman system is Celtic in its culture and social basis, then it becomes a major source of information for modern historians to learn about this ancient people.

256 APPENDIX

GLOSSARY OF LATIN AND GREEK MILITARY TERMS

257 Aketon-(gk) Padded under armor used to protect the wearer from damage caused by the armor and to help the armor sit correctly on the shoulders

Akontia, -ae-Thracian javelin, usually with a throwing strap

Amentum, -a-Throwing strap, usually attached to a large spear

Ansa, -ae-Handle, specifically for a shield

Aquilifer, -eri-standard bearers

Argentata-silvered; coated in silver

Armatura, -ae, Lightly armoured infantry used as border patrols

Auxilia-Military units formed from subject peoples and client states of the Roman Empire

Auxiliarius, -i,-A soldier of the auxilia

Balteus (also Balteum), -i-Specifically a cross belt, but also generally used for any military belt, Also a balrdic

Beneficiarius, -i- attendants to the officers (aides-de-camp) excused from menial tasks

Bipennis, -is-Double bladed axe; felling axe

Bruttiana is a small oval shield

Buccina, -ae-smaller version of the cornu without the cross-brace, often decorated with a wavy pattern

Buccinator, -oris- Musicians (trumpeter); played a buccina

Buccula, -ae-Cheek pieces for a helmet

Caetrati-Iberian infantry equipped with round leather shields

Calcei-Late Republic era enclosed boot

Caliga, -ae-Traditional military shoe used by Republic soldiers. Composed of a three layered sole with an upper made of a system of interlacing straps. Etruscan in origin a caliga-Roman phrase meaning “from the ranks”

Cannula, -ae-small hollow tube used to attach plume feathers to the top knob of a helmet

Capsarius, -i-A medical orderly

Capulus, -i-Sword or dagger hilt

258 Cassis, -ides-military helmet, metal. From latter half of first century BC onward, used to mean heavy helmet

Centuria, -ae-Basic subdivision of a legion during the pricipate. Usually made up of 60 men under the command of a centurio

Cingulum, -a (also, cingulum militae)-Specifically a soldier’s waist belt

Cingi-Soldier slang meaning “to take the belt” or to enlist in the army

Clipeus, -i-Large shield, round, with an Argive grip worn strapped to the arm. Central boss. Often highly decorated Clipeus Virtutis-Highly decorative often gilded shield awarded to officers for valor

Coactilium, -a-Early Roman wool/felt version of the linothorax

Conum-Literally “cone”, Soldier slang for the cassis

Corium, -a-Early Roman leather/hide version of the linothorax

Cornicen, -inis- Musician (horn blower), played a cornu

Cornu, -us-Curved horn with a metal cross-brace; bronze

Crista, -ae-a military crest for a helmet Crista transversa-Centurions crest running from ear to ear instead of front to back

Cuspis, -i-Head of a spear (point, blade, and socket or tang)

Cymation-a decorative bottom border of a thoraka made up of lappets and used to attach the breastplate to the under armour

Diftera, -ae-Ammunition pouch for slingers, usually suspended from a baldric

Digmata-military insignia

Discingi-To have the belt taken away. A mild form of punishment or a reduction in rank. Can be applied to officers, other ranks, cohorts, or whole legions

Dolabra, -ae-Pickaxe

Doru (aka dory), -ata-Wooden spear with a leaf-shaped blade and a metal butt spike; Main weapon used by hoplites and Greek in origin

Ensis, -is-Sword. Examples show it as a synonym for both the gladius and the spatha. Latter use only seen in poetic works

Ephippium, -a-1) generic term for saddle; 2) Riding blanket of Greek origin

259 Evocati-Cohorts of discharged veterans reenlisted for a special purpose; also served as body guards for Consuls involved in dismounted action

Exomis, -i-Greek tunic that left the right (sword) arm bare at the shoulder

Fernum, -ati-horse bridle

Framea, -ae-German short spear

Fulgur, -es-Lightning bolt, usually used as a shield device to assist in identifying legions

Gaesum, -a-Throwing javelin thought to be of Celtic origin

Galea, -ae-Military helmet, leather. From latter half of first century BC onward, used to mean light or sport helmet

Gallica-Literally, Gaelic. A military slang referencing an iron chainmail hauberk

Gladio Cinctum, -a-Side belt used specifically to hold a sword

GladiusHispanus (aka Hispaniensis)-the Roman gladius

Glans, -dis-Sling bullet, usually lead

Harundo, -inis-Arrow shaft

Hasta longa, -ae-Pre-Marian Roman long spear, usually carried by triarii

Iacula, -ae-Javelin

Impedimentia-A soldier’s personal equipment

Instratium, -ati-Horse saddle (Celtic style)

Lamna, -ae-Sword blade

Lancea, -ae-A light spear with an extended blade (up to 50cm or 20 in)

Lanciarius, -i -Late-imperial soldiers who used the lancea instead of a sword as a main weapon; can be both infantry or cavalry

Lapides missiles(pl)-Sling bullets, stone

Licia-Plain mail shirt

Ligo, -onis-hoe or mattock

Linothorax-Stiffened linen armour of Greco-Etruscan origin

260 Lorica, -ae-General term for body armor, both officers and other ranks

Malakos-Greek word used to refer to things in leather or other organic materials of a flexible nature

Manica, -ae-Armguard

Matara, -ae-Celtic short javelin with a sharp, wavy point

Miles, -ites-Generic name for a soldier

Milites gregarius, (pl. Milites gregarii)-Other ranks; non-officer soldiers

Milliarium, -a-Division of auxiliary cohort if it is divided into ten parts

Mora, -ae-Guard of a sword

Niello-Black metallic alloy of sulfur with copper, silver, or lead. Used to fill engraved designs

Numeri-Barbarian allies not integrated into the regular Roman army

Panula, -ae-round or ovoid piece of cloth with a central hole for the head and slit up the front fastened with buttons or toggles (but not a broach)

Parazonium, -a-Long triangular dagger of Greek origin. Roman style tended to be leaf-shaped

Parma, -ae-Wide round shield used by pre-Imperial Roman cavalry Also called Parma Equestris

Parma velitaris-Small round shield carried by velites in pre-Marian periods

Parmula, -ae-Small circular cavalry shield about 80cm (31.5in) in diameter

Parmula bruttiana-Marius designed replacement shield for the Parma velitaris; oval, made of wicker with a leather overwrapping

Pero, -ones-A boot with a heavy sole and a buckskin upper. Popularized by soldiers in the Gallic campaigns

Peytral-Leather barding to protect a horses chest, sometimes with a metal heart plate

Phalera, -ae-Military medals used to decorate the head and chest of horses

Pharetra-Quiver

Pilum, -a-Heavy throwing spear/javelin

Pilum muralium, -a-Short pilum, usually used from the top of walls and thrown down on attackers

261 Prometopidion-Armor plate to protect the head and face of a cavalry horse

Pteryges-Decorative skirt of leather or fabric strips worn around the waist. Can be attached to a belt or the lower part of a breastplate. Also can be attached to shoulders and the backs of helmets

Pugio, -ones-Military dagger

Quingenarium, -a-Division of an auxiliary cohort if it is divided into five parts

Ringknaufscwert, -en (Ger)-Modern name for a new sword type introduced in the 2nd cent AD

Russatus, -i-Slang term for a soldier during the time of Marius. Given due to the red tunic worn for battle

Rutrum, -a-Rake

Sagitarius, -i-Archers

Sagum, -i-Fringed rectangular cloth used as a cloak. Draped over the shoulders and fastened with a broach or fibula

Sarcina, ae-Soldiers kit carried on the march

Scutati-Iberian infantry equipped with overly large shields

Scutum, -a-Standard heavy infantry shield

Signanus, -i-soldiers armed and equipped like regular legion but trained in open order and small unit tactics. Used as scouts, outliers, patrols and flank guards. Came in two types: antesignani -parrolled and guarded ahead of the unit postsignani-patrolled and guarded the rear of the unit

Signifer, -feri-Standard bearer

Soliferreum, -a-Spear made entirely of iron

Sphendone-(Gr) sling

Spiculum, -a-Metal butt spike used on infantry spears

Spina, -ae-Literally “spine,” A raised rib down the long axis of a sword or on the boss of a shield

Spolium, -a-Arms and armor stripped from a defeated enemy or the dead

Squamata, -ae-Scale armor

Subarmalis-The gambeson or undershirt worn under armor

262 Tegimentum, -a-A covering for armor, helmet, or shield

Tela-Mail shirt with the rows of links wrapped in cloth then attached together

Tesserarius, -i-watch captains

Thoracomachus-(gk) padded under armor used to protect the wearer from damage caused by the armor and to help the armor sit correctly on the shoulders

Thoraka, -ae-Hellenistic style iron breastplate

Tuba, -ae-Horn with a long funnel-shaped bronze tube

Tubicen, -inis- musician (trumpeter), played a tuba

Umbo, -ones -Shield boss, metal

Uter, -tris-Goat skin water bottle

Vagina, -ae-Scabbard

Venabulum, -ae-Hunting javelin

Vigilia, -ae-Guard duty

Viminea tegimenta-wicker shell added to a bronze helmet to reinforce. Indicates construct of weak or low quality

Vexillarius, -i-Standard bearer (subunit)

Vinculum, -a-leather under chin strap

263 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Sources

Appian, The History of Rome.

Appian, Syriaca.

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae.

Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities.

Festus, De Verborum Significatone.

Herodotus, Histories.

Homer, The Iliad.

Homer, The Odyssey

Julius Caesar, Bellum Africum.

Julius Caesar, Bellum Gallicum.

Livy, Ab Urbe Condita.

Maurus Servius Honratus, In Vergilii Aeneidem Commentarii.

Pliny the Elder, The Natural Histories.

Plutarch, Lives: Camillus; Marius, Romulus.

Polybius, Histories.

Sallust, Bellum Catilinae.

Strabo, Geography.

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War.

Varro, De Linga Latina.

Vegetius, De Rei Militari.

Xenophon, Anabasis.

Xenophon, Cynegeticus.

264 Secondary Sources

Abbe, Mark. “Polychromy of Roman Marble Sculpture,” The Met, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/prms/hd_prms.htm (accessed on 9 June, 2018).

Achilli, Alessandro, Anna Olivieri, Maria Pala, Ene Metspalu, Simona Fornarino, Vincenza Battaglia, Matteo Accetturo, Ildus Kutuev, Elsa Khusnutdinova, erwan Pennarun, Nicolleta Cerutti, Cornelia DiGaetano, Francesca Crobu, Domenico Palli, Giuseppe Matullo, A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti, L. Luca Cavilla-Sforza, Ornealla Semino, Richard Villems, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Alberto Piazza, and Antonia Torroni. “Mitochodrial DNA Variations of Modern Tuscans Support the Near Eastern Origins of Etruscans,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 80, no.4 (Apr 2007): 759-768.

Albion Swords. “About Swords.” Albion Swords Limited. https://www.albion- swords.com/swords/sword-terms.htm (accessed 23 July 2019).

Aldrete, Gregory S., Scott M. Bartell, and Alicia Aldrete. Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor: Unraveling the Linothroax Mystery. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.

Alston, Richard. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History. New York; Routledge, 1995

Ambiorix. “Galatia,” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified April 28, 2011. http://www.ancient.eu /galatia/ (accessed 28 February 2017).

Anderson, Alastair Scott. Roman Military Tombstones. Bucks, UK: Shire Publications, LTD., 1984.

Andrikou, Eleni. “New Evidence of Mycenaean Bronze Corselets From Thebes in Boeotia and the Bronze Age Sequence of Corselets in Greece and Europe,” Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, 401-409. Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005.

Arföldi, Andrew. “Hasta-summa Imperii: The Spear as Embodiment of Sovereignty in Rome,” American Journal of Archaeology 63, 1(Jan 1959): 1-27.

Aurrecoechea, Joaquin. “New Perspectives on the Evolution and Chronology of Roman Segmental Armor (Lorica Segemntata and Manica), Based on Hispanic Finds.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies vol 14/15 (2003/2004): 49-55.

Baird, W. Sheppard. “The Origins of the Sea Peoples,” MinoanAtlantis.com. https://www.minoanatlantis.com/Origin_Sea_Peoples.php (Accessed 30 Jan 2018).

Bakas, Spyros, and Koryvantes Association. “The Shooting Methods of the Archers of the Ancient Greek World 1400 BC-400 BC.” The National Association of Archery for All Organization (WTAF, Cheonan City, Chungnam-Do, Republic of Korea), 2014.

265 Barbe, Josephine. “The History of Leather Tanning.” Maharam.com. https://www.maharam.com/stories/barbe_the-history-of-leather-tanning (accessed 27 June 2019).

Becker, Hilary. “Political Systems,” in The Etruscan World, edited by Jean MacIntosh Turfa. London: Routledge Press, 2014.

Bell, M.J.V. “Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army,” Historia: Zeitshcrift für Alte Gescheichte 14, 4 (Oct 1965): 404-422.

Birley, Anthony R. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. New York: Routledge, 1988.

Bishop, M.C. “Aketon, Thoracomachus, and Lorica Segmentata.” Exercitus vol. 3 no. 1 (1995): 1-3.

---. Bishop, M.C. Lorica Segementata Vol 1: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armor. Braemar, UK: Armatura Press, 2002.

---. Vt Milites Dicvntvr: A Dictionary of Roman Military Terms and Terminology. Pewsey, UK: Armatura Press, 2014.

---. The Gladius. Oxford: Osprey, 2016.

---. The Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2017

Bishop, M.C. and J.C.N. Coulston. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. 2nd ed. Oxford England: Oxbow Books, 2006.

Broughton, T. Robert S. The Magistracies of the Roman Republic, vol 1. New York: American Philological Association, 1951.

Campbell, Brian. The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1994.

---, War and Society in Imperial Rome, 31 BC-AD284. New York: Routledge Press, 2002.

Celtic Arts and Culture. “The Woman.” Categories of Gender and Class in the Celtic Grave. http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/grave/TheWoman.html (accessed of 5 Sept 2018).

Chadwick, John. The Mycenaean World, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Cornell, T.J. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000-264BC). New York: Routledge, 1995.

Coulston, J. C. N. “How to Arm a Roman Soldier.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 42, S71 (February 1998): 167-190.

Cunliffe, Barry. The Ancient Celts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

266 D’Amato, Raffaele. Arms and Amrour of the Imperial Roman Soldier: From Marius to Commodus, 112 BC-AD 192. London: Frontline Books, 2009.

---. Early Aegean Warrior 5000-1450 BC. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2013.

Darbyshire, Gareth, Stephen Mitchell, and Levent Varder. “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor,” Anatolian Studies vol 50 (2000): 75-97.

Davies, John. The Celts. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., 2004.

Davies, Laura. “Cuir Boulli,” in Conservation of Leather and Related Materials. edited by Marion Kite and Roy Thomson. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1999.

Diepeveen-Jansen, Marian. People, Ideas, and Goods: New Perspectives on “Celtic Barbarians” in Western and Central Europe (500-250 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001.

Doberstein, William. “The Samnite Legacy: An Examination of the Samnitic Influences upon the Roman State.” Master’s Thesis, University of Lethbridge, 2014.

Dobson, Micahel. The Army of the Roman Republic the Second Century BC, Polybius and the Camps at Numantia, Spain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2008.

Douglas Harper. “Tan,” Online Etymology Dictionary. https://www.etymonline.com/word/tan (accessed on 14 June, 2018).

Duff, Timothy E. “Plutarch’s Themistocles and Camillus.” In Plutarch’s Lives: Parallelism and Purpose. Edited by N. Humble, 45-86, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2010.

Dumezil, Georges, and Georges Edmond Raoul. Camillus: A Study of Indo-European Religion as Roman History. 1980. archive.org/details/GeorgesDumezilCamillusAStudyOfIndoEuropeanReligionAsRoman History1980.

Echols, Edward C., “The Ancient Slinger.” The Classical Weekly 43, no. 16 (Apr. 3, 1950): 245.

Echols, Edward C., “Slingers: A Further Note.” The Classical Weekly 43, no. 15 (Mar. 27, 1950): 227-230.

Egg Marcus. “War and Weaponry,” In Etruscology vol 1, edited by Alessandro Naso, 165-178. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co, 2017.

Elliott, Paul. Legions in Crisis: Transformation of the Roman Soldier, AD192-284. Charleston, SC: Fonthill Media, 2014.

267 Elton, Hugh . “Military Forces,” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: Volume II, Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire. Eds.Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby. 270-309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Eristavi, Nikolas. From Celtic, Etruscan and Roman Hands: the Po River Valley and Modena (Mutina). Munich, Germany: Grin Verlang, 2010.

Ferrill, Arthur. The Origins of War; From the Stone Age to Alexander the Great. London: Thames & Hudson, 1985.

Fields, Nic. Early Roman Warrior 753–321 BC. Bloomsbury Publishing. 2011.

---. Roman Battle Tactics 390 BC-110 BC. Oxford: Osprey, 2010.

Foltiny, Stephen. “Flanged-hilted Cutting Swords of Bronze in Central Europe, Northeast Italy and Greece,” American Journal of Archaeology 68, no 3 (July 1964): 247-257.

Forsythe, Gary. A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistoric to the First Punic War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005.

Frankenstein, Susan, and M. J. Rowlands. “The Internal Structure and Regional Context of Early Iron Age Society in South-west Germany,” Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology London 15 (1978): 73-112.

Gabriel, Richard A. From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991.

---. Great Armies of Antiquity. Westport, CN: Greenwood Publishing, 2002.

Gabriel, Richard A., and Karen S. Metz. From Sumer to Rome. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991.

Ghirotto, Silvia, Francessca Tassi, Erica Fumagalli, Vincenza Colonna, Anna Sandionigi, Martina Lari, Stefania Vai, Emmanuaele Petiti, Giorgio Corti, Ermanno Rizzi, Gianluca DeBellis, David Caramelli, and Guido Barbujani. “Oringins and Evolution of the Etruscans’ mtDNA,” Public Library of Science (6 Feb 2013): https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055519 (accessed on 25 May 2019)

Gleba, Margarita. Textile production in Pre-Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2008.

---. “Linen-Clad Etruscan Warriors.” Wearing the Cloak: Dressing the Soldier in Roman Times, edited by Marie-Louise Nosch, 45-55. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012.

Gmirkin, Russell. “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” Dead Sea Discoveries vol 3 no 2 (July 1996), 89-129.

268 Goldman, Andrew L. “The Manipular Army and Its Weapons.” In A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic. Edited by Jane DeRose Evans, 123-140. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

Goldsworthy, Adrian. The Roman Army at War, 100 BC-AD 200. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

---. Roman Warfare. New York; Collins Books, 1999.

---. The Complete Roman Army 2nd Edition. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007.

Grancsay, Stephen V. “Irish Bronze Age Weapons,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 7, no. 7 (Mar. 1949): 181-185.

Grant, Michael. The Severans: The Changed Roman Empire. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Green, Miranda J., “Introduction: Who were the Celts?” The Celtic World, edited by Miranda J. Green. 3-7. London: Routledge, 1995.

Greep, S. J. “Lead Sling-Shot from Windridge Farm, St. Albans and he Use of the Sling by the Roman Army in Britain.” Britannia 18, (1987): 183-200.

Hanson, Victor Davis. The Western Way of War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

---. “The Status of Ancient Military History: Traditional Work, Resent Research, and Ongoing Controversy,” The Journal of Military History vol 63 no 2 (Apr 1999): 379-413.

Harding, Anthony F. “Interconnections Between the Aegean and Continental Europe in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Moving Beyond Skepticism,” Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, 47-56. Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005.

Haro, Jose Vilasca. Gladius Hispaniensis. Valencia, Spain: Editorial Sargantana, 2017.

Haynes, Sybille. Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History 3rd edition. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2000.

Haywood, John. The Celts: Bronze Age to New Age. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, Ltd., 2004.

Heather, Peter. Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Heiken, Grant, Renato Funiciello, and Donatella De Rita. The Seven Hills of Rome: A Geologic Tour of the Eternal City. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Hoffmeyer, Ada Bruhn. “Introduction to the History of the European Sword,” Gladius 1 (1962), 30-75.

269 Hopkins, Clark. "The Arms, Equipment, and Ceremonial Vessels of the Early Etruscan Warriors." The Classical Journal 60, no. 5 (1965): 214-19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3294086.

Hooper, John. “The Enigma of Italy’s Ancient Etruscans Is Finally Unravelled.” The Guardian, 18 June 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper (accessed 30 Mar. 2017).

Horejs, Barbara. “Macedonia: Mediator of Buffer Zone Between Cultural Spheres?” Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, 293-306. Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005.

Huth, Christopher. “Poor Belgium, Rich Belgium: Some Reflections on the Nature of Metalwork Depositions in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age,” Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, edited by Jean Bourgeois, Ignace Bourgeois, and Bert Cherrette, 39-60. Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002.

Ingles-Arkell, Esther. “Ultraviolet Light Reveals How Ancient Greek Statues Really Looked,” Gizmodo. https://io9.gizmodo.com/5616498/ultraviolet-light-reveals-how-ancient-greek- statues-really-looked (accessed 9 June).

Isaac, Benjamin. “Proto-Racism in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” World Archaeology 38, no. 1 (Mar. 2006): 32-47.

Ivanova, Mariya. “Things Unfound: Patterns of Warfare in the Early Bronze Age Aegean and Thrace,” Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, 249-256. Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005.

Jacobsen-Tepfer, Esther. “Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Rock Art from the Mongolian Altai: The Material and its Cultural Implications,” Arts (2013, 2): 151-181.

James, Simon. Rome and the Sword: How Warriors and Weapons Shaped Roman History. London: Thames & Hudson, 2011.

---. “The Impact of Steppe Peoples and the Partho-Sasanian World on the Development of Roman Military Equipment and Dress 1st to 3rd Centuries AD,” Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. edited by Markus Mode, and Jürgen Tubach, 357-392. Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006.

Jarva, Eero. Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armor. Rovaniemi, Lapland: Pohjois-Suomen HistoriallinenYhdidtys Societas Historica Finlandiae Septenrionalis, 1995.

Jones, R.F.T. “The Roman Military Occupation of North-West Spain,” Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976): 45-66.

270 Kadrow, Slawomir. “North of the Carpathians-The Outskirts of the Aegean World,” Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, 323-329. Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005.

Keppie, Lawrence. The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.

King, Dorothy. “The Evidence for Roman Chain Mail,” http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2013/09/the- evidence-for-roman-chain-mail.html (accessed 3 June, 2018).

Kitsos, Dimitrios. “Gladius versus Sarissa: Roman Legions against Greek Pike Phalanx,” Anistoriton, Issue E991 (6 January 1999): 1-4.

Kristiansen, Kristian, and Thomas Larsson. “Contacts and Travel During the 2nd Millennium BC: Warriors on the Move,” Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, 25-34. Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005.

Kruta, Vencenslas, Die Kelten: Aufstieg und Niedergang einer Kultur. Vienna: Freiberg, Herder, 1979.

Lang, Janet. “Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords,” Britannia 19, (1988): 199- 216.

MacGonagle, Brendan. “The First Chainmail,” Balkan Celts: Journal of Celtic Studies in Eastern Europe and Asia-Minor. https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/chainmail-2/ (accessed 14 Apr 2018).

MacKendrick, Paul. The Mute Stone Speaks: The Story of Archaeology in Italy. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1960.

MacMullen, Ramsey. “The Celtic Renaissance,” Historia: Zeitschrifft für Alte Geschichte vol 14 no 1 (Jan 1965): 93-104.

---. Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, AD 235-337. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976.

Manning, W.H., “Iron Working in the Celtic World,” The Celtic World, edited by Miranda J. Green. 310-320. London: Routledge, 1995.

Maryon, Herbert, R.M. Organ, O.W. Ellis, R.M. Brick, R. Sneyers, E.E. Herzfeld, and F.K. Naumann. “Early Near Eastern Steel Swords,” American Journal of Archaeology 65, no 2 (Apr 1961): 173-184.

McCaffrey, Carmel, and Leo Eaton. In Search of Ancient Ireland: The Origins of the Irish, from Neolithic Times to the Coming of the English. Chicago: New Amsterdam Books, 2002.

271 McCartney, Eugene S. “The Genesis of Rome’s Military Equipment,” The Classical Weekly 6 #10 (Dec 21, 1912): 74-79.

---. “The Military Indebtedness of Early Rome to Etruria.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol 1 pp 121-167. Bergamo, Italy: Istitutio Italiano d’Arti Grafiche, 1917.

McLeod, Wallace. “The Range of the Ancient Bow.” Phoenix 19, no. 1 (Spring, 1965): 1-14.

Meiklejohn, K. W. “Roman Strategy and Tactics from 509 to 212 BC,” Greece and Rome 7, 21 (May 1938): 170-178.

Miks, Christian. Studien zur Römischen Schwertbewaffnung in der Kaiserzeit. Rahden, Germany: VML, Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2007.

Miller, R., E. McEwen, C. Bergman. “Experimental Approaches to Ancient near Eastern Archery,” World Archaeology, Vol. 18, No. 2, Weaponry and Warfare (Oct., 1986), pp. 178-195.

Molloy, Barry. “Material Arts and Materiality: a Combat Archaeology Perspective on Aegean Swords of the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Centuries BC,” World Archaeology 40, no 1 (2008): 116-134.

Mountain, Harry. The Celtic Encyclopedia vol. 1. Aveiro, Portugal: Harry Mountain, 1997.

National Geographic. “Europe; Physical Geography,” https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/europe-physical-geography/ (accessed 3 Sept. 2018).

Nefedkin, Aleksander K. “Sarmatian Armor According to Narrative and Archaeological Data,” Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. edited by Markus Mode, and Jürgen Tubach, 433-445. Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006.

Newbury, Brian D. and Michael R. Notis. “The History and Evolution of Wiredrawing Techniques,” The Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, Volume 56, Issue 2 (February 2004,) pp 33-37.

Nilsson, Martin P. “The Introduction of Hoplite Tactics at Rome: Its Dates and Its Consequences,” Journal of Roman Studies 19 (1929): 1-11.

Northover, Peter. “The Technology of Metalwork: Bronze and Gold,” The Celtic World, edited by Miranda J. Green. 285-309. London: Routledge, 1995.

Nortmann, Hans. “Dead Warriors and Their Communities in the Hunsrück-Eifel-Culture,” Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, edited by Jean Bourgeois, Ignace Bourgeois, and Bert Cherrette, 135-151. Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002.

272 O’Connell, Robert L. “The Roman Killing Machine,” Military History Quarterly 1, no. 1 (Autumn 1988): 36-48.

O'Sullivan, Lara. "Augustus and Alexander the Great at Athens," Phoenix, 70, no. 3/4 (2016), pp 339-360.

Papadapoulou, Evangelia. “Western Greece and the North in the Late Bronze Age; The Evidence of Metalwork and Objects of Exotic Material,” Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, 459-467. Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb, 2005.

Pare, Christopher. “Tumulus Burial and the Question of the Start of the Hallstatt Culture,” Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe, edited by Jean Bourgeois, Ignace Bourgeois, and Bert Cherrette, 75-110. Brussels: Kuninkluke Vlaanse Academie van Belgie Vour Werenschapren en Kunsten, 2002.

Patterson, John. “Military Organization and Social Change in the Later Roman Republic, “ War and Society in the Roman World, Edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley, 92-112. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Payne-Gallwey, Sir Ralph. The Crossbow. New York: Bramhall House, 1963.

Phang, Sara E. “New Approaches to the Roman Army,” Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World, edited by Lee L. Brice and Jennifer T. Roberts, 105-144. Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 2011.

Pleiner, Radomir. The Celtic Sword. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Potter, David. “The Roman Army and Navy,” in The Cambridge Guide to the Roman Republic, edited by Harriet P. Fowler. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004: 66-88.

Prado, Eduardo K. and Fernando Q. Sanz, “Pugio Hispaniensis between Celtiberia and Rome: Current Research and Analysis on the Construction of Sheaths,” Limes XX: Proceedings on the 20th Internationals Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Leon, Espana, September 2006 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), 2009: 393-405.

Rankin, David. “The Celts through Classical Eyes,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green. London: Routledge, 1995.

Rankov, Boris. “Military Forces,” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: Volume II, Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire. Eds.Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby, 30-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Rawlings, Louis. “The Army and Battle During the Conquest of Italy (350-264 BC).” In A Companion to the Roman Army edited by Paul Erdkamp, 45-62, Oxford: Blackwell, 2011.

273 Rey, Fernando Echeverría. “Weapons, Technological Determinism, and Ancient Warfare,” In New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, eds Garrett G. Fagan and Matthew Trundle, 21- 56. Boston: Brill, 2010.

Rithcie, J N G, and W F Ritchie. “The Army, Weapons, and Fighting,” In The Celtic World, edited by Miranda J. Green. 37-58. London: Routledge, 1995.

Robinson, H. Ruddell. The Armour of Imperial Rome. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1975.

---. What the Soldiers Wore on Hadrian’s Wall. Newcastle, UK: Frank Graham, 1976.

---. The Armor of the Roman Legions. Newcastle, UK: Frank Graham, 1980.

Rustoiu, Aurel. (2012). “Commentaria Archaeologica et Historica (I). 1. The grave with a helmet from Ciumeşti – 50 years from its discovery. Comments on the greaves; 2. The Padea- Panagjurski kolonii group in Transylvania. Old and new discoveries.” Ephemeris Napocensis 21, 2012, p. 159-183.

Sabin, Philip. “The Face of Roman Battle,” Journal of Roman Studies 90 (2000): 1-17.

Saddington, D. B. Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar to Vespasian, 49 BC-AD 79. Harare, Zimbabwe: University of Zimbabwe, 1982.

Saliola, Marco, and Fabrizio Casprini. Pugio-Gladius Brevis Est: History and Technology of the Roman Battle Dagger. Oxford: B.A.R. Publishing, 2012.

Salmon, E. T. Samnium and the Samnites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Sandars, N.K. “The First Aegean Swords and Their Ancestry,” American Journal of Archaeology 65, no. 1 (Jan 1961): 17-29.

---. “Later Aegean Bronze Swords,” American Journal of Archaeology 67, no. 2 (Apr 1963): 117-153.

Santosuosso, Antonio. Storming the Heavens. Boulder: Westview Press, 2001.

Sanz, Fernando Quesada. “Gladius Hispaniensis: an Archaeological View from Iberia,” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies vol 8, (1997): 251-270.

Schmitz, Michael. The Dacian Threat, 101-106 AD. Armidale, NSW, Australia: Caeros Pty Ltd., 2005.

Schneider-Hermann, Gisela. The Samnites of the Fourth Century BC: As Depicted on Campanian Vases and Other Sources. London: University of London, 1996.

Scott, David A. Metallography and Microstructure of Ancient and Historic Metals. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1991.

274 Scupacasa, Raphael. “Ender and Ritual in Ancient Italy: A Quantitative Approach to Grave Goods and Skeletal Data in Pre-Roman Samnium,” American Journal of Archaeology 118, 2 (Apr 2014): 241-266.

Sekunda, Nicholas. “Military Forces: A. Land Forces,” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: Volume I, Greece, The Hellenistic World, and the Rise of Rome. Eds.Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby, 315-357. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Simkins, Michael. The Roman Army: From Caesar to Trajan. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1984.

Sims, David and Isabel Ridge. Iron for the Eagles: The Iron Industry in Roman Britain. London: Tempus Publishing Ltd., 2004.

Skupniewicz, P. N. “Some Remarks on the Elements of Infantry Protective Gear in the Art of Gandahar: An Evidence for Survival of Hellenistic Military Traditions?” http://www.Academia.edu/ (accessed 26 March 2018).

Slavik, Jordan F. “Pilum and Telum; The Roman Infantryman’s Style of Combat in the Middle Republic,” The Classical Journal 113, 2 (Dec 2017-Jan 2018): 151-171.

Smith, R. E. Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1958.

---. "The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus." Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 21, no. 3 (1972): 481-500. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435278.

Snodgrass, A.M. “The Hoplite Reform and History,” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 85 (1965): 110-122.

Southern, Pat. Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Southern, Pat, and Karen Ramsey Dixon. The Late Roman Army. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

Strassler, Robert B. The Landmark Herodotus. Translated by Andrea L. Purvis. New York: Pantheon Books, 2007.

Styllianou, P.J. “Ephorus,” Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece ed. Nigel Wilson. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Taylor, Michael J. “The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus's Pydna Monument: A Reevaluation,” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Vol. 85, No. 3 (July-September 2016), pp. 559-576.

Taylor, Michael J. “Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment,” Historia: Zeitshcrift für Alte Gescheichte 63, 3 (2014): 301-322.

275 Thomas, Chris. “Claudius and the Roman Army Reforms,” Historia: Zeitshcrift für Alte Gescheichte 53, 4 (2004): 424-452.

Thornton, Christopher P., C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Martin Liezers, Suzanne M.M. Young. “On Pins and Needles: Tracng the Evolution of Copper-based Alloying at Tepe Yahya, Iran via ICP-MS Analysis of Common-place Items,” Journal of Archaeological Sciences v29 n12 (Dec 2002), 1451-1460.

Varga, Dániel. The Roman Wars in Spain: The Military Confrontation with guerilla Warfare. Barnsley, England; Pen & Sword Military, 2015.

Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1993.

Watson, Jacqui. “A Composite Gladius Hilt form Dorset,” Center for Archaeology Report 28, 2004.

Webster, Graham. The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD 3rd edition. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.

Wells, Peter S. The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Wijnhoven, Martijn. “The Iron Tunic from Vimose (Funen, Denmark): Further Research into the Construction of Mail Garments,” Gladius XXXV (2015): 77-104.

Wilcox, Peter. Barbarians Against Rome: Rome’s Celtic, German, Spanish, and Gallic Enemies. London: Osprey Publishing, 2000.

Wilkinson, Frederick. Edged Weapons. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co., 1970.

Winter, Tomas Nelson. “The Place of Archery in Greek Warfare,” Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1990.

Yntema, Douwe. “Material Culture and Plural Identity in Early Roman Southern Italy,” In Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity eds. Tom Deries and Nico Roymans, 123-166. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009.

Zhmodikov, Alexander. “Roman Republic Heavy Infantryman in Battle (IV-II Centuries BC),” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 49, 1 (1st Quarter 2000): 67-78.

276