The Evolution of Roman Military

   The famous Roman legionaries went on to conquer the Mediterranean world, creating one of the single largest empires of all time. These conquests cemented the Roman army's place in history as one of the most competent and feared armies ever. But what did the Roman Army look like before they became the standardized force that is so often portrayed in media? 

The Early Roman Army:

    Comparitively little is known about the earliest Roman armies however, their primary purpose seemed to be to defend their land from others and to conduct raids on their enemies. It is important to note that at this time, all the soldiers would be expected to provide their own weapons and armor (this was an extremely common practice in the ancient world and a common practice up until the Late Middle Ages) as such there would have been no standard and their gear would not be uniform. The Roman's early army consisted of light infantry or skirmishers who would be armed with a small round shield, a helmet, javelins or slings, and a short sword or dagger, these would be the poorest citizens and freemen. The wealthiest Romans would be horsemen and make up the cavalry of the Roman army. For whatever reason Roman cavalry was never that great, and they were frequently outclassed by their enemies, this led to the Romans relying on auxiliaries and allies to provide them with cavalry.

    The backbone of the Roman army at this time was made up of citizens who were armed like hoplites and fought in phalanxes, or phalanx-like formations. It is not at all unusual that the Romans adopted the phalanx from the Greeks, the Greeks spread extremely far and many peoples, such as Etruscans, Phoenicians, eventually Egypt and much of the former Persian Empire adopted the phalanx as well. It was extremely effective, so why wouldn't they adopt it?

A hoplite

     The hoplite pictured above would have been comparatively wealthy as he is equipped with a cuirass, helmet, and greaves. A poorer hoplite may have only equipped themselves with a tunic, shoes, shield, helmet, spear, and sword. Also it is important to note that there was no single type of cuirass, they may have worn muscle cuirasses made of bronze or iron, mail, and even scale armor.  

    A phalanx was essentially a shield and spear wall that went several lines deep and fought as a unit, rather than as individuals. Phalanxes were typically more disciplined than their non-phalanx opponents. It would be difficult for comparatively unorganized and undisciplined opponents to break a phalanx line head on. Another benefit to the phalanx is that multiple lines deep could engage the enemy at the same time due to their long spears. Additionally, the combined weight and pressure of multiple lines would be felt by the first line who were engaging them. Although the phalanx had many strengths it also had several significant weaknesses, many of which would lead to the Romans eventually adopting the maniple system. One weakness of the phalanx was that it was comparatively less mobile than other formations and extremely prone to being flanked. Another drawback is that if the first line broke, then the entire formation would be vulnerable to attack. Italy's hilly and mountainous terrain hindered the effectiveness of the phalanx because the ideal ground for phalanxes to fight on were flat plains. Romans being ambushed by  Samnite skirmishers, who were comparatively quicker and more mobile led to the Romans adopting the maniple system. 

The Maniple System:

     The Manipular system was an extremely radical change from the phalanx in terms of equipment and tactics. It was adopted around 315 BCE while the Romans were at war with the Samnites. During this time, the Romans typically deployed in four lines. The first line being velites, or light skirmishers equipped with javelins, a shield, and a small sword. They would also commonly wear a wolf's head on their head. The velites were made up of Rome's youngest and poorest citizens. The next line were the hastati. In Latin their name means "spearmen," but ironically by this time they primarily used swords in combat. They were also equipped with two javelins or pila to throw at their enemies before charging. These javelins were sturdy enough to be used as regular spears as well, this could be used to deter cavalry charges. The Hastati were typically made up of poorer and younger citizens.  

    

The hastati were equipped with a breastplate, helmet, greaves and an ovular shield called a scutum. Interesting to note, the hastatus in this picture is wearing only one greave. They may have only been able to afford one greave and would wear it on their forward leg. The next line in the manipular system were called the principes. The principes were equipped very similarily to the hastai, but they could afford better weapons and armor and were more experienced than the hastati. The last line in the manipular system were the triarii, these were the wealthiest and most experienced men in the Roman army. They were heavy infantry who used spears. Although they used spears like phalanxes, they were comparatively more flexible and versatile and fought in much looser formations. Because they were the most experienced and well-equipped of the Roman military, they were the last line in the Roman army. There actually was a Latin phrase which translates to "it has come to the triarii," the colloquial meaning of the phrase is basically "shit has hit the fan and it is time for the adults to step in." Battles rarely ever came down to the triarii. One time the Romans were on campaign and the triarii were so eager to fight that they threatened to mutiny, if they were not allowed to engage the enemy in the next battle! The hastati, principes, and triarii certainly look more similar to the classical Roman legionnaire than a hoplite does, but there would be one more major change before we see what we now picture as the quintessential Roman solider. 

The Marian Reforms:

    As Rome's imperium expanded, so to did their need for an army. As a result they passed a series of reforms, which would later be called the Marian Reforms. These reforms did away with the property requirement to enlist and the state began to pay for the equipment of the soldiers, leading to them having much more standardized equipment than their forbearers. These reforms created a true standing and professional army unlike the previous systems, where rome relied on temporary militias. The Marian Reforms also inadvertently led to political instability in Rome due to legions becoming less loyal to Rome the city and more loyal to their generals. 

   This is a great picture of what a Roman legionnaire would look like, but they did not all wear lorica segmentata, or segmented plate armor. Mail, was more common due to it being cheaper and easier to maintain. Muscle cuirasses and scale armor were also common among veterans. 

 lorica squamata or scale armor

    After the Marian Reforms, Romans would only make up the infantry core of the army, all the other roles like skirmishers, archers, and cavalry would be filled by auxiliaries or allies. Later on, it was not uncommon for auxiliaries to be trained and equipped in the typical Roman legionnaire style as well. As a brief aside the testudo formation was primarily used to protect soldiers from missile fire, soldiers did not typically fight entire battles in a testudo. The Roman military stayed largely unchanged until its fall in the West, after the fall of the Western empire, the Eastern Roman Empire did make radical changes in response to the radically different world they found themselves in. Unfortunately, today I do not have time to discuss the Eastern Roman Empire or how the Roman military changed during the Middle Ages.

   

The Diversity of Italy

     By tradition, Rome was found on April 21st, 753 BCE, so for this week I want to make a blog post every single day about something I find interesting about the Romans and their history to celebrate. 

   One aspect of Roman history that often gets overlooked is just how diverse Italy* was before the Romans conquered it and before the many different tribes assimilated into Roman culture. There is a misconception that even before the Romans conquered Italy that Italy was just populated with Italians or people who had a similar culture to the Romans; however, there was no one unified Italian culture or people before Rome. There definitely were people who were related to the Romans in either language or culture, most notably the other Latin tribes. The other Latin tribes did not make up a majority or even plurality of what would become known as Italy. Just look at this map.

     Going roughly from North to South, first you have the Ligures. It is debated who exactly the Ligures were. Some say they were a pre-Indo-European people who eventually adopted an Indo-European language, a Celtic language. Others say they are an Indo-European peoples who through interactions with Celtic tribes became more Celt-like, but still distinct. 

    Next, we have the numerous Celtic or Gallic tribes who inhabited roughly modern day Lombardy. The Celts were a semi-nomadic people who spoke a tongue descended from Proto-Indo-European. They were distinct from other Italic people due to being semi-nomadic, their language, and having different cultural practices. Due to their semi-nomadic lifestyle, Celtic tribes settled as far as Galatia, modern day Turkey and Iberia. Additionally, the Celts were extremely ferocious warriors, who were hired by many Mediterranean peoples (Egyptians, the Punics, Greeks, Persians and more) as mercenaries and palace gaurds. The design of the stereotypical Roman Legionnaire helmet was inspired by earlier Celtic helmets. Part of northern Italy was originally known as Gallia Cisalpina or "the near side of the Alps Gaul," due to it being settled and dominated by Celtic Peoples.

    Then, there are the Veneti and other Italic tribes. The Veneti were an Italic tribe who had different language and customs to their Celtic and Illyrian Neighbors. According to local traditions, after the fall of Troy, a Trojan prince fled to the Veneti and became their leader, thus linking them to Troy similar to how the Romans linked themselves to Troy. 

    Perhaps the most interesting of the non-Roman peoples who lived in Italy, are the Etruscans. The Etruscans inhabited roughly modern day Tuscany, the name Tuscany itself actually comes from the Latin word, Etruria, which just means "land of the Etruscans." According to many ancient traditions, the Etruscans did not originate in Italy but migrated there from somewhere else. The issue of where the Etruscans were originally from is still being debated, but many modern scholars believe they actually did originate in Italy. Regardless, the Etruscans were somewhat Hellenized due to their trade ties with the Greeks. The Etruscans were armed in and fought in the Greek style, phalanxes. Their pottery was also made in the Greek style Black/Red Figure. The Greek influence was also seen in their architecture. The Etruscans had a profound influence on the Romans due to their wealth, proximity, and due to three of the seven kings of Rome (including the last king of Rome) were said to be of Etruscan origin.

  South of Rome, below Campania, and on the Eastern side of Sicily, we have the many different Greek city states. The Greeks had a practice of sending out groups of freemen and citizens to found new cities (Naples, or Napoli, comes from the Greek Neapolis or "new city") at strategic military, trade, and geographical points. In fact the southern region of Italy was so full of Greeks and Greek city-states that in Latin it was originally called Magna Graecia or "Greater Greece." The Greeks both directly and indirectly (through the Etruscans) had a massive influence on the Romans. The Romans derived their Alphabet from the Greeks, originally fought in the phalanx style, modeled their architecture after them, took inspiration from Greek mythology and traditions, learned Philosophy and Rhetoric from the Greeks, and wealthy Romans were even tutored by Greeks to learn the language and culture. 

     To the East of the Greek colonies we have the Messapians, who were originally from Illyria (roughly modern day Albania and Montenegro.) The Messapians, were undoubtedly not originally Italic peoples. 

    Lastly, we have the Carthaginians, a Phoenician civilization, who were a Semitic people (related to the ancient Jews) originally from the Levant. The Greek Alphabet was derived and adapted from the Phoenician Alphabet, (ironically Rome indirectly adopted the Alphabet of one of their greatest enemies.) Like the Greeks, the primary political organization of the Phoenicians were city states. Also like the Greeks, the Phoenicians would found colonies in strategic locations. Phoenician cities spread from the Levant, to North Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, and Iberia. Carthage in Punic actually meant "new city," and was originally a minor colony of Tyre. The Carthaginians however, eventually rose to create a mercantile empire that would clash with the Roman Republic over the course of three brutal wars.  

  This list is not supposed to be exhaustive, I exclude many, many other peoples due to time constraints. The peoples I discussed were just a few examples of the plethora of unique civilizations and cultures that inhabited Italy before they were conquered and assimilated into Roman civilization. Additionally, my descriptions of the peoples I discussed are not supposed to be definitive ethnographies of these peoples. This post is just supposed to showcase some of the diversity of pre-Roman Italy and share some fun facts about those peoples. I hope you enjoyed reading this, but even if you did not, I enjoyed writing this. I will create some more fun posts about Rome and its history all this week. I also may come back to this post and edit it to make it a more definitive list of the peoples who inhabited Italy, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia before the Roman domination of Italy.    

The Expectations Trap

     It is now April! Did you make any New Year's resolutions? How are you doing on them if you did make a few? 

    One pattern I have noticed in my life and others' as well, is that oftentimes before we make a dramatic change, we might set a goal or have some expectation of what we want the results to be. Then after maybe two weeks or so of falling short of our goal or expectations, we slowly revert back to how we were previously doing things. 

    Let's take a diet for example. You want to lose 20 pounds, so you decide to do intermittent fasting and cut out all soda and sugary drinks. After two weeks of pretty rigorously of sticking with the diet you find you've only lost four pounds. So you slowly start cheating on the diet, and exercising less. Maybe a few weeks go by, you step on the scale again and find now you're four pounds heavier then when you started. A lot of people may then just give up, find a new goal and repeat the process over again, making little to no progress and maybe even losing ground in some areas. How can we avoid that? 

   Firstly, remember how much time and work you have already put in to something. If the task or goal is worth accomplishing, then just think about how it would feel for you to have wasted all the time you have already dedicated to it. Secondly, remember why you are doing what you are doing. If you have a good reason for wanting to accomplish something, it makes it easier to justify the effort you are putting in. Thirdly, remember that all things take time. Success does not happen overnight. In any process there will naturally be spikes, falls, and plateaus. Do not be discouraged when after initially gaining ground your progress plateaus. Those are the times when you need to redouble your efforts and push harder. The next breakthrough or milestone may be just around the corner and you just need to put your head down and keep going. 

   Another major thing you can do to make sure you continue to work towards your goal after facing difficulties is to manage expectations. Success does not happen overnight. Is it really realistic to lose 20 pounds in two months? Even if you did lose that much weight in two months, would you be able to keep it off? Success is a process. As long as you are putting in time and effort towards your goals, you are making progress. Instead of focusing on how far you still have to go, focus on how much progress you have already made. Making changes is hard. Oftentimes, it requires changing how you think about the problem in order to achieve what you want to achieve.

  These are just some of my thoughts on how to think about self-improvement. Let me know what you think and if this was helpful to you.