sample - Karwansaray Publishers

Feb/Mar 2008
A N C I E N T
WARFARE
VOL II, ISSUE I
Light infantry
With:
• Portrait of a Peltast
• Lanciarii: Elite legionaries?
Also:
• The battle of Dara
• Read your Homer!
And more
www.ancient-warfare.com
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 1
€ 6,99
Copyright Karwansaray BV
24-07-2009 17:30:56
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 2
24-07-2009 17:30:59
A N C I E N T
WARFARE
Publisher: Rolof van Hövell tot Westerflier, MA, MCL
Publisher’s assistant: Gabrielle Terlaak
Editor in chief: Jasper L. Oorthuys, MA
Sales and marketing: Tharin Clarijs
Website design: Christianne C. Beall
Art and layout consultant: Matthew C. Lanteigne
Contributors: Nick Barley, Ross Cowan, Murray Dahm,
Sidney Dean, Paul Elliot, Stephen English, Christian
Koepfer, Chris Lillington-Martin, Mike Thomas
Illustrations: Andrew Brozyna, Igor Dzis, Carlos de la
Rocha, Johnny Shumate, Graham Sumner.
Design & layout: © MeSa Design,
e-mail: layout@ancient-warfare.com
Print: PublisherPartners. www.publisherpartners.com
Editorial office
PO Box 1574, 6501 BN Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Phone: +31-6-28788885 (Europe)
+1-740-994-0091 (US).
E-mail: editor@ancient-warfare.com
Skype: ancient_warfare.
Website: www.ancient-warfare.com
Contributions in the form of articles, letters and
queries from readers are welcomed. Please send to
the above address or use the contact form on our
website.
CONTENTS Feb/Mar 2008
4
NEWS AND LETTERS
Macedonian ‘heavy’ infantry
7
A HISTORY OF
EUROPEAN SHIELDS
Part 2. Weapon and status symbol
THEME
Light infantry
12 INTRODUCTION
14 THE SOURCE
Copyright Karwansaray BV, all rights reserved.
Nothing in this publication may be reproduced
in any form without prior written consent of the
publishers. Any individual providing material for
publication must ensure they have obtained the
correct permissions before submission to us. Every
effort has been made to trace copyright holders,
but in a few cases this proves impossible. The editor
and publishers apologize for any unwitting cases of
copyright transgression and would like to hear from
any copyright holders not acknowledged.
Articles and the opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily represent the views of the editor and or
publishers. Advertising in Ancient Warfare does not
necessarily imply endorsement.
36
ROMAN TACTICS
DEFEAT PERSIAN PRIDE
The battle of Dara
Thucydides on Lightly Armed Troops
18 LANCIARII
Elite legionary troops?
Subscription
Subscription price per 12 months is 29,95 euros
including postage worldwide. 6% VAT applicable in
the EU. Subscriptions: www.ancient-warfare.com or
Ancient Warfare PO Box 1574, 6501 BN, Nijmegen,
The Netherlands.
Distribution
Ancient Warfare is sold through selected retailers,
museums, the internet and by subscription. If you
wish to become a sales outlet, please contact the
editorial office or e-mail us:
sales@ancient-warfare.com
32 HOPLITE OR PELTAST
24 HUMBLE AND DEADLY
The ancient slinger
41 BE A GENERAL
Read your Homer
45 BE A GENERAL
Solution to ‘Xenophon’s cavalry commander’
46 REVIEWS
Books and models
28
WARRIOR PORTRAIT
Peltast light infantry
50
ON THE COVER
Ancient Warfare is published every two months by
Karwansaray BV, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
PO Box 1110, 3000 BC Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
ISSN: 1874-7019
Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 3
3
24-07-2009 17:31:29
NEWS AND LETTERS
News and
letters
INTERACTION WITH OUR READERSHIP IS VERY IMPORTANT
TO US AND WE’RE GLAD TO SEE THE WEBSITE IS REGULARLY
USED TO POSE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON OUR
MAGAZINE. LAST TIME WE ENCOURAGED OUR READERS
NOT TO BE AFRAID TO VENT THEIR CRITICISMS. IT IS GOOD
TO SEE THAT CRITICAL MINDS READ OUR MAGAZINE.
The conquest of Spain
I am glad to see that the fourth issue
of Ancient Warfare deals with the
Roman conquest of Hispania. There
are however many issues that could
be addressed regarding the different
contributions, many of them on
controversial points such as the
character of the Celtiberian ‘guerrilla’.
I will however restrict my comments
to a few points of fact visible in the
figures and figure captions, which are
misleading or plain wrong.
The sword shown in p. 34 is neither
a Roman gladius hispaniensis, nor
its Iberian prototype. In fact, it is a
‘fronton sword’ (of Quesada’s type 2,
cat. number 908). This particular sword
comes from Almedinilla (Cordoba)
– a site I’m actually re-excavating
now– and is dated to the first decades
of the 4th century BC. Real prototypes
of the gladius hispaniensis belong to a
complete different tradition (see JRMES
8, 1997, pp.251-270).
The – otherwise splendid – illustration
of a Lusitanian warrior in page 18 must
also be taken with more than a grain of
salt. Mail armour was very rare – not
a single examples is archaeologically
documented
among
thousands
of warrior burials – and sources
specifically mention it was very rare
(Strabo 3, 3, 6). So this is a chieftain and
4
not a representative example.
There are moreover some factual errors
that make this a flawed reconstruction.
The belt-buckle is a very archaic type
that cannot be dated later than c. 350
BC, over a century before Viriathus.
There are more appropriate types for a
2nd century date.
Also, the sword has many problems.
So far not a single bronze or brass
metallic frame for the sword scabbard
has been found; they are all made in
iron. The spearhead embedded in the
scabbard frame was placed there, in
Ancient-warfare.com
The magazine website has been completely redesigned. We believe the
layout is much improved and the site is now easier to navigate. We have also
added a blog where the editor keeps track of what is going on ‘behind the
scenes’ of Ancient Warfare.
In the near future – perhaps already when you read this – we will also
have added a podcast, an internet audio show, which we are producing in
cooperation with thehistorynetwork.org. We are quite excited about this
new feature and hope you’ll like it too. The first episode will feature several
of the authors in this issue discussing the theme of ‘Light infantry’.
Finally, if you’d like to keep up to date with our plans and ideas, make sure
you subscribe to our free electronic newsletter. Go to ancient-warfare.com
and simply put your name and email address in the box at the top right of the
page. The website has an archive of older editions as well.
Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 4
24-07-2009 17:31:36
NEWS AND LETTERS
Roman hospital found
During excavations in Oudenburg,
in western Belgium, the remains
of a Roman military hospital,
a valetudinarium have been
discovered. The fort containing
the hospital dates to the third
century AD and was established
as part of the defences in-depth
of the Rhine border, then possibly
reinforced during the Gallic
empire of Postumus (260-268)
and subsequently became part of
the Saxon Coast defence system.
The find of a hospital here is
noteworthy since the nearest
comparable find is in Neuss, just
north of Cologne, Germany.
the small ‘pocket knife’ space, during
the funeral rites; it is not a ‘reserve
weapon holder’, and this is proved by a
detailed examination of the excavation
reports.
Finally, the hilt is also regrettably
wrong; the ‘atrophied antennae’ sword
hilts are small iron spheres decorated
with silver or copper inlay, never
vertical disks as shown. Some early,
5th century BC hilts are known with
flat disks, but never this way or in this
shape. Finally, the shape of the caetra
iron boss is also wrong.
I know Spanish archaeology is not
well known abroad, but enough
information is now readily available
online or in books published in Britain
or France, so that these embarrassing
mistakes could have been avoided.
I would not like to leave the impression
that I disagree with the articles
published in Ancient Warfare, or that
I detract from their merit, but I believe
serious and polite criticism is still
healthy.
Prof. Fernando Quesada-Sanz
We apologize for the misidentification of
the ‘fronton’ sword and the misleading
caption in the Viriathus article. It
should, of course, have said that this was
a reconstruction of what a chieftain like
Virithus could have looked like.
As to the factual errors in the image
itself, we can only repeat what Johnny
Shumate said on reading this letter: “I
wish I had contact with Prof.Quesada
before I started the illustrations. He is
correct that the information on Iberian
warriors is scant outside the Spanish
world. I mostly used the information
out of Osprey’s book Rome’s Enemies:
Spanish Armies. I hate it when I render
an illustration that’s not correct. I try
to pride myself on historically accurate
images. I offer my apologies” ■
Future themes
These are the planned themes
for the coming issues of Ancient
Warfare:
- Victory and defeat (April 2008)
- The Age of the Trireme. 700 BC
- 335 BC (June 2008)
- The campaigns of Julius Caesar
(August 2008)
- Warfare in the Ancient Near East
(October 2008)
If you have any suggestions for
future themes, or if you’d like
to contribute, don’t hesitate to
contact us.
© Brendan Keeley
Ancient Warfare 5
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 5
24-07-2009 17:31:37
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 6
24-07-2009 17:31:40
A HISTORY OF EUROPEAN SHIELDS - PART 2
Weapon and Status Symbol?
The scutum in the early Roman Empire
AS WE HAVE SEEN IN PART I OF THIS ARTICLE ‘INVENTING THE
SCUTUM - ITALIC SHIELDS UNTIL THE LATE REPUBLIC’, THE SCUTUM
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A FORMIDABLE WEAPON. HOWEVER,
DURING THE REIGN OF AUGUSTUS THE ROMAN SCUTUM, WHICH
HAD SERVED BASICALLY UNCHANGED IN THE ROMAN ARMY FOR
CENTURIES, SUDDENLY BECAME SUBJECT TO A SERIES OF DRASTIC
MODIFICATIONS.
The first disctintive feature to
disappear seems to have been the
spina. Among the finds from the Roman
camp in Haltern, which was abandoned
after the Roman defeat in 9 AD by the
Germanic tribes led by Arminius, are
two of the barley-corn shaped shield
bosses (umbones). One of them is a
fragment of a repoussée-decorated
version of the regular iron type used
previously, the other, however, has
no longer cut-outs to incorporate
the spina. For a short period forked,
narrow and comparatively thin metal
spinae seem to have been used in some
regions of the Empire. These spinae
were probaly not directly connected to
the umbo.
The next modification was to the
shield boss itself, which became round
and lost its barley-corn shape. Some of
the earliest examples of this type also
were found at Haltern. Most findings
from the early Empire show a round
shield-boss-rim, where other finds
have a square one. Even the shield
body was subject to changes. Two
different shield forms evolved from
the Republican scutum; a large oval
form, which could be either curved or
convex, and a rectangular curved form,
which was basically the Republican
scutum, with cut off upper and lower
curved part. The shield boss types with
the rectangular rim belong to
these, the shield boss types
with the round rim to the oval
shields.
Another new feature of
the rectangular shields was
that they were reinforced
with wooden strips at their
rear. This made them even more
robust. Whereas the Republican shields
seem to have had metal rims only along
the upper and lower edge, the shields
now were covered all around the rim
with sheet metal, usually of copper
alloy. Parts of these are found all over
the Empire in large numbers.
As usual in the Roman Empire, all
these changes were not taking place
everywhere, and not taking place
everywhere at the same time. The
famous Mainz Pedestals (Pictures 1 & 2)
from the last quarter of the first century
AD depict both of these shield types, the
rectangular shields still equipped with
a barley-corn shaped umbo, wheras
the slightly earlier tombstone of Caius
Valerius Crispus from Legio VIII Augusta
already shows the new square umbo
type. Generally it is assumed that the
rectangular shield identifies legionary
soldiers, and the oval shield identifies
auxiliaries. This is, as we will see later,
too generalised a statement to make.
Beside the shield forms already
© Jasper Oorthuys
By Christian Koepfer
Picture 1. Pillar base showing
legionaries attacking in formation.
Second half of the first century AD.
Now in the Landesmuseum, Mainz
(Germany).
described a variety of other shields
were in use by the auxilia in this period,
mainly deriving from indigenous shield
forms. By terminological definition,
these also were scuta. Since these
stand in a different tradition, they will
be described in a following part. For
completeness, I also want to mention
that the Praetorians seem to have used
the oval version of the scutum during
the early Empire, as can be seen on the
famous Cancellaria relief in Rome.
At this point the question arises
as to the reason for the changes I
described above. Junkelmann argues
that the motive was mainly weight
reduction. However his reproductions
of Republican scuta based on the find
from Kasr-el-Harit (as desribed in Part
I of this article) were 9.65 kg, which is
Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 7
7
24-07-2009 17:31:43
© Jasper Oorthuys
A HISTORY OF EUROPEAN SHIELDS - PART 2
Picture 2. Pillar base with a depiction of a soldier – auxiliary? – with several
javelins. Second half of the first century AD. Now in the Landesmuseum, Mainz
(Germany).
far too heavy. A 1:1 reconstruction of
the shield by the author weighs only
5.8 kg. Where Junkelmann used a quite
heavy leather shield facing, a wellprepared calf-skin facing as described
by Polybius would add not more than
0.8kg of weight, resulting in an overall
6.6 kg, about three kg less. The weight
reduction achieved by cutting off the
top and bottom edges and removing
the spina would save ~1.4 kg versus
Junkelmann’s 3.55 kg and this would
not really have been very significant.
The oval scutum basically had the same
weight as its predecessor from the
Republic, and was just lower and, in
some cases, wider.
8
A restructured army
Then why would such a change occur?
The reason may be found in Augustus’
restructuring of the Roman Army.
Augustus inherited an army which
was based on legions of Italic citizens,
which were reinforced by more or less
independent allied units of different
origin. By restructuring these allied
troops and incorporating them as
official units into the army, each unit´s
role had to be defined, which brought
as a side-effect a certain ladder of
status, with the most prestigious units
at the top. It was immediately clear to
the soldiers which units were where in
the pecking order: the legions, made up
of Roman citizens, were at the very top,
followed by the cavalry units and then
the auxiliary infantry, both the latter
led by Roman citizens but not, alas,
citzens themselves. In that way the
army was paralleling Roman society
with its vertical structure based on
honour. With these differentiations of
prestige and honour within the Army
the units had to find certain roles in
which they could excel, to be able to
compete in honour, as well as to find
means for self-identification, thus
avoiding contempt (no-one wanted to
be member of the 5th Diapontic Cohort
of unarmoured rock-throwers, famous
for missing their target nine out of ten
times).
The elite troops, the legions, seem to
have become specialists more and more
over the course of the first century,
as J.E. Lendon has shown recently in
Soldiers and Ghosts. The legions rather
became a sort of sapper troop, in charge
of building tasks, siegeworking and
the like, but of course still remained a
hard challenge for any opponent in the
field. Especially for the siege works the
rectangular shields seem to have been
a better choice than the oval shields
would have been. They still offered
good protection, and they allowed the
soldiers better to take up formations
useful in a siege, like the testudo, or
very dense formations in which the
soldiers were able to strike over their
own shields, which was rather difficult
with the old scutum, and not so easy
with the new oval scutum.
Nonetheless,
the
rectangular
scutum seems not to have been
reserved for the legions exclusively, nor
was the oval scutum a pure auxiliary
attribute. This can be seen from
tombstones again, that of the legionary
Publius Flavoleius Cordus (Picture 3),
and of Caius Castricius Victor (Picture
4) who carry an oval shield, and that of
the auxiliary Annaius Daverzus (Picture
5), who - most probably - carries a
rectangular shield. As regarding this
the question may be asked whether
perhaps shield forms were linked
to certain tasks which units had to
perform, e.g. that one or more cohorts
who were siege specialists within a
legion carried the rectangular shield,
where simultaneously other cohorts
used the oval form, which offered
Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 8
24-07-2009 17:31:47
A HISTORY OF EUROPEAN SHIELDS - PART 2
Shield devices
As in earlier times the scutum was used
as a weapon as much as a protective
device. The lower rim and the shield boss
could be used to strike at the opponent,
the shield’s size and sturdyness offered
good protection. In these aspects
© Jasper Oorthuys
better protection in a pitched battle.
Also regional differences might be the
reason. Unfortunately these questions
have to remain open. Only a detailed
analysis of first century shield-part
finds from all over the Empire could
help in answering these questions.
Picture 3. Tombstone of Publius Flavoleius Cordus, soldier of the Legio XIV Gemina,
1st Century AD. Now in the Landesmuseum, Mainz (Germany).
nothing changed. What did change is
that from the early Empire we have a
lot more evidence about shield devices
than we have from the Republic. The
Arch of Orange shows on its two large
battle friezes pairs of wings on the
scuta, a feature commonly seen on
other epigraphic evidence from the
period. In Kalkriese two fragments of
what was most probably a metal shield
decoration were apparently found
together with fragments of a copper
alloy shield rim. These fragments are of
gilded and very thin silver sheet metal
and formed a stylised lightning symbol,
which can also be seen on shields on
many reliefs, such as Trajan’s Column
or the above mentioned tombstone of
Crispus. In fact the variety of possible
shield designs for legionaries seems to
be quite limited, consisting mainly of
Jupiter-related symbols: thunderbolt
and lightning, and / or eagle’s wings.
It is possible that soldiers which had
received military decorations also
displayed these on their shields. On
Trajan’s Column also other decorations
like lunulae and stars can be seen on
legionary shields. The auxilia displayed
on this monument have different kinds
of shield designs, which seem to be
linked to their status. According to Lino
Rossi, auxilia shield designs showing
symbols connected to Jupiter meant
that these units were either granted
Roman citizenship or recruited from
Roman citzens, shields showing laurel
wreaths belonged to units which were
decorated with the title torquata, and
shields showing other designs, such as
geometrical, mythical or floral motifs,
belonged to regular auxilia.
An interesting aspect of the shield
devices is their purpose. Where we
know from Greek armies that the
devices either were apotropaic devices,
or family or state symbols, the Roman
shield devices are in this context a bit
more complicated to interpret. The
symbols relating to Jupiter as head of
the Capitoline triad, thus the major
god of Rome, seem to have had a clear
purpose: linking the bearer and his
unit to the highest divine authority and
divine power. Similarily the decorations
could show military decorations, as we
have seen. Others are unclear, though.
But beside these aspects one rightfully
asks for the military function of the
Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 9
9
24-07-2009 17:31:50
A HISTORY OF EUROPEAN SHIELDS - PART 2
shield designs. Two literary sources are
of importance in this context. The first
is from Tacitus out of an account of the
battle of Cremona in 69 AD:
© Martin Wieland
The line was supported, as it
began to waver, by Antonius, who
brought up the Praetorians. They
took up the conflict, repulsed the
enemy and were then themselves
repulsed. The troops of Vitellius had
collected their artillery on the raised
causeway, where there was a free
and open space for the discharge
of the missiles, which at first had
been scattered at random, and had
struck against the trees without
injury to the enemy. An engine of
remarkable size, belonging to the
15th legion, was crushing the hostile
ranks with huge stones, and would
have spread destruction far and
wide, had not two soldiers ventured
on a deed of surpassing bravery.
Disguising themselves with shields
snatched from the midst of the
carnage, they cut the ropes and
springs of the engine. They were
instantly slain, and their names
have consequently been lost; but
the fact is undoubted.
Tacitus, Historiae 3.23
This passage has often been used
as a proof that Roman shield devices in
the early Empire were uniform within
units. In fact all that can be said is
that it seems to have been possible
to distinguish the shields of one side
from the shields of the other side. Since
the battle was a civil war, it could also
be that the soldiers had marked their
shields in a way that made it possible
to distinguish which soldier was on
which side, as was the case much later,
when Constantine the Great ordered
“the sign of the salutary trophy to be
impressed on the very shields of his
soldiers” right before the battle of the
Milvian Bridge in AD 312. On the other
hand, Vegetius tells us in the late 4th
century AD how the “ancients”, that
is, the earlier Roman armies, used their
shield devices:
Picture 4. Tombstone of Caius Castricius Victor, legionary of II Adiutrix, late 1st or
early 2nd century AD. Now in the Aquincum Museum, Budapest (Hungary)
Lest the soldiers in the confusion
of battle should be separated from
their comrades, every cohort had
its shields painted in a manner
peculiar to itself. The name of each
soldier was also written on his
shield, together with the number
of the cohort and century to which
he belonged. From this description
we may compare the legion, when
in proper order, to a well fortified
city as containing within itself every
thing requisite in war, wherever it
moved.
This might be only an interpretation
by Vegetius of the fact that he saw
different kinds of shield devices on
older monuments. On the other hand,
this interpretation is supported by
Rossi´s theory about the shield devices
displayed on Trajan´s Column, which
I described above. Since there is not
much more information than this to
be gained at the moment, the reader
will probably agree with me that the
sources are too few to make definite or
universal statements about the military
function of Roman shield devices in the
early Roman Empire.
Vegetius, 2.18
Shield construction
Reconstruction of scuta for this
period is rather difficult, since there
10 Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 10
24-07-2009 17:31:55
A HISTORY OF EUROPEAN SHIELDS - PART 2
is no actual known example, with
the exception of a shield board from
Doncaster. This unfortunately was
burned before it was buried and hence
is not a reliable source.2 Shield covers
and metal shield rims found in several
locations across the Empire dating to
the first and second century can tell
us something about the actual size
and possibly the shape of the shields,
but not much about the shield board
construction, or the materials used for
it. Only cross-referencing with earlier
and later period shield finds, as well as
with ancient depictions of shields, can
give us an idea about how they looked
and how they were made. Here the
Kasr-El-Harit shield (1st C BC / 1st C AD)
and the shields found at Dura Europos,
dating to the 3rd century AD, are the
only objects which can help. These finds
show that there seems to be a certain
continuity in shield construction. The
rectangular shield board from Dura
Europos is constructed in the same
three-layer curved plywood method
as is the Kasr-El-Harit shield. In fact
the remnants of the Doncaster shield
show that it was also constructed in at
least two layers, so there seems to be
a unbroken consistency in the Roman
art of shield-making. Unfortunately
the bad state of preservation of the
Doncaster shield actually cannot show
us whether the shield was curved or
flat. However, I would suggest that it
was rather a curved shield, due to it’s
plywood-strip construction, since all
other examples of such shields that we
know of were curved. As with the shield
from Dura Europos, the Doncaster
shield also had a facing made from
animal skin to protect its surface.
connected to the status and prestige
these units had, and their allegiance
was proudly displayed on their shields.
The question as to whether this was
actual practice or rather a system
invented for display on Trajan´s
Column remains unanswered. On
many other reliefs and tombstones
one mainly sees the thunderbolt and
lightning device. In construction the
rectangular scuta during the period
discussed in this article seem to have
been almost identical to the earlier
and the later examples of actual finds.
As we will see in the next part of this
series, this point cannot be made
for the oval scuta,
which underwent
a striking change
in construction at
some time during
the early Empire. ■
Further reading
M. Junkelmann, Die Legionen des
Augustus. Mainz 1986.
J. E. Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts.
London & New Haven 2005.
A. C. McGiffert, Writings of
Eusebius. 1890 New York.
L. Rossi, Trajan’s Column and the
Dacian Wars. London 1971.
W. Schlüter (ed.), Kalkriese.
Bramsche 1993.
Christian Koepfer
is a regular
contributor to
Ancient Warfare.
Summarizing, we can see that the
scutum underwent a series of changes
during the first century, which were
not only changes in form, but probably
also in function. As the units in the
Roman Army became more specialised,
so the scutum was changed to serve
different purposes. The different kinds
of shields and shield devices seen
in contemporary art can be used as
an argument to support this theory.
Different battlefield roles and different
levels of recruiting background of the
various military units may have been
© Jasper Oorthuys
Conclusion
Picture 5. Tombstone of the auxiliary Annaius Daverzus, soldier of the 4th
Dalmatian cohort, mid 1st century AD. Now at the Römerhalle, Bad Kreuznach
(Germany).
Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 11
11
24-07-2009 17:31:57
THEME INTRODUCTION
‘Light infantry’
Historical introduction
ONE
OF
THE
MOST
FAMOUS
EXAMPLES OF THE LIGHT INFANTRYMAN
AT
WORK
IS
THE
DUEL
BETWEEN DAVID AND GOLIATH. THE
STORY IS LOADED WITH ALL KINDS
OF SYMBOLISM OF COURSE, BUT IT
IS ALSO QUITE ILLUSTRATIVE AS AN
INTRODUCTION TO THE CURRENT
THEME. GOLIATH WAS THE EPITOME
OF
THE
CHAMPION
HEAVY
OF
INFANTRYMAN:
THE
PHILISTINE
ARMY, EQUIPPED WITH THE BEST
AND MOST IMPRESSIVE ARMOR AND
© Karwansaray BV
DISDAINFUL OF THE YOUNG, POOR
SHEPHERD. THE FACT THAT HE WAS
KILLED FROM A DISTANCE WITH A
SLING STONE RIGHT BETWEEN HIS
EYES REINFORCES THE CONTRAST
AND THE BIBLICAL MESSAGE.
By Jasper Oorthuys
It is quite likely that the Bible is
the only ancient literary work with an
outspoken positive attitude in regard
to light infantrymen. As Nick Barley
shows, the exact opposite of the David
message can be found in Herodotus,
while Thucydides is at best neutral.
The latter provides information on
light infantry whenever he thinks that
is necessary, but no more than that.
Throughout the ancient world the
story of the light infantryman is almost
always the story of the young, poor
inhabitant of inhospitable mountains,
islands or a plain nomad. To top it off,
he fought from a distance, avoiding
close combat if possible. In other words,
he could hardly be more opposed to
The Greeks considered Persian soldiers effeminate, armed as they were with
bows. These glazed tiles depict Persian soldiers dating to the reign of Dareios the
Great. Now in the Pergamon museum, Berlin.
the citizen landowner who fought
with his compatriots for his city. To be
that citizen landowner was the ideal to
aspire to and that is what is reflected in
ancient literature.
Tactics
Another reason for the usual neglect
of light infantry in our sources may be
that their role was not always properly
understood. Certainly, there are several
examples of battles where a lone unit
of heavy infantry was harassed into
submission by skirmishers – Nick
Barley mentions a few – but most
battles seem to have been decided by
the crash of heavy infantry. Velites,
peltasts, archers and slingers are
often ignored when their role was not
decisive. Consequently many modern
historians ignore light infantry as well
or relegate them to an exchange of
missiles while the heavy infantry shake
into formation.
Probably the best known type of
javelin armed skirmisher is the peltast.
Sidney Dean discusses their origins in
the Thracian highlands where a more
fluid kind of warfare was practiced
than the ritualized hoplite battle of
the Greek city states. Showing their
usefulness, often in ‘low-intensity’
warfare, but in pitched battle as well,
Peltasts were later recruited from
among the urban poor. Across the
Adriatic the Romans enrolled their
poorer, nimble citizens as velites with
essentially the same task, perhaps
learning from their experiences during
the long wars with the mountain
peoples of Italy. Livy reports that the
velites were formally inducted into the
12 Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 12
24-07-2009 17:32:03
THEME INTRODUCTION
adduces sculptural evidence for 1st
century AD legionary skirmishers.
© Martin Wieland
Specialists
Gravestone of Septimius Viator, lanciarius of legio II Parthica, c. AD 215-218,
Apamea. There are no literary accounts of third century lanciarii in action, but
their multiple missiles suggest they fought like the velites of the Republican
legions. (see the article by Ross Cowan starting on page 18)
legions in 211 BC, but they disappear
from the record again at the end of the
second century BC. One wonders why
the Romans thought they no longer
needed such light infantry. Was the
legionary with two pila now his own
skirmisher? It can certainly be argued
that the Roman legionary of this era
was a very versatile infantryman who
was able both to fight on his own or in
larger, dense formations. Alternatively
it is possible that with the lowering
of the wealth requirements and the
issuing of equipment by Rome itself,
those who would previously have
become velites now simply became
legionaries as well.
It is often stated that the lack of
velites led to the introduction of nonRoman auxiliaries to take up the role
of light infantry. It remains to be seen
if that holds true. It has already been
argued in the very first issue of Ancient
Warfare that Batavian auxiliaries of
the Flavian era fought in the same way
and with similar equipment as their
legionary counterparts. In this issue
Ross Cowan discusses the possibility
that later during the Principate a
solution was found within the legions
themselves. Some soldiers of Legio II
Parthica were called lanciarii and he
That is not to say that the Romans did
not look for specialists to supplement
their army in what it lacked in cavalry,
archery and slingers. That, however, is
not a uniquely Roman feature. Paul
Elliot shows how well trained slingers
were a feature of warfare throughout
the entire ancient world, from Rhodian
slingers who were hired by Greek city
states to the staff-slingers integral to
the late Roman legions.
Nevertheless,
and
with
the
exception of specialist legionaries, light
infantry in whatever guise they showed
up on the battlefield, were almost
always the lowest class of soldier.
Cavalry was provided by the rich,
while the farmer-soldier, who could
afford to purchase his own equipment,
formed the mainstay of the infantry.
Those who could not afford to do so
and therefore had to avoid coming
into direct contact with their enemies
across the field, made do without and
found themselves other weapons.
Of course this entire interpretation
gets turned upside down if the
definition of light infantry is changed.
‘Light infantry’ is one of those
descriptive names that is understood
by everyone, but hard to pin down.
Are they defined by the fact that
they fight in skirmisher bands, by
virtue of being almost solely armed
with ranged weapons, by their high
maneuverability, by a lack of heavy
armor or by a combination of several
of the above?
Stephen English shows that if
you tick off the crucial differences in
tactics and equipment between the
classic phalanx and the Macedonian
formation of the same name, the
contrast is so great that the Philip’s
infantrymen might well be classed as
light infantrymen.
To hear some more discussion
on this topic, be sure to listen to the
podcast we recorded in cooperation
with www.thehistorynetwork.org.
More information and downloads on
www.ancient-warfare.com ■
Jasper Oorthuys
Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 13
13
24-07-2009 17:32:05
THE SOURCE
Thucydides on Lightly Armed Troops
HOLLYWOOD HAS MADE FAMOUS
THE
SAYING
DIENECES
AT
THERMOPYLAE;
OF
THE
THE
SPARTAN
BATTLE
ALTHOUGH
OF
THE
VAST NUMBERS OF PERSIAN ARROWS
WOULD BLOT OUT THE SUN, THIS
WAS IN FACT GOOD NEWS AS “IF THE
MEDES HIDE THE SUN WITH THEIR
ARROWS, WE WILL FIGHT IN THE
By Nick Barley
This makes for excellent theatre,
and truly demonstrates that Herodotus
has been successful in his wish to see
the valorous deeds of men remembered
by future generations. However,
it is unfortunate that only such
memorable incidents reach the public
consciousness. Indeed, Dieneces’ saying
leads the reader to adopt a ‘Spartan
attitude’ towards the effectiveness
of lightly armed troops, namely, that
regardless of number, they somehow
do not really ‘count’. Thanks perhaps
to Herodotus’ reporting of the Persian
Wars and Aeschylus’ representation
of these wars as struggles between
the effeminate Persian bow and the
manly Dorian spear, this attitude
remains ingrained in the modern idea
of ancient Greek warfare. (Aeschylus,
Persians, 85-6, 147-9)
Thucydides
This idea is that of a style of warfare
almost dominated by an ancient
form of ‘Queensbury rules’: the use of
lightly armed troops was seen as both
pointless, due to their ineffectiveness,
and a sign of weakness, as their
use indicated a lack of desire for
‘honourable’ close combat. But is this
idea supported by the sources, or is it
a more modern construction, a style
© Livius.org
SHADE.” (HERODOTUS, 7.226)
Thucydides on a mosaic in the Altes Museum, Berlin
of combat invented by modern writers
to conform to the perceived glory days
of antiquity? To answer this question
we must turn to Thucydides, the
Athenian general and historian who
recorded the tumultuous events of
the Peloponnesian War. His accurate
and meticulous style of writing has
preserved details of a number of large
battles, and smaller skirmishes, from
which a huge amount of information
regarding Greek warfare, specifically
Greek lightly armed troops, can be
taken.
Thucydides was an Athenian citizen
born around 460B.C. who came to write
one of the greatest and most enduring
accounts of Greek history ever written.
His History of the Peloponnesian War
is considered one of the first truly
scholarly historical accounts written,
and his scientific, often dry method
of collecting and presenting evidence
resulted in a first hand account of
conflict. Thucydides was well-equipped
to write his account. Educated in
Athens during the 440s he would have
been exposed to the seemingly limitless
pursuit of intellectual activities which
concerned its citizens at that time.
That Thucydides was well-educated is
certainly an excellent start if we are
to analyse his credentials as a writer;
but he had another, perhaps more
important, quality which would affect
his writing: experience as a general. The
only evidence we have for Thucydides’
holding of the strategia is that of his
command during 424, and this comes
from his own writings. (Thucydides
4.104-108) Unfortunately, there is no
way of discovering the extent of his
experience prior to this. However,
given that the position of strategos
was decided by vote, it is fair to assume
that Thucydides had prior military
experience before being elected to the
office in 424. His command during this
time came to an abrupt and inglorious
end when, having lost the strategically
important city of Amphipolis in Thrace
to the wily Spartan general Brasidas, he
was exiled from Athens. This, according
to Thucydides himself, gave him “rather
exceptional facilities for looking into
things…” and consequently the History
of the Peloponnesian War was written.
(Thucydides, 5.26)
14 Ancient Warfare
AW nr5 feb-mrt08.indd 14
24-07-2009 17:32:05