ETRUSCANS?

[DaiSho]

Well to dismiss Livy as totally unreliable is rather foolish. Whilst his earlier stuff (basically before the Gallic sack of Rome) is, by his own admission, a bit dodgy in places, the later stuff is often sound.

Nik,

I don't understand. We're talking about the Etruscans (who dropped from power in or about 500B.C.). I'm saying you can't rely on Livy because he's unreliable. You're saying you can use Livy, except for the stuff before the Sack of Rome, which ocurred in 387B.C.

So, to sum up, you agree you can't use Livy for the Etruscans because he's unreliable, but you want me to use Livy for the Etruscans?

[rbodleyscott]

Well to dismiss Livy as totally unreliable is rather foolish. Whilst his earlier stuff (basically before the Gallic sack of Rome) is, by his own admission, a bit dodgy in places, the later stuff is often sound.

Nik,

I don't understand. We're talking about the Etruscans (who dropped from power in or about 500 B.C.). I'm saying you can't rely on Livy because he's unreliable. You're saying you can use Livy, except for the stuff before the Sack of Rome, which ocurred in 387B.C.

So, to sum up, you agree you can't use Livy for the Etruscans because he's unreliable, but you want me to use Livy for the Etruscans?

There are degrees of unreliability. He may be unreliable in some details, that does not mean he is unreliable about something as important as a Gallic alliance.

The Etruscans weren't conquered by Rome until 280 BC, so their list certainly won't end in 500 BC.

The Etruscans were allied with the Samnites, Gauls and Umbrians (against the Romans) in the Third Samnite War in 295 BC, though they were not present at the battle of Sentinum where the Romans defeated the Samnite and Gallic forces.

[nikgaukroger]

Well to dismiss Livy as totally unreliable is rather foolish. Whilst his earlier stuff (basically before the Gallic sack of Rome) is, by his own admission, a bit dodgy in places, the later stuff is often sound.

Nik,

I don't understand. We're talking about the Etruscans (who dropped from power in or about 500B.C.). I'm saying you can't rely on Livy because he's unreliable. You're saying you can use Livy, except for the stuff before the Sack of Rome, which ocurred in 387B.C.

So, to sum up, you agree you can't use Livy for the Etruscans because he's unreliable, but you want me to use Livy for the Etruscans?

I did not say you cannot use Livy for the Etruscans - that's a wild misreading of what I wrote.

As Richard says there are degrees of unreliability and sources that may be unreliable on X can be reliable on Y and all within the same part of the work. You cannot just view sources as being reliable or not reliable in a binary manner.

[marioslaz]

I did not say you cannot use Livy for the Etruscans - that's a wild misreading of what I wrote.

As Richard says there are degrees of unreliability and sources that may be unreliable on X can be reliable on Y and all within the same part of the work. You cannot just view sources as being reliable or not reliable in a binary manner.

Ancient author, like Livio or Polibio, are indeed a good font of info, but archaeological evidence are always a more consistent proof. About Etruschi there are a lot of internet site of museum with such info. I find also a very good forum I use as starting point for many researches (http://arsdimicandi.mastertopforum.com/index.php). Just a problem: near all materials are in Italian language

[peterrjohnston]

I did not say you cannot use Livy for the Etruscans - that's a wild misreading of what I wrote.

As Richard says there are degrees of unreliability and sources that may be unreliable on X can be reliable on Y and all within the same part of the work. You cannot just view sources as being reliable or not reliable in a binary manner.

I regard Livy as like basing the late 20th century history of the world on a reading of the UK "The Sun" newspaper. The basic facts might be right, but one has to read between the lines and they are somewhat UK/Roman-centric views of the world.

As an Etruscan fan, of course I'm not biased or anything.

Regards,
Peter

[peterrjohnston]

Ancient author, like Livio or Polibio, are indeed a good font of info, but archaeological evidence are always a more consistent proof. About Etruschi there are a lot of internet site of museum with such info. I find also a very good forum I use as starting point for many researches (http://arsdimicandi.mastertopforum.com/index.php). Just a problem: near all materials are in Italian language

Mario,

What's your view on Fossati's book BTW? Is there anything worth looking at more recent? (I can just about read Italian,
if badly).

Regards,
Peter

[marioslaz]

This is the internet site of the museum of my city http://www.comune.bologna.it/museoarche ... index.html (Bologna). There is also a section in English language, but with little info than Italian one. To browse I suggest you use IE, because with Mozilla I found some problems.

[giobaratto]

OK, as promised, first crack at an Etruscan list. Any comments would be appreciated...


I like the list. The only thing I'd say is that I believe anyone who lived in close enough proximity to the Gauls would undoubtedly at times have fought with them as an Ally. Perhaps we could add an option for Roman and Gallic allies of the appropriate time.

I know there would be no historical evidence of that happening, but come on - what's the chances of it NOT happening? Beyond reasonable doubt?

Ian

Actually, there is evidence of alliance between Gauls and Etruscan, but not evidence that tahey fought togheter, as long as I know. Maybe in the Sentium Battle 295 bc, but the account of the battle of Livy only tell us about Samnites and Gauls fighting Romans, hence the Etruscan League was part of the alliance.
In 299 the Etruscan paid the Gauls to fight against romans, always according to Livy, but after receiving the money the Gauls ask also for territory to fight, and the Etruscans refused, so the Celts go back to the Padania Planis...
I don't know if before that date they fight against romans togheter, for sure not in 390, when the romans go to help the etruscans with the conseguence of the Battle of Allia River and the sack of Rome...
Anyway, The Gauls should have the options of Samnites allies, don't know when or how

giorgio

[thefrenchjester]

Hi Gorgio,

but as I know at Sentinum the Gauls were under the overall command of the Samnites

do they have gave the cash to the Etruscans before returning to the padanian plains

best regards

thefrenchjester

ps : my ancestors are from Aquilonia that's surely why I'm on the side of the Samnites

[DaiSho]

my ancestors are from Aquilonia that's surely why I'm on the side of the Samnites

Hell, my ancestors are celts from the Isle of Skye, I'm basically on the side that ISN'T Roman

Ian

[giobaratto]

do they have gave the cash to the Etruscans before returning to the padanian plains

best regards

thefrenchjester

ps : my ancestors are from Aquilonia that's surely why I'm on the side of the Samnites

No, they take the gold an d go back to their homeland without fighting... that's what Livy wrote...

giorgio

My ancestros are from istrian penisula, so I supposed to be on the side of Illyrians

[DaiSho]

My ancestros are from istrian penisula, so I supposed to be on the side of Illyrians

Then I hope you don't own a Macedonian army.

I've just finished reading 'Lion of Macedon' so I'm basing my entire history on David Gemmel. If ever I build a Macedonian army it's going to have an Inspirational Sub-General with a Lamda shield . To hell with the rules. I have documented evidence in black and white. I can even reference the page number of this fine work of research .

Ian

[marioslaz]

Last Sunday I went to Monterenzio Museum (Museo Luigi Fantini).
Monterenzio is a small town near my city (Bologna). Monterenzio is in the valley of Idice stream and it has been inhabited since ancient time. The most important archaeological finds are related to the village of Mt. Bibele.
The village in origin was founded by Umbro-Etruscans, but after 400 AC there are signs of Celts presence. It seems this wasn't a traumatic event like an invasion, because there are sign of strong integration, like mixed marriages. Celts imposed as warrior class and there are a lot of graves with beautiful funeral sets. An interesting issue is about the weapon of these funeral sets. In fact we found pilum, other than the Celtic sword and helm, in many funeral sets, this suggests integration was not only limited to marriage, but extended also to habits and customs. Because funeral sets give a representation of how the buried warrior went in battle, we can say many Celtic warriors, in a period between 350 AC and 250 AC, went in battle with a sword, a spear and a pilum.

P.S. Underlined words are link to related web sites

[Draka]

What is 400 AC? Is that BC or AD?

[philqw78]

What is 400 AC? Is that BC or AD?

Its the voltage of your oven

[ars_belli]

What is 400 AC? Is that BC or AD?

AC stands for the Latin "Ante Christum" and is equivalent to BC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Christum_Natum

Salve,
Scott

[vamrat]

Thanks for that, ars belli! I work in the HVAC field and was thinking alternating current as well. (Except it would have had to be 460 rather than 400)

[marioslaz]

Sorry, AC = Avanti Cristo (Italian language). As someone states it's equivalent to BC.

P.S. Incidentally, I'm an electrical engineer and if you want to declare a tension system you must write something like 380/3/50 (tension in Volt/number of phases/frequency in Hertz). In Italy we still have 380 V (and 220 V) instead of 400 V (and 230 V) against all European Unification Norms

[Three]

If there is a question of balance with the Early/Mid Republican Romans, should there be an option for the 1st Class to still be armoured after 450? I was under the impression that the Greek Hoplite became lighter through a combination of factors, not least of which was a gradual reduction in the ablity to purchase and maintain expensive defensive armour? Is that also the case for the Etruscans?

It looks like a late Etruscan can be armoured if fielded as a Roman Ally, but only protected if fielded as part of an Etruscan Army ?

[marioslaz]

If there is a question of balance with the Early/Mid Republican Romans, should there be an option for the 1st Class to still be armoured after 450? I was under the impression that the Greek Hoplite became lighter through a combination of factors, not least of which was a gradual reduction in the ablity to purchase and maintain expensive defensive armour? Is that also the case for the Etruscans?

In all ancient world there was needing to make lighter armour to permit a better degree of manoeuvre to troops. The bronze breastplate of Classical Hoplite was worn only at last moment before fight (see the beautiful work of Hanson about) but this could happen because hoplites had help of a serve. This was possible in the wars between city state, where campaigns were very short. We have a new increment of armour (in western armies) with Roman Army in imperial age, both for an improvement of metallurgy and for the professionalism of Roman soldiers.

Ancient Etruscans could be depicted as BG of first line armoured and second line protected. In a list they should be 1/2 and 1/2. This to represent the characteristic of Etruscan armies to deploy best armoured hoplite in the first lines, then poorer ones. If my memory doesn't fail, a similar expedient was done also by Ptolemaics (in Italian Tolemaici, I don't know if my translation is good) who set phalangites of rear lines without weapons just to give push to formation. The develop of ancient warfare in Italy will bring also Etruscans toward lighter armour and more loose formations (remember first archaeological evidences of pilum are found in Etruscan Tombs).