Slitherine

Hi all!

I would like to make an Samnite army (they are so cool...), but I hope that they have more variety than in DBM list... can I have some info about troop types and choices? please!, Im collecting some Oscans from Xyston (btw what do you think about this minis to represent Samnites?) and I want to base them.

Thanks!.
Samuel NR

Ziusudra wrote:Hi all!

I would like to make an Samnite army (they are so cool...), but I hope that they have more variety than in DBM list... can I have some info about troop types and choices? please!, Im collecting some Oscans from Xyston (btw what do you think about this minis to represent Samnites?) and I want to base them.

Thanks!.
Samuel NR

We have not yet started working on early Italian lists, so I am afraid we can give you no official view on this.

However, the bulk of the infantry will probably be MF, light spear, swordsmen.

Whether some, like the "linen legion" will be classified differently (other than being classified as Superior) I cannot yet say.

Cavalry will be light spear, swordsmen.

The Xyston Oscan figures should be suitable for Samnites.

Thanks!, I have done some research... what do you think of something like this?

Skirmishes
Light Foot, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Javelins, Light Spear
Optional Upgrade to Protected

Warriors
Medium Foot, Protected, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen
Optional Upgrade to Armoured?

Linen Legion Warrios
Medium Foot, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen
Optional Upgrade to Armoured?

Equites
Cavalry, Protected, Average, Undrilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen

The samnite warrios equiped with scutum, helmet, 1 greave and metallic chest protector would have to be considered protected or armoured?

Ziusudra wrote:Thanks!, I have done some research... what do you think of something like this?

Skirmishes
Light Foot, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Javelins, Light Spear
Optional Upgrade to Protected

Warriors
Medium Foot, Protected, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen
Optional Upgrade to Armoured?

Linen Legion Warrios
Medium Foot, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen
Optional Upgrade to Armoured?

Equites
Cavalry, Protected, Average, Undrilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen

The samnite warrios equiped with scutum, helmet, 1 greave and metallic chest protector would have to be considered protected or armoured?

All pretty much as I would expect. Probably protected.

gleaned from the net:

Samnium and the Samnites (excerpts -- Samnite army)
by Steven Salmon

------

According to Frontinus (Strat. 2.1. and Livy (10.28.3) the shock of the Samnites' initial charge was very difficult to withstand.

I've not checked the sources quoted, but it looks as though there might be a case for Impact Foot here.

lawrenceg wrote:gleaned from the net:

Samnium and the Samnites (excerpts -- Samnite army)
by Steven Salmon

------

According to Frontinus (Strat. 2.1.8 ) and Livy (10.28.3) the shock of the Samnites' initial charge was very difficult to withstand.

I've not checked the sources quoted, but it looks as though there might be a case for Impact Foot here.

Just checked my copy of Frontinus - which says:

“Since Fabius Maximus was well aware that the Gauls and Samnites were strong in the initial attack, while the tireless spirits of his own men actually waxed hotter as the struggle continued, he commanded his soldiers to rest content with holding the foe at the first encounter and to wear them out by delay. When this succeeded, bringing up reinforcements to his men in the van, and attacking with his full strength, he crushed and routed the enemy.”

Livy says (of the Battle of Sentinum in the 3rd Samnite war):

"But although neither side was gaining any advantage and Fortune had not yet indicated in any way to whom she would grant the victory, the fighting on the right wing was very different from that on the left. The Romans under Fabius were acting more on the defensive and were protracting the contest as long as possible. Their commander knew that it was the habitual practice of both the Gauls and the Samnites to make a furious attack to begin with, and if that were successfully resisted, it was enough; the courage of the Samnites gradually sank as the battle went on, whilst the Gauls, utterly unable to stand heat or exertion, found their physical strength melting away; in their first efforts they were more than men, in the end they were weaker than women. Knowing this, he kept the strength of his men unimpaired against the time when the enemy usually began to show signs of defeat."

Therefore, Frontinus seems to have taken this snippet straight from Livy, so these really only represent one source.

However, it does suggest that Samnites should be classified as Impact Foot, which would certainly give the Romans more of a run for their money - which cannot be a bad thing from a historical refight point of view.

So if we accept Livy's statement, Samnites would be MF, Drilled, Protected, Impact Foot, Swordsmen. Probably Superior for the "Linen Legion" and Average for the rest.

Hi, Im doing more research about samnites... in "Early Roman Armies" from Osprey the writers conclude that the Samnites fight in two lines of maniples (presumably the romans took the idea from them), the first line armed with pila acting as shock troops (much like romans with pilum or iberians with heavy javelins), and the second line armed with hastae (something like roman Triarii or greek Hoplites). I also have read something like this from other sources, what do you think?.

"our ancestors... took their offensive and defensive weapons from the Samnites".- Sallust

Samnite Javelinmen
Medium Foot, Protected, Average, Drilled, Impact Foot, Swordsmen
Samnite Spearmen
Medium Foot, Protected, Average, Drilled, Offensive Spearmen? or Light Spear and Swordsmen?

Samuel NR.

I think Offensive Spearmen is highly unlikely - the Romans used spears initially as they took their military system from the Etruscans whose own was similar to the Greeks. The weapons allegedly copied from the Samnites would not have been that sort fo spear system as they already used it.

nikgaukroger wrote:I think Offensive Spearmen is highly unlikely - the Romans used spears initially as they took their military system from the Etruscans whose own was similar to the Greeks. The weapons allegedly copied from the Samnites would not have been that sort fo spear system as they already used it.

Yep, the apparently copied weapons seen to be the scutum and javelin/pila (commonly used by the peoples of southern Italy since the fifth century).
I can't find any historical record of samnites fighting as "classic" spearmens (only evidences of samnites usage of heavy
dual-purpose spear*), although the idea of two lines of maniples armed with pila (1st line) spear (2nd line) sound cool what I have read seems to be based on conclusions taken by the authors... someone have more info about this?.

I hope that the Samnite army list aren't a 2 troop type choice army like in DBM (Cv & Ax)... at lest some skirmishes? (although I haven't seen much about skirmishes usage in samnites armies).

*A. Small (2000), ‘The use of javelins in central and south Italy in the 4th century BC’, in D. Ridgway

Unfortunatley the information I've seen does suggest a rather limited number of troop types for Samnites

Surely some bright soul can argue a case for some form of Spearmen to go along with the Pilum/spear hurling swordsman Impact Foot, MF javelin chuckers and accompanied by at least some Cavalry and Skirmishers out of this lot...

http://xoomer.alice.it/davmonac/sanniti//indexen.html

Nothing new here but they are all there in the frescos after all

I dont have an axe to grind about the Samnites, but they do seem to get sold short ( imo ) in wargames army lists. Which, as they appear to have given the romans some technical/tactical knowledge and a damn good run for their military money, just doesn't fit. "Run for the trees" or "Quick, chop down a barricade" doesn't seem like the battle cry of an advanced ( as-in they taught the Romans ) warrior people who neighboured the horsy Campanians, scared the Romans and surely must have seen a Gaul or two.
Whoops *drops axe of ignorance*

... and doesn't a drilled, medium foot, impact foot and/or spearmen and/or light spear combination fit very nicely in the geometry of contemporary armies ?

I think Offensive Spearmen is highly unlikely - the Romans used spears initially as they took their military system from the Etruscans whose own was similar to the Greeks. The weapons allegedly copied from the Samnites would not have been that sort fo spear system as they already used it.

Doesn't that mean that they ( the Romans ) copied the new and interesting bits and ignored the stuff they already new? Helments - got that, Body Armour - still wearing three disks eh? *snigger*, Heavy chucking spear type thingy .. woooo, Spears - got that ....

So, how did the Romans end up with three lines of mixed arms cohorts then ... *ducks rapidly*

Alan.

I think, that MOST samnite warriors should fall in these cathegories:

mediun foot: to represent the fact that thet were used to fight in a hill country

impact foot (to represent the use of the primitive pilum or its equivalent)

equiopment shuld be light spear and/or swordmen, not sure about this.

protected:scutum plus sometimes pectoral protection

I would say undrilled as they status as semi-tribal force.


These warrior should form the bulk of samnite armies. The army list could also include.

slingers: sure a possibility.

javelinmen: maybe to represent young warriors? an equivalent of a velites

very few cavalry (even less that contemporary romans) but acces to campanian allies maybe?

Some elite units (described previously as linen legion?) I have found references (not sure the suorce though, i thnik that in MOmmsem) for at least two elite samnite units: one with a "many coloured tunic" and golden shields and other with white tunics with silver shields. I guess they represent the aristocracy of samniet society. I don´t think that making them equal to a hoplite would be far away from the truth, but maybe some special feature would be interesting (maybe change off. spear for light spear/swordman?)

Good luck

Ranimiro wrote:mediun foot: to represent the fact that thet were used to fight in a hill country

In first Guerra Sannitica (Samnite War) Sanniti fought in plane against Romani (principally in Campanian Plane) with good result. Sanniti were strong warriors, like Volsci, but the latter were a little people, while Sanniti were quite numerous (roughly the had the same population of Romani when first Samnite War started)

Ranimiro wrote:I would say undrilled as they status as semi-tribal force.

Do you think they had a ring in their nose? . We know that Sanniti had ambassadors who signed treats with Romani even before first Samnite War. They had a complex social structure and we can assume they had a civilization comparable with that of Romani, only more frugal because they had less resources.

Ranimiro wrote:Some elite units (described previously as linen legion?) I have found references (not sure the suorce though, i thnik that in MOmmsem) for at least two elite samnite units: one with a "many coloured tunic" and golden shields and other with white tunics with silver shields. I guess they represent the aristocracy of samniet society. I don´t think that making them equal to a hoplite would be far away from the truth, but maybe some special feature would be interesting (maybe change off. spear for light spear/swordman?)

The description of Titus Livius is untrustworthy, anyway Sanniti should have a tactical organization of army quite similar to that of Romani. You must remember that Sanniti were Romani neighbours like Etruschi, so they had surely a part in the development of Romani warfare (many suppose that scutum has been introduced by Sanniti, just to make an example). They surely had a good cavalry. You shouldn't say "OK, it was good if compared with Romani one" because Romani cav were just 1/4 of Cav in a Romani army (Latin allies should give triple cav than Romani one, and their Cav was quite good). More, Sanniti cavalry was fine also in confrontation with Campanian one. I don't know about skirmishers and spearmen; the firsts were quite probable (young warrior as someone already said, but also poor class people) the latter less due to the terrain where they lived. I cannot exclude anyway, because the Greece, home of hoplites, has an orography not so different. Perhaps some good troops like Triari, with a similar role.

Ziusudra wrote: two lines of maniples armed with pila (1st line) spear (2nd line) sound cool

The Romans prior to the war with Pyrrhus also had the first (interrupted) "line" of maniples with pila and the second (interrupted) "line" of maniples with spear, opposite the gaps in the first line. On the scale we are using, 2 base deep BGs represent both the first and second "lines" of maniples.

We are in the process of writing the lists for this period, and we came to the conclusion that the above is best represented, in overall effect, as Impact Foot, Swordsmen. The same would apply to the Romans and Samnites equally.

rbodleyscott wrote: We are in the process of writing the lists for this period, and we came to the conclusion that the above is best represented, in overall effect, as Impact Foot, Swordsmen. The same would apply to the Romans and Samnites equally.

Does this mean you're thinking of having an army book that includes early Italian armies?

Rewriting the Etruscan list in light of other's comments would be a pointless exercise in this case. Far better discussion on classification (and classification when compared to the early Roman armies and other Italian states/tribes as well).

Regards,
Peter

peterrjohnston wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: We are in the process of writing the lists for this period, and we came to the conclusion that the above is best represented, in overall effect, as Impact Foot, Swordsmen. The same would apply to the Romans and Samnites equally.

Does this mean you're thinking of having an army book that includes early Italian armies?

I couldn't possibly comment. One way or another, official lists for Italian armies from 500 BC to the start of "Rise of Rome" will be available at some point in the foreseeable future from the list team.

rbodleyscott wrote: I couldn't possibly comment.

Not wishing to sound offensive about it, but why an earth not?

I thought he did

One way or another, official lists for Italian armies from 500 BC to the start of "Rise of Rome" will be available at some point in the foreseeable future from the list team.