Early Roman Warfare: From the Regal Period to the First Punic War

Not quite my period but most informative and it manages to explain the secessions of the plebs, but without mentioning them in that context.

An interesting and informative history book focussing on the early Roman military. Highly recommended.

very good

This is an excellent overview and introduction to early Roman warfare from the period of the Kings and the largely legendary foundation of Rome up to the eve of the First Punic War that saw Rome emerge as a major power beyond the Italian peninsula. It is also to a large extent a short version of the author’s more scholarly “War and Society in Early Rome: from Warlords to Generals”, also published in 2016.This Pen and Sword book is targeted at the so-called “general reader” and wider public and while it is both shorter and simpler, it makes all the main points convincingly and contains sufficient explanations and also references for anyone wishing to review the topic in more depth.This book has many merits. The main one is probably that it brings together the most up-to-date research on early Rome and Roman warfare in a little book of some 170 pages in a clear and concise style.A secondary merit is to show and to what extent the written and classical sources, starting with Livy, which were once taken at face value, need to be taken with a rather large “pinch of salt”.A third merit is to show that Rome was a composite construct. Its aristocracy evolved from nomadic “gens” (or clans) that practised a type of warfare emphasising lose order and individual combat prowess. The point here is that closed order hoplite warfare associated with the development of cities on the Greek model may in fact not have occurred, contrary to previous beliefs and to the later authors’ efforts to show Rome as imitating and then surpassing its Hellenic models.A fourth merit is to show to what extent the Gallic invasion and the sack of Rome was a choc that forced the Romans to change and adapt, how they most likely did so and what was the impact of this invasion and sack on Roman psyche.A fifth merit is that the Manipulary Roman Army may accordingly have been developed later than what was traditionally believed. It may even have been relatively new when Rome confronted its first international test during its war against a first class Hellenistic general and army - that is Pyrrhus and his composite expeditionary force.Just for this – but there are numerous other interesting features in this book as well, such as the evolution of Roman political and military institutions – this book is worth five full and unreserved stars.

The degree of detail (and clearly labeled but well-grounded speculation) is terrific. The author's thesis that the Roman army evolved from sometimes marauding rural gangs that went to town is well-reasoned, and that this underlies the famous Roman _impero_ that the leader has power of life and death over his troops is thought-provoking. There is some repetition in the course of connecting the thesis to diverse aspects and events - to be expected in making an important academic case, not so much for the casual reader.

Very disappointed with the book. Very little about warfare and much about speculation on organization.

First posted on Amazon.co.uk on 9 October 2016This is an excellent overview and introduction to early Roman warfare from the period of the Kings and the largely legendary foundation of Rome up to the eve of the First Punic War that saw Rome emerge as a major power beyond the Italian peninsula. It is also to a large extent a short version of the author’s more scholarly “War and Society in Early Rome: from Warlords to Generals”, also published in 2016.This Pen and Sword book is targeted at the so-called “general reader” and wider public and while it is both shorter and simpler, it makes all the main points convincingly and contains sufficient explanations and also references for anyone wishing to review the topic in more depth.This book has many merits. The main one is probably that it brings together the most up-to-date research on early Rome and Roman warfare in a little book of some 170 pages in a clear and concise style.A secondary merit is to show and to what extent the written and classical sources, starting with Livy, which were once taken at face value, need to be taken with a rather large “pinch of salt”.A third merit is to show that Rome was a composite construct. Its aristocracy evolved from nomadic “gens” (or clans) that practised a type of warfare emphasising lose order and individual combat prowess. The point here is that closed order hoplite warfare associated with the development of cities on the Greek model may in fact not have occurred, contrary to previous beliefs and to the later authors’ efforts to show Rome as imitating and then surpassing its Hellenic models.A fourth merit is to show to what extent the Gallic invasion and the sack of Rome was a choc that forced the Romans to change and adapt, how they most likely did so and what was the impact of this invasion and sack on Roman psyche.A fifth merit is that the Manipulary Roman Army may accordingly have been developed later than what was traditionally believed. It may even have been relatively new when Rome confronted its first international test during its war against a first class Hellenistic general and army - that is Pyrrhus and his composite expeditionary force.Just for this – but there are numerous other interesting features in this book as well, such as the evolution of Roman political and military institutions – this book is worth five full and unreserved stars.

It is well known that all sources (written and otherwise) must be evaluated and analyzed. They are valuable, even when written 500 years after the events they depict. But obviously they must be interpreted and the fact that society is completely different makes all ancient sources susceptible to anachronisms, moralizing lessons and erroneous interpretations.Although the author warns against the excessive belief in those sources, he proves that after careful study, those same sources carry an impressive amount of information that actually is corroborated by archeology and common sense!This great work is a summary of a more complex book by the same author and I recommend them both with heartfelt vigor.Analyzing the gens and the many references to a tribal type of warfare in the regal and early republican period. The fight for loot and mobile wealth and not for land (which would benefit the community), the nature of wars such as with Veii which are clearly looting and counter looting, the structure of the first Roman colonies which weren’t extensions of Rome (like the sources portray) but more like “Greek” colonies, independent although retaining some links to the mother city. The second wave of Roman colonies are completely different and are actually imperialistic in nature.The evolution of society and of the gentilical clans. Their interaction with the urban tribes and the growth of Rome and also the creation of the several magistrates are also abridged.Several conflicts are analyzed such as with Veii and other Etruscan cities, Samnium, Gaulish invasion or Pyrrhus and it is interesting that, in the early days, the initiative to deploy troops and start engagements was frequently by a gens/tribe or warlord, and not by the Roman state. It is also relevant that Imperium /power to command reflects old family traits of the Pater Familias. Other important tribal aspects of Roman society is the relationship of clientele for example.Some details I don’t agree, for example he considers that the use of armor is an indication of a more individual type of warfare, indicating loose formations because the shield would be enough protection in close order. Gives as an example the Greek phalanx that began to use heavy armor and gradually over the centuries they lost pieces of armor and lightened the load. Actually there are numerous examples of both situations, where warriors who battle in loose formation prefer to use light equipment like the Spanish or heavily armored warriors in close formation like the front rows of Saxon shield walls for example. We must also consider that in the 6th and 5th century BC, the Greek formations were close order and actually had considerable body armor…so if the Romans were trying to copy that style of warfare they would probably adopt the same type of equipment. We must also consider that the lightening of Greek and Macedonian armor had also other factors, including much larger armies (supply and demand) and new threats (such as massed archers and peltasts) which required more mobility in the battlefield. So I do not consider that armor archeological finds hint to a more individual type of warfare; although I completely agree that possibly phalanx warfare wasn’t practiced in the regal and early republican periods.An amazing and highly recommended book.