What do you think?
Rate this book
Early Roman Warfare: From the Regal Period to the First Punic War
While copious amounts have been written about the Roman army, most study has focussed on the later Republic or the Imperial period when the legionary system was already well-developed. Here Dr Jeremy Armstrong traces the development of Rome's military might from its earliest discernible origins down to the First Punic War. He shows how her armies evolved from ad-hoc forces of warriors organized along clan lines and assembled for the city's survival, to the sophisticated organization of the legions that went on to dominate all of Italy and then (after the period covered) the entire Mediterranean world. The author reviews both the literary sources and the latest archaeological evidence to provide a fresh analysis of Roman military organization, equipment, tactics and strategy. He shows how Rome's military apparatus adapted to meet the changing strategic needs of new enemies and broader ambitions. This study of the origins of the Classical world's most formidable war machine will be welcomed by anyone with an interest in Classical, and especially Roman, military history.
- GenresHistory
199 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 19, 2016
19 people are currently reading
74 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 17, 2023
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.
I disagree with some minor details, such as the reasoning 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. Review first published on Amazon
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.
I disagree with some minor details, such as the reasoning 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. Review first published on Amazon
Displaying 1 of 1 review