I'm aware that in the VERY early days of rome, they used a phalanx type formation in battle. However, when they moved throughout italy they found that the hilly terrain made it difficult to use so they dropped it in favour of maniples. The question is that Greece is also incredibly hilly in many areas. How did they deal with this issue and did they attempt to change much?
Hi Peersy99, Your question is either really complex, or rather simple.
I am writing this as 1/2 of a response, with the other half being taken care of by /u/Iphikrates. My portion will generally concern the Roman side of things.
So, firstly I am going to complicate your question just a bit. Do we know that the Romans adopted the manipular system because of hilly terrain when they started to conquer the Italian peninsula? The answer to that is: no. While this has been a regular assumption (though I don’t have bibliography handy for this particular point), it is not a “known fact” nor is it a reason given by our ancient sources for the transition to the manipular legion.
What we actually hear from the sources paints a different picture. One version of this change is that the Romans learned to fight in loose order using scuta (in this period and ovular shield, not the “rectangular” shield of the Imperial era) when they started fighting against the Samnites (Ineditum Vaticanum [von Arnim 1892, 121], Diod. Sic. 23.2, Athenaeus 6.106). There is no mention of hilly terrain being the cause of the change, it is simply that the Samnite way of fighting was in some way superior to the old way of Roman fighting, which according to these sources was with bronze shields (aspides) and in phalanxes (which, incidentally, they supposedly learned from the Etruscans). Here is what Diodorus and Athenaeus say:
“in ancient times, when they [the Romans] were using rectangular shields,5 the Etruscans, who fought with round shields of bronze and in phalanx formation, impelled them to adopt similar arms and were in consequence defeated. Then again, when other peoples6 were using shields such as the Romans now use, and were fighting by maniples, they had imitated both and had overcome those who introduced the excellent models. From the Greeks they had learned siegecraft and the use of engines of war for demolishing walls, and had then forced the cities of their teachers to do their bidding. So now, should the Carthaginians compel them to learn naval warfare, they would soon see that the pupils had become superior to their teachers.” (Diod. Sic. 23.2)
“for they [the Romans], maintaining their national customs, at the same time introduced from the nations whom they had subdued every relic of desirable practices which they found, leaving what was useless to them, so that they should never be able to regain what they had lost. Accordingly they learnt from the Greeks the use of all machines and engines for conducting sieges; and with those engines they subdued the very people of whom they had learnt them. And when the Phœnicians had made many discoveries in nautical science, the Romans availed themselves of these very discoveries to subdue them. And from the Tyrrhenians they derived the practice of the entire army advancing to battle in close phalanx; and from the Samnites they learnt the use of the shield, and from the Iberians the use of the javelin. And learning different things from different people, they improved upon them: and imitating in everything the constitution of the Lacedæmonians, they preserved it better than the Lacedæmonians themselves.” (Athenaeus 6.106)
Modern commentators have guessed that it was the hilly terrain of Italy that led to this change, but the ancients didn’t say this. As well, other theories abound for this transition. Lawrence Keppie’s overview of the Roman army provides another example. He repeated a tradition that “the open-order fighting at which the Gauls excelled had shown up weaknesses in the Roman phalanx, and in the next half-century the army underwent substantial changes” (Keppie 1994, 19). There is some evidence of this, as we hear from Plutarch that Camillus trained his soldiers in 367 BC in a new way:
“Knowing that the prowess of the barbarians lay chiefly in their swords, which they plied in true barbaric fashion, and with no skill at all, in mere slashing blows at head and shoulders, 4 he had helmets forged for most of his men which were all iron and smooth of surface, that the enemy's swords might slip off from them or be shattered by them. He also had the long shields of his men rimmed round with bronze, since their wood could not of itself ward off the enemy's blows. The soldiers themselves he trained to use their long javelins like spears, — to thrust them under the enemy's swords and catch the downward strokes upon them.” (Plut. Camillus 40.3-4)
This is not present in Livy, though. But, it does appear that Plutarch’s source is talking about the introduction of something that looks like a manipular style of fighting. At least, this is the case if equate “long shields” (i.e. scuta) with this type of warfare. We also hear something similar from Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 14.9), though in his version the Roman soldiers are expressly issued javelins rather than thrusting spears. Thus, in these versions of events, something like the manipular legion – perhaps an intermediate between it and a “phalanx” – is to be imagined? The problem is, of course, that the source material is very late.
/u/Marce_Camitlans has written a fantastic double post on the Roman side of things, and I feel a little bad about just referring you to some older posts, but I've written about this subject a few times before:
Why did the Greeks develop a phalanx when Greece is such a mountainous place?
What sort of warfare would have made sense in the terrain of ancient Greece?
The main point there is this: just like the idea that the Romans picked up manipular tactics when they were fighting in hilly Samnium, the idea that the Greek phalanx can only work on flat ground is a theoretical claim, made by modern historians. It is not a fact and not something we can simply point to in the sources.
Now, of course, the theory isn't based on nothing at all. For example, we have this passage where Aristotle speaks about the causes of civil strife:
For just as in wars the fording of watercourses, even quite small ones, causes the phalanxes to break up, so every difference seems to cause division.
-- Aristotle, Politics 1303b
A passage in the Hellenistic historian Polybios also suggests that even the smallest irregularity - a field wall, a copse of trees - can tear a phalanx apart. It may seem fair to conclude that phalanxes are only suited for completely flat ground without obstacles, and that those who want to fight in mountains must find other ways to do it.
But these passages both date to the time after Philip of Macedon introduced the pike phalanx. This is a very different beast from the older hoplite phalanx: a tighter formation, with longer pikes and smaller shields, making individual men much more dependent on the cohesion of the whole line. It's very likely that this is the phalanx Aristotle was talking about. It is also definitely, explicitly the phalanx Polybios is talking about. No claims like this survive from earlier times. There are no indications that a hoplite formation was as vulnerable in broken ground as a pike formation.
Really the only thing that can be cited here - and undoubtedly the reason behind the theory of the emergence of Roman manipular tactics - is the unusual tactical innovations of the Greek mercenaries of the Ten Thousand in their attempt to make it out of the Cappadocian interior in 401/0 BC. Xenophon, who was one of the commanders of the mercenaries, tells us that their marching column get falling into chaos every time they had to cross a bridge or go through a defile, and that they struggled to fight enemies in high places without their line disintegrating. Their answer was to split the hoplite line into special units called orthioi lochoi, which can be translated as simply "units in column" (as deep as they were wide) but also as "uphill units". Instead of locking these units together in a phalanx, they would use them to move and attack independently, so that it was easier to find ways up hills without losing cohesion, and so that they could support each other in combat. Many scholars have noted that this looks an awful lot like manipular tactics. And it was explicitly created to deal with a mountainous environment.
This passage has been used to generalise in both directions. On the one hand, people have used it to argue that the hoplite phalanx simply wasn't suited to fighting in broken ground. On the other hand, people have seen it as proof that it is the challenge of hilly terrain that inspired manipular tactics.
/u/Marce_Camitlans has already explained why the forward generalisation doesn't work. Nothing in the Roman sources connects maniples to hilly ground. But the backward generalisation also doesn't work, because hoplites clearly didn't have any trouble fighting in broken ground (see especially the chapter by Louis Rawlings cited in the other post). They typically encamped there, frequently drew up battle lines there to have a stronger defensive position, and also liked to use it to channel the enemy into bottlenecks (most famously at Thermopylai). Classical Greek history is full of hoplites fighting in hills and mountains. In fact most battles we hear about did not take place on a level plain. It may have been harder for hoplites to fight in the hills - as Xenophon beautifully shows, with his anecdote of him straining to run uphill with his men in full cavalry armour (Anabasis 3.4.48) - but it also brought advantages. Especially if enemy cavalry was near, hoplites preferred to stick to the hills.
Why, then, the orthioi lochoi? Well, just because something works moderately well, doesn't mean it can't be improved. The Ten Thousand developed various unique tactics that are never seen again in Greek history. No doubt this was because they were a highly trained professional army fighting together in exceptionally difficult circumstances for a long period of time. They became better organised and more tactically capable than any hoplite army before or since. If these men were able to perfect hoplite mountain fighting, it should not surprise us. But no one seems to have been able to bring those tactics back to home and teach them to normal hoplite militias.
In other words, the only clear evidence that hoplites were considered inadequate for mountain fighting applies to an exceptionally skilled and capable force. Most hoplites did not feel that hills were a problem for them. On the contrary, it was where they preferred to fight. It is better to take the many practical examples from Greek history as a guide than to allow ourselves to be distracted by false generalisations.
/u/Marce_Camitlans and /u/Iphikrates have already provided two excellent posts, Marce_Camitlans covering the historiography behind the idea that the Romans changed to manipular formations to deal with hilly terrain and Iphikrates examining the Ancient Greek side of things. I thought I might add a few further thoughts about the development of the early Roman military system in light of recent archaeological insights and re-examinations of the evidence regarding Archaic Greek warfare.
One of the most important things to keep in mind is that there's good reason to think that, on some level, square and oblong shields weren't entirely replaced by the Greek aspis in Etruria. The Certosa Situla, dating from the first quarter of the 5th century BC (500-475 BC), shows the round aspides co-existing alongside both square shields with rounded corners and longer oblong shields. The Arnoaldi Situla, dating to the mid-5th century BC, shows off the oblong shield even more prominently, as well as from the Vače belt plate, from what is now Slovenia, which is also from the 5th century.
What we see in the Certosa and Arnoaldi situlae is that the oblong shield is quite heavily associated with the lower class of warrior, as evidenced by their general lack of Greek style helmet, while the round aspis is more likely to be carried by someone wearing a crested helmet. The Vače belt plate is less helpful in this regard, as both warriors wear crested helmets, but it also demonstrates another important fact: that the oblong shield was widespread in the 5th century.
Artifacts like this raise another question: how valid is the Servian constitution? The Servian constitution is allegedly a mid-6th century BC set of laws put in place by Servius Tullius, the sixth king of Rome, and which included five classes of citizens required to perform military service as infantry:
There are a number of issues with this, not least the fact that coinage was a couple of centuries off, but what stands out is that the round aspis is only required of the wealthiest citizens, with the succeeding classes of infantry only required to furnish an oblong shield. Most likely the earliest elements so called "Servian constitution" dates to the end of the 5th century or start of the 4th century BC at the earliest, after Rome began to pay her soldiers, and was subsequently modified in transmission until recorded in their final form by Dionyius of Harlicarnassus and Livy. If so, this is itself significant, as Livy places the siege of Veii in 406 BC as the point in time where Roman soldiers were first paid and, later, claims that the scutum was adopted at this time. At the very least, it shows an awareness that oblong shield had a long history in Italy.
Additionally, there is very good evidence to suggest that the Romans didn't adopt the scutum from the Samnites but that it was the other way around. Michael Burns, in his 2006 thesis, discovered that there was no depiction of an oblong shield to be found in Southern Italy before roughly 330 BC, about a decade after the First Samnite War was fought. Round shields, both the aspis and more conical variants that may have been made from wicker and hide, were the only type of shield before this, and they disappear more or less completely by the end of the 4th century BC. While it's not impossible that the Samnites adopted the oblong shield from the Celts at this time, it's more likely they adopted the scutum from the Romans following their wars.
An alternative, more recent, theory is that the Romans adopted the scutum from the Celts following the Sack of Rome in 390 BC. Part of this is the fact that recent archaeology has found that, from the mid-4th century BC, Celtic warriors in Northern Italy were buried with a pair of long shafted javelins, very much like a pilum but with leaf shaped heads, and a sword. This set of equipment is exactly the same that the Roman legionary carried in the 3rd century BC, has been used to suggest that the Romans adopted their equipment from the Celts rather than the Samnites. This would fit neatly into Plutarch's suggestion that a new method of fighting was adopted by the Romans in 367 BC in order to defeat the Celts, and buys into the idea of Romans adopting the skills or equipment of their enemies and then defeating them.
The problem with this theory, leaving aside the 5th century examples of oblong shields being used in Italy, is that in Southern Italy we have early examples of long shafted javelin heads (with a blade only 1/3 the length of the shank) that date to between 390 and 400 BC, as well as more specialised light javelin heads, akin to the later hasta velitaris, that date to the period 360-350 BC. My view is that this suggests the Celtic pila found in graves are just one offshoot of a development that had been happening since at least the late 5th century BC, if not before, and the Romans likely already had pila before 367 BC. It's quite possible that the transmission of the weapon was not from the Celts to the Romans, but from the Romans to the Celts, as Plutarch implies that the Romans, far from adopting the pilum were already using and were just learning to employ it as an ordinary spear rather than a javelin.
A third, and final, point to consider is whether the Romans actually ever fought in a phalanx of the type described by Thucydides and Xenophon, or if they had never moved away from something more like the looser formations of the Archaic Greeks.
Going back to the situlae and belt plate I previously mentioned, you'll notice that the warriors in the Arnoaldi Situla and the Vače belt plate all carry two spears (or, with the left hand warrior on the belt plate, one spear and an axe). If this is sounding familiar, the Roman legionaries are famed for their two pila, which they would throw before engaging in battle. This is actually a fairly ancient practice, and we can see it as far back as the 8th century in Greece, as well as on the mid-7th century Chigi Vase, a mid-7th century Greek vase found in a contemporary Etruscan tomb, and the Tragliatella Oinochoe, an Etruscan vase from ~620 BC.
The Chigi Vase shows panoploi with two spears, one a light javelin and the other a more robust multi-purpose spear, and this seems to have continued into the 5th century in Etrusca, and the two spear dynamic can also be seen in southern Italy during the early 4th century. That isn't to say that no arguments have been made recently that a more closed Classical style hoplite phalanx was used, but the evidence presented (the first picture in the last image I linked) is extremely weak, since overlapping shields is an extremely common method of attempting to show a line of men, even when no overlap of shields is possible (i.e. on horseback). In all probability, a loose formation had always been used, and throwing one or two javelins before closing to close quarters with a shorter weapon had most likely been the dominant form of combat before the end of the 5th century (see the belt plate and image WP22 of Burns' thesis).
Why the Celtic, Italian and Celt-Iberian armies fought in this manner, instead of the tighter formation of the 5th century Greeks, is impossible to answer with any certainty, since we have no reliable sources for this period and we don't fully understand how or why the Greeks changed from a more open style of combat to their tighter phalanx in the 5th century BC. Possibly the lack of any enemy that was militarily different from them played a role, and the development of proto-javelins may also have encouraged a looser formation so that deflection or avoidance of a weapon that would impair your ability to use a shield, but this is only speculation on my part.
I know I haven't explored how or why the manipular system itself came into being, which is a subject even more fraught with guesses and the writer's intuition than the subject of how Rome fought before the Samnite Wars, but I hope I've provided some context for why the old historiography is incorrect and how we're beginning to understand things now.
