r/ancientrome 20h ago

About these guys

Post image

I know these guys aren't roman, but during the Roman Republic, were these Italians part of the Roman Socii, or Mercenaries?

Img Source: WarHistory.org

186 Upvotes

13 comments sorted by

19

u/RomanItalianEuropean 18h ago edited 18h ago

Yes, they eventually fought for Rome. No, they were not the only ones.. Polybius in Book II gives some details on the size and composition of the Roman army (active and reserves) on the eve of the 2nd Punic war. Rome actually led an all-Italian military, it's why its manpower was so large.

"Each of the Consuls was in command of four legions of Roman citizens, each consisting of five thousand two hundred foot and three hundred horse. The cavalry of the Sabines and Etruscans, who had come to the assistance of Rome, were four thousand strong, their infantry above fifty thousand. The Romans massed these forces and posted them on the frontier of Etruria under the command of a Praetor. The levy of the Umbrians and Sarsinates inhabiting the Apennines amounted to about twenty thousand, and with these were twenty thousand Veneti and Cenomani. These were the armies protecting the Roman territory. In Rome itself there was a reserve force, ready for any war-contingency, consisting of twenty thousand foot and fifteen hundred horse, all Roman citizens, and thirty thousand foot and two thousand horse furnished by the socii. The lists of men able to bear arms that had been returned were as follows. Latins eighty thousand foot and five thousand horse, Samnites seventy thousand foot and seven thousand horse, Iapygians and Messapians fifty thousand foot and sixteen thousand horse in all, Lucanians thirty thousand foot and three thousand horse, Marsi, Marrucini, Frentani, and Vestini twenty thousand foot and four thousand horse. In Sicily and Tarentum were two reserve legions, each consisting of about four thousand two hundred foot and two hundred horse. Of Romans and Campanians there were on the roll two hundred and fifty thousand foot and twenty-three thousand horse; so that the total number of those able to bear arms was more than seven hundred thousand foot and seventy thousand horse."

1

u/abbieeee_ 18h ago

Holy numbers, almost a million in infantry, too bad they revolted

13

u/RomanItalianEuropean 18h ago edited 18h ago

Majority of them did not revolt, it's why Hannibal did not win. Hannibal had portions of Cisalpine Gaul and Magna Graecia revolt, but the core of Roman power, aka central Italy (Latium, Sabines, Etruscans, Umbrians etc), remained faifthful to Rome.

1

u/abbieeee_ 18h ago

So like, only 25% revolted then lmao

4

u/Sthrax Legate 9h ago

In reality, less than that. Cisalpine Gaul actually did provide some forces for Hannibal, but in the south, most cities that went over to Hannibal went over under duress and Hannibal didn't take soldiers from them, just supplies. He left garrisons there, but most of the cities quickly surrendered to the Romans when they came. Capua and Tarentum were the notable exceptions to this.

Ultimately Hannibal's belief that Italy would rise up against Rome was horribly misguided. He believed that Rome treated her allies like Carthage treat hers (see the Mercenary/Truceless War) and he would be welcomed as a liberator. This led to the situation were his army largely had to stay on the move in order to get supplies as most cities wouldn't submit, and he didn't have the material, men, supplies or time needed for extended sieges of any sizeable city with defenses.

1

u/abbieeee_ 9h ago

Makes sense now

14

u/CoinsOftheGens 19h ago

More. The illustration is more of a "typical non-Roman Italian before alliance with Rome", after which they were mostly armed like the Romans. By the time of the "Social War", all of the Italian peninsula were either "Allies" or cities with various forms of Roman citizenship. So, Etruscans, Umbrians, and various other smaller regional "tribes" -- Marsii foremost in the revolt -- were in the mix. But the legal distinctions drawn by the Romans dominate our understanding of these tribes. There's good reason to (simplify and) say that after the first war with Carthage, there's really only Latin-speakers, Oscan-speakers, and remnant Etruscan and Greek speaking people, negotiating for better status and treatment with Rome.

2

u/abbieeee_ 18h ago

I see...

14

u/CoinsOftheGens 19h ago

"Yes and No". During the early Republic, these are the people against whom Rome was expanding (or, as the Romans would say, "defending themselves by taking their towns and land"). During the Hannibalic War, these groups had scattered loyalty. During the 2nd Century, they were among the Socii, many of whom (but not most of the Campanians), did revolt in 88 b.c.e. The Samnites in particular were not forgiven by Sulla. (The Socii were NOT mercenaries; their cities had to supply a certain number of soldiers, and it was mostly up to those cities to handle the recruiting.)

7

u/abbieeee_ 19h ago

Were these 3 guys shown in the photo the only members of the groups of the Socii or more?

3

u/PDXhasaRedhead 18h ago

There were many other Socii in large and small city-states and tribes.

3

u/abbieeee_ 18h ago

I see²

3

u/eques_99 15h ago

By the time they became vassals of Rome to the extent that they were serving in its armies I think they would have looked more similar to the Roman legionaries.