ETRUSCAN WARFARE: ARMY ORGANIZATION,

TACTICS AND OTHER MILITARY FEATURES

Periklis Deligiannis
© 2006 Periklis Deligiannis, All rights reserved

2
1. Historical Introduction

In antiquity, at least ten different ethno-linguistic groups were sharing the

Italian Peninsula and the neighboring islands. Its fertile land attracted invaders and

colonizers coming from various other regions. Only two of these ethno-linguistic

families were Italian (Italic): the Latin group and the Osco-Umbrian group, which

were a minority among the peoples of the newcomers. All the rest were migrants from

elsewhere: The Iapyges (Iapygians) and the Piceni (or Picentini) of eastern Italy

spoke Proto-Illyrian languages, originating from a fusion of migrants from the

opposite Dalmatian coast with native Italians. The Ligurians in the north-west were a

people of possible Neolithic origins who formerly used to live in much of Western

Europe, possibly being linguistically Celtisized speaking a form of Proto-Celtic

descended from the Urnfiled culture of Central Europe. The Veneti or Eneti of the

north-eastern country were in an analogous ethno-linguistic position, but many

scholars believe that they were a Proto-Illyrian people, kinsmen of the Liburno-

Iapodian group.

The Siculi (or Sikels), Sardi and Corsi who were dwelling in Sicily, Sardinia

and Corsica respectively, have been linked by some modern researchers to two of the

Sea Peoples of the Egyptian New kingdom archives who created havoc around the

Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age, namely the Shekelesh (shklsh in

3
the pharaonic archives) and the Sherden or Shardana (shrdn). These two migrant

seafaring tribes rather of Anatolian origin, were possibly mixed with the Ligurian and

Euro-Mediterranean natives of these islands to produce the aforementioned peoples.

The Corsi seem to have been an offshoot of the Sherden/Sardi taking into

consideration the archaeological data. The other two peoples of Sicily, namely the

Elymi (Elymians) and the Sikani had rather ‘Iberian origins’ accorging to the ancient

Greek writers, that is to say rather being natives of the local Euro-Mediterranean pre-

Inro-European ethno-linguistic substratum. The same goes for the natives of Sardenia

and Corsica (living at those isles before the coming of the Sea Peoples). The

Phoenicians being skilful Canaanite sailors and colonists, settled later in Sicily and

Sardinia.

The early Romans belonged to the native Italic population, being a fusion of

Latins and a minority of Sabine clans, as well as the Samnites, their potent hinterland

opponents who were a confederation of Oscan tribes. Τhe broad Greek colonization in

the Italian lands is well known. The Mycenaean navigators were the pioneers there.

Apart from the ‘official’ colonization organized by the Southern Greek city-states,

there were also migrations of some Greek tribes of the North, for example according

to Arnold Toynbee the migration of a part of Macedonian Pelagones who at an

unclear date crossed the Strait of Otranto and settled in Central Italy, where their

tribal name was attributed as Peligni in Oscan. If this migration really happened, the

Pelagones/Peligni adopted the Oscan language but they retained several elements of

their Greek legacy. In the 5th century BC the Greeks were the largest ethnic group of

Italy in her modern borders, numbering around one third of the total population

including the permanently Hellenized natives. The chronologically last migrant

people in the modern Italian territory were the Celts who by the 4th century BC had

4
conquered the Po Valley. The Golaseca culture Celts originating from a fusion of

Celtic migrants and Ligurians, were the pioneers there forming later the tribes of the

Insubres, the Orobii and others. They were followed by the Celtic proper tribes of the

Boii, Lingones, Cenomani, Senones and others who possibly were formed in the Po

Valley after the Celtic invasion, while the Taurini and the Salassi (a tribal offshoot of

the Salluvii) were mainly Celtisized Ligurians.

The aforementioned migrant peoples were coming from almost all the places

of the Known World of that era; from Syria in the Middle East to Sardenia in the

West and to the frozen Celtic cradle in the North. Thus in our view, ancient Italy

looked ethnologically like a “thumbnail” of the Known World. The fact that the

languages and cultures of most of these migrants and the two native Italian groups

were not related at all, explains the strong contrasts and conflicts that took place

between them.

The Etruscans seem to have been one of the most important migrant peoples in

the Peninsula. The theories on the origin of this significant and elegant people are

numerous, and the debate among the scholars continues to this day. However in the

recent decades, the view that the Etruscans were born from a fusion of Anatolian

newcomers from the Aegean coasts who settled at the end of the Bronze Age in the

region of modern Tuscany, with the native Italians of this region, tends to prevail. In

their ethnogenesis attended a number of individual groups of Greek settlers, as well as

an ethnic component coming from the Alps, possibly a Proto-Rhaetian ethnic element.

The settlers from Asia Minor were probably another Sea People of the Egyptian New

kingdom archives: the Teresh or Tursha or Tyrsha (trsh), known to the Greeks as the

Tyrrhenians or Tyrsenians, who rather became the ruling class of the newly formed

ethnic group. The Greeks used to call them as mentioned; the Romans used to call

5
them Etruscans or Tuscans; thereby modern Tuscany bears their name. They were

calling themselves the Rasen(n)a.

The Etruscans brought their Anatolian culture to their new home where they

mixed it with the local Italian but much more to that of the Greek colonies. They had

a paradoxical relationship of continuous trade and simultaneous occasional military

confrontation with the latter. However, the result of this Anatolian-Italian-Greek

cultural mixture was a new, high-leveled civilization which through Rome left a great

legacy for today’s world and some remarkable finds for the archaeologists. The

Tyrrhenians used to adopt immediately any mainland or colonial Greek invention

concerning any aspect of life of a people, including warfare. They also adopted the

Greek political organization in city-states but they did not follow their democratic

evolution remaining aristocratic mainly for ethno-social reasons. The Etruscan city-

states, although officially united in a Confederation – a Dodekapolis according to the

ancient authors, meaning a union of twelve cities – used to fight one another.

However they equally often used to unite their military forces for joint expansion on

new territories. Having possibly inherited the warlike spirit of their Anatolian-Aegean

ancestors, they achieved much: until 510 BC they had conquered and colonized the Po

Valley, coastal Liguria, Latium, Campania and Corsica, quadrupling the size of their

territories. Around 510 BC they were holding an area of about 90,000 sq. Km. with 1

to 1.5 million inhabitants.

These conquests were achieved through Etruscan warfare which inherited

many of its elements to the subsequent Roman army. The Tyrsenian armies managed

to deal with several formidable enemies before they decline under the decisive

military blows of the Greeks, the Romans and the Gauls.

6
 The Etruscans, having past the Villanovan phase of their culture

corresponding to the “Dark Ages” of Greece, in the 7th century BC were organized in

city-states. There were at times over twenty such city-states in Etruria and around the

same number in the areas were the Tyrrhenians expanded their colonization after 600

BC. However, only the twelve most potent cities were allowed to participate in the

Etruscan Confederation, a loose political union which was based on their common

ancestry, language and religion. Rome (Etruscan Aruma) was one of the members of

the Tyrsenian Dodekapolis in the 6th century BC. The Sanctuary of Voltumna, a deity

respective to the Roman Jupiter, in the territory of Velzna (Roman Volsinii) was the

political center of the Confederacy. The Tyrrhenian colonies of the Po Valley and

Campania were organized in similar Confederations. The coalitions of Etruscan

armies in cases of emergency or common interest, were often due to inspirational

governors (lukumonae or military macstarnae) of a city-state such as Larth Porsen(n)a

of Clevsin (Roman Clusium), Velthur Spurin(n)a of Tarchna (Roman Tarquinia) and

others.

2. Organization, troop types, tactics, general character, spirit and other features

of the Etruscan armies

Leaving the broader politico-military organization and going on to the level of

the city-state, there are several theories on the organization and composition of the

armies of each individual city. The most popular is the one that considers the Etrusco-

Roman army of the 6th century BC as the Tyrsenian general model. The army was

7
organized by a Tyrrhenian warlord coming from the city-state Vulci and mentioned in

the Roman chronicles as Macstarna, which is rather not a personal name but the

Etruscan office of the magister (also inherited to the Romans). Rome was founded as

a real city-state in 600 BC by Tarquinius I who was murdered by her Latin citizens

(578 BC). Macstarna and his men – rather being sent by the Etruscan

Dodekapolis/Confederation – crushed the rebellion and recaptured Aruma or Ruma

(Tyrsenian Rome). The Etruscan warlord became the new ruler of the city that is its

magister or macstarna, and in order to ‘flatter’ the indigenous Romans took the Latin

name Servius Tullius. It is therefore natural for the latter to follow the general

Etruscan pattern for the organization of the Roman army, whose description follows.

Macstarna divided the men who were within the age limits for conscription in five

Classes depending on their financial situation. Each class was divided into companies

(centuries in Latin). Each company consisted of four squads, regarding at least the

heavy infantry.

Class I was substantially comprised of the nobles, manning the cavalry and

heavy infantry. This group was permanently in a state of military readiness, which

generally characterized the aristocratic classes in ancient Italy. Class I of Etruscan

Rome consisted of eighty infantry companies, six cavalry companies (alae) and two

engineers’ companies. Their equipment was the typical Hoplite Greek including

helmet, armor, hoplite shield, greaves, spear and sword. Classes II and III

corresponding to the middle social strata were enlisted only in wartime. In early

Rome, each of them was divided into 20 companies. Class II was using the same

equipment as Class I without the cuirass, and with Italian shield (scutum) instead of

the Greek Argive one. The protection was usually supplemented with a pactorale.

Class III had the same weapons as the Second one excluding the greaves. Classes IV

8
and V included the spearmen and the slingers respectively, that is the light infantry in

total. The other Etruscan cities were using archers as well. These classes were divided

into 20 and 30 companies respectively, always regarding the Etrusco-Roman army.

However the bulk of the poor citizens were exempt from military service, at

least as combatants. It can be hypothesized that in wartime they were employed in

food production, the supply of the army, as carriers and in other duties.

This division in Classes which was applied in the battle system as well, was

possibly the model for the division of the subsequent Roman army in the battle classes

of the hastati, principes, triarii, velites and rorarii. But this Roman distinction was

democratic comparing to the Etruscan one, because it was based on the age and the

experience of the fighting men. The Etruscan class division was additionally based on

ethnological criteria in the opinion of some researchers (including the author of this

article). These researchers believe that the “authentic” Etruscans were the Anatolians

who settled in Tuscany and there they became the ruling class, the Rasenna – unlike

the current Italian “patriotic view” considering the Etruscans as an indigenous people

of Italy under Anatolian cultural influence. These Rasenna probably constituted the

bulk of Class I and it has even been estimated that their ethnic name applied only to

the nobles. The indigenous Umbrians (or Ambrones), Ligurians and Latins according

to the aforementioned theory, were the middle and lower strata of fighting men being

the other four Classes, and the non-combatant serfs. The main resources of the

Tyrsenian city-states were coming from the agricultural production of the numerous

serfs. The large number of the latter was a permanent disadvantage for the numerical

strength of the Etruscan armies.

Despite Titus Livius’ reference to the “numerous Etruscan warriors”, they

would be quite more numerous if their society was organized more democratically; an

9
evolution of the Greek city-states which the Tyrsenians persistently refused to follow

mainly because of ethno-social reasons. Livy quotes that in 225 BC the Etruscans and

the Sabini raised 50,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry to assist Rome against the Celts.

Taking into account that in this year the heavy-populated Southern Etruria was

already Roman territory, and some other parameters, we reach an estimate of 80,000

combatants (men able for service) for late 6th century BC Etruria. A poor figure for a

country that as we have calculated based on P. Brunt’s (1971) and J. Beloch’s (1886)

estimations, it had a free population of around 600,000-800,000 (higher and lower

estimates). In comparison, the Greek regions of Italy and Sicily had a significantly

higher percentage of combatants on their total population, because of their higher

politico-economic system, mainly their democratic or milder aristocratic regime.

Because of this lack of combatants, a significant portion of the armies of the

Tyrsenians consisted of their vassals, allies or mercenaries, such as the Umbrians,

Latins, Oscans, Golaseca culture Celts and others.

Besides the infantry, the Etruscan armies had also potent cavalry units.

However the Tyrrhenian horsemen used to fight on foot, that is to say their horses

were mostly a transport. They were fighting on horseback only when they had to

confront enemy cavalrymen. That is why their equipment was essentially hoplite. The

harness of the horses belonged to Greek types. The war chariot was introduced in

Etruria around the late 8th century BC, but it is very doubtful if it was ever used as a

shock weapon. After the prevalence of the Greek-type hoplite phalanx it became a

transport of the Etruscan generals, until the 5th century BC when it disappeared from

the battlefields. After that, the chariot was used for the Triumphs of the Tyrsenian

generals, a legacy that was inherited to the Triumphs of the Roman consuls.

10
 The well organized Tyrsenians would not neglect to raise and maintain elite

units. These were the fraternities of the “devoted” warriors. They were selected

among the best fighting men and swore an oath during a special ceremony, to die

rather than to retreat before the enemy. It is unknown if they were hoplites, horsemen

or axemen. They possibly belonged to all three types of troops. These full-time

professional soldiers were usually manning the generals’ or magisters’ bodyguards,

even of non-Etruscan ones. The Cumaean commander Aristodemos captured many

Tyrrhenians at the battle of Aricia (505 BC). Being impressed by their martial skill

and spirit, he formed a “devoted” bodyguard of them which he used to become and

remain tyrant of his home city Kyme in Campania (Cumae, near modern Naples).

An interesting peculiarity of the Tyrrhenian battle system was the use of

armored axemen who were trying through the hard blows of their heavy axes to create

or exploit gaps on the enemy hoplite phalanx, paving the way for the comrade

hoplites that were following them. This method, of Italian origin, was abandoned in

the 4th century BC because of its inefficacy against the solid hoplite phalanx.

The maritime city-states had a strong navy, consisting of penteconters,

biremes and triremes. The Etruscans were among the first who navigated triremes

because of their close relations to the Hellenic inventors of these warships but they

insisted on the parallel large use of the obsolete penteconters. This choice of them

resulted in a permanent large disadvantage of the Etruscan navy against the Greek

fleets of Italy and Sicily, which consisted mainly of triremes. The Greeks were now

using penteconters and biremes only as scout and patrol ships. We can reasonably

suppose that the Tyrsenian captains/commanders and the marines were mainly

members of Class I. The other four Classes provided the archers, the sailors and the

rowers. The Tyrrhenians were skilful seamen and pirates, being after all partly

11
descendants of some of the Sea Peoples (Tyrsha or Teresh and probably of others

also). They founded some short-lived colonies in Spain that is possibly the cities

Tarraco (Tarragon), Tyrichae and others, and probably managed to sail up to the

Atlantic Ocean. Soon however, their navies were limited only to the sea that bears

their name until today (the Tyrrhenian Sea); in fact only to its northern part. The

reasons for this geo-political limitation of them were the potent navies of Magna

Graecia, Carthage and Massalia. After the crashing defeat of the united Etruscan navy

by the Syracusan war fleet in the sea battle of Kyme (Cumae, 474 BC), the number of

its warships was much reduced. Additionally the Tyrsenians did not follow the 4th

century BC developments in shipbuilding and never acquired warships larger than

triremes, that is to say quadriremes, quinqueremes and other polyremes. However

during the “Double” Punic War (264-201 BC) they manned the Roman quinqueremes

with rowers, deck crews and possibly marines.

An outcome of the martial spirit of the Etruscans was their frequent mercenary

service to other armies, Tyrsenian or not. It is reported or evidenced to have been

mercenaries of Carthage and various Greek city-states of the West (Kyme, Taras,

tyrants of Syracuse Dionysius and Agathocles, and others). Since the early times

Tyrrhenian mercenaries are fighting on behalf of wealthy tribal chiefs of Spain, and

by the late 3rd century BC they also appear in the Hellenistic armies of the eastern

Mediterranean, in which they are enlisted together with Oscan warriors (Samnites,

Lucanians, Bruttians and others). The Etruscan, Oscan and other Italian mercenaries

in the Greek and Carthaginian armies of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC were mostly

runaways who refused to submit to the Roman conquerors of their homelands.

The Tyrsenians were not using battle tactics analogous to the ones of the later

Romans, which is in three alternating battle lines, but usually in one line. The prime

12
shock troops were the hoplites of the First Class arrayed in the center of the battle

front. The next two Classes were lined up either as extensions (the so-called “horns”)

of the center, protecting the right and left of the First Class, or behind it. Classes IV

and V were fighting on the irregular way of the light-armed (the psiloi in ancient

Greek). Livy refers to Etruscan priests arrayed in front of their army during a battle

against the Romans who marched “like demon-possessed … brandishing alive snakes

and torches”. In other cases, the Tyrsenians tried to mislead or to ambush the Roman

army. Thereby they were using these tactical artifices as well.

The first major victory of Rome on the Etruscans is dated shortly after 400

BC, when she destroyed the city of Veii (around 396 BC). But the Romans achieved

this victory because, according to the prevailing theory, the major Tyrsenian city-

states abandoned their Veintine (Veian) compatriots feeling envy of their continuous

strengthening. On the other hand, in my view it is probable that a portion of the

Veintine army was absent operating in the North, at the Arnos Valley and the

Apennines where the Etruscan Confederacy desperately tried to check the Gallic

invaders. This expedition would have weakened the army of the city. Additionally the

serfs of Veii were probably Latin kinsmen of the Romans, whom they possibly helped

by rebelling against their Etruscan overlords. Soon Rome paid the price for the

destruction of Veii. The simultaneous military pressure of the Gauls from the North

and of the Romans from the South finally bent the Tyrrhenian resistance. At first the

Celtic “flood” destroyed the once powerful Clusium (Clevsin in Etruscan) in Central

Etruria, and then Rome itself after the elimination of the Roman army at the Allia

River (387/6 ΒC).

After that, the Etruscan cities went on a rapid decline which affected their

fighting men. That is why Livy’s hint on their poor quality concerns specifically the

13
period after the 4th century BC, because in another passage of his work, he mentions

the fear that his compatriots had for the Etruscans referring rather to the era before

300 BC. Another reason for the aforementioned forfeiture of the Tyrsenians is the

religious one. According to the their calendar, the 4th century BC marked the end of a

long period, the end of which would mean the death and disappearance of the

Etruscan people. This pessimism was aggravated also by the renowned Tyrsenian

foretellers. It is significant that after 400 BC, the themes of the renowned frescoes of

the Etruscan tombs changed radically. The major themes are no longer the symposia,

the athletes or love but the grim figure of Charon, the daemon of the Greek

netherworld: a clear evidence of Tyrsenian self-abandonment.

In conclusion, in the 6th-5th centuries BC and partly in the 4th century, the

Etruscans had maintained high morale and military skill remaining a major threat for

Rome (which they also had in control during the 6th century BC).

The sophisticated culture and the rather luxurious life of the Tyrsenians perhaps give

the impression that they were dealing with war only occasionally and out of necessity.

On the contrary, they were a warlike people. An important element of Etruscan

character is cruelty. It is well known that the Romans later used this element as a

psychological weapon for the expansion and maintenance of their empire. They

inherited this feature – as numerous other features of their civilization – from the

Tyrsenians.

It is considered a certainty that the Etruscans practiced human sacrifice. A

frequent theme in their renowned frescoes is the sacrifice of the Trojan captives by

Achilles in honor of his dead comrade Patroclos, because they used to do it

themselves. They usually executed the prisoners of war, to accompany the souls of

their own dead warriors to Hades, the netherworld. Sometimes this was done by

14
stoning them to death by the non-combatant citizens, even by women and children. In

other cases the prisoners were tightly tied for days with the decomposing corpses of

their dead comrades, or were devoured by hungry wild dogs in arenas or were forced

to duel to death. In the former mentioned case, it is obvious that many tortured

captives went insane because of the horror they were facing. Concerning the two latter

mentioned cases, the Romans later made these performances a basic feature of their

everyday life. Their wealth allowed them to replace the dogs with lions, leopards and

other “expensive” predators, but their treatment of the gladiators was clearly better. It

has been estimated that the probability for a gladiator to be killed during the

subsequent Roman gladiatorial games was just 10%. On the contrary, the gladiators

who were entertaining the Tyrrhenians were fighting to death. The most popular myth

of the Etruscans was the Greek legend of the duel between Eteocles and Polynices

very often repeated in their funerary paintings, perhaps because the two heroes kill

each other simultaneously. In the Tyrsenian funerary frescoes, the heroes are usually

gazing each other with satisfaction the moment they die.

It is obvious that many enemies of the Etruscans would prefer death on the

battlefield rather than captivity. This treatment of prisoners by the Tyrrhenians

partially explains the vengeful wrath of the Romans on them. Apparently the people

of Etruria used their formidable reputation as a psychological weapon against their

enemies. Those who advocate their Eastern Mediterranean origin, bring out historical

parallels of the same cruelty in several nations of the Middle East. However this

“brutal element” must not distort negatively the total image of the marvellous

Etruscans. In our view, they were a small and outlandish people surrounded mostly by

hostile states and tribes, and ruled an even more hostile population of non-Etruscan

serfs. Their situation brought about their psychological rigidity and cruelty. According

15
to some ancient Greek authors, the Tyrsenian men were barbarian pirates and the

Tyrsenian women were immoral. According to the Roman authors, the Etruscan

society was decadent and without morality, doomed to perish. None of these

inferences of the Greek and Latin historiography applies to the Tyrrhenians more than

they apply to their “accusers”, especially taking into account that the accusers were

deeply prejudiced against the people of Etruria.

ANCIENT SOURCES – MODERN BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Titus Livius: Ab Urbe Condita, Loeb Classical Library.

• Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, Loeb Classical Library

• Beloch K. J., Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt, Leipzig 1886

(despite the justified revisions on this work by several later scholars, for me it

remains a very useful guide for estimates on the populations of the Greek and

Roman World).

• The Cambridge Ancient History, New edition, Cambridge 1990-1999.

• Several articles and studies in the following historical and archaeological

journals: Journal of Hellenic Studies, Journal of Roman Studies, Hesperia,

Historia, Antiquity, Latomus, Greece and Rome, and others.

• Brunt P.A., Italian manpower, 225 B.C.-A.D. 14, Oxford 1971.

• Parlavecchia Paolo (editor) : Gli Etruschi e L’ Europa, Milano 1992

• Connolly, Peter: Greece and Rome at war, London 1981

16
• Cornell, T.J.: The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age

to…, Routledge, 1995 (although I believe that Cornell is rather excessive

concerning his conclusions on the early history of Rome)

• Τoynbee, Αrnold : A study of History, London 1965

• Head D. and Heath I., Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, Worthing

1982.

• Sekunda N. and Northwood. S., Early Roman armies, Oxford 1995.

• Hencken, Η., Tarquinia and Etruscan origins (Ancient peoples and places),

London 1971

• Fogolari, G. and Prosdocimi, A.L.: I Veneti Antichi: Lingua e cultura, Padova

1988.

• Cristofani, M., The Etruscans: a new investigation, London 1979.

Pallotino, M., The Etruscans, London 1974.

© 2006 Periklis Deligiannis

17
18
19