Origins of Manipular Warfare

[Anonymous]

I'd be interested to know what you guys think about the different theories on the origins of manipular warfare. For example:<br>
<br>
1. Connolly (and to a somewhat lesser extent Keppie) seem to put some faith in Livy's account and see it as a development in response to the Celtic invasion in the early 4th Century.<br>
<br>
2. Others like, Sekunda (in his Osprey contribution), give the Livy account little credit and see it as a response to the more mobile hill tribes (esp. the Samnites) much later.<br>
<br>
I guess these are the two main ones I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are many that I haven't heard of.<br>
<br>
Also, what are some of the key sources/ writers I ought to check as I try to find out more?<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

An interesting approach is M. C. J. Miller, "The Principes and the so-called Camillan Reforms", in Ancient World XXIII.2 (1992). He argues for the "Camillan" reforms introducing pilum and scutum after the Allia, but not changing tactics; manipular tactics only come in with the Samnite wars.<br>
<br>
Most theories couple the new equipment with the new tactics, so this suggestion gives pause for thought.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Given Romes propensity to absorb are three any pointers to any enimies using this tactic ?<br>
<br>
I go with the Celtic threat necessitating new tactics ... the pilum volly to break up that terrible charge ... then taking it on the shield ... & replacing the front line with fresh troops to finish off the knackered Celts or take on the next lunatic charge.<br>
<br>
Conal<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>