12-31-2018, 05:10 PM
Unfortunately, most of Rome's early writings seemed to have been lost before Livy or Dionysius of Helicarnassus got around to compiling the early history on paper. And even so, the Romans were not prolific writers in their early history, (nearest anyone can tell.) There was a lot of legal lists that gave facts but little detail and various inscriptions that they used as reference, as well as local legends, stories and anecdotes. It's hard to tell what can be relied on and what can't, but there is likely truth in a lot of it. Also, the way Livy approached it has problems to it as well, and all other ancient writers of that subject are arguably less credible then him, or used him as a direct source.
You should keep in mind that early Rome could hardly even be described as a proper city. It was collection of hill settlements that were linked by a forum in the valley below and possibly a crude palisade for protection. Its "army" was made up of maybe a few thousand able-bodied men with little organization, scant armor and mostly ranged weapons. The idea of war was for plunder or tribute and possibly women, (poor Sabines.) Also, the scope of war was very local. Rome went to war with the Veii quite often, which was only about 30 miles away, and most wars happened in about that range early on. Things expanded a little bit after that with the adoption of a Greek-style Hoplite army of around 4000 to 6000 troops, but it wasn't by a large factor. By the time of the Gallic sack of Rome, they only really had loose control over the Latins in a 300ish year span of time.
Again, I HIGHLY recommend "The Beginnings of Rome," as it addresses all the questions you are asking here with a strong understanding of both the ancient sources and the latest archeology up to the time of its writing. Sadly, there is no way of knowing for sure the specifics of what wars were fought against who and when. At the end of the day, we are just going to have to take Livy's word for it.
You should keep in mind that early Rome could hardly even be described as a proper city. It was collection of hill settlements that were linked by a forum in the valley below and possibly a crude palisade for protection. Its "army" was made up of maybe a few thousand able-bodied men with little organization, scant armor and mostly ranged weapons. The idea of war was for plunder or tribute and possibly women, (poor Sabines.) Also, the scope of war was very local. Rome went to war with the Veii quite often, which was only about 30 miles away, and most wars happened in about that range early on. Things expanded a little bit after that with the adoption of a Greek-style Hoplite army of around 4000 to 6000 troops, but it wasn't by a large factor. By the time of the Gallic sack of Rome, they only really had loose control over the Latins in a 300ish year span of time.
Again, I HIGHLY recommend "The Beginnings of Rome," as it addresses all the questions you are asking here with a strong understanding of both the ancient sources and the latest archeology up to the time of its writing. Sadly, there is no way of knowing for sure the specifics of what wars were fought against who and when. At the end of the day, we are just going to have to take Livy's word for it.
Daniel DeVargas
