The Ligurians Options

[Pantagathus]

As for the text, you mention liberties. What exactly. The thing i find strange about the text is the reference to the women. Makes it seem that the women did male labour all year long, while De Mortillet describes it more as seasonal participation.

I’d have to post the whole Diodorus segment which the passage in your history book was obviously using as a base. It’s not a big deal really, they aren’t tremendously different. It just vexes me that I’ve encountered so many resources “quoting” Diodorus but that put extra words in his mouth. I can understand differing translations but serious additions & abridgements seem to be the norm. I suspect it’s because he often stands alone in certain testimony that may be very important to proving someone’s thesis... (and if you don't have a Loeb copy at hand you're SOL for a first hand translation). Book V Chapters 19 & 20 is a perfect example! But that’s for another thread

As for the women, it’s a pretty common theme in what ancient references we do have to portray them as extremely hardworking. There is one anecdote (Strabo again?) where he talks about a pregnant Ligurian woman working in the fields of a Massaliot estate; she went into labor, left for the woods, had the baby and returned to work. The land owner was then nice enough apparently to let her go home with a days wages…

However, Diodorus made no distinction as to the seasonality of their labor; he just said they always worked beside the men. I can only speculate that if De Mortillet elaborated on the seasonality of their work, then it may have more to do with his 19th Century audience and their sensibilities than any ancient reference I haven’t come across yet…

As for the shields, I think your comment about the regional usage is dead on.

If your interest lies with knowing more about the Ligurian warrior, there is one part from Diodorus that your history book regrettably left out & one of my favorite remarks about the Ligurians! He says (I’m paraphrasing from memory…) that many times during the conflicts between the Celts & Ligurians, the Celts would send their best man forward to issue a challenge for single combat (which we know of course was typical) only to have it answered by a small, scrawny Ligurian… The end result?

A dead Celt…



This post has been edited by Pantagathus: Apr 6 2006, 02:56 PM

[Pantagathus]

As for the Lepontii, i have read in numerous texts that they used the Etruscan Runes (alphabet)(the exact same runes, not a variant), is that true? Can any really confirm this?

So I looked into this a bit.

Strabo and others were firm on the fact that the Lepontii were a Rhaetian tribe. The Rhaetians of course may have originally been Etruscan people cut off from their homeland and forced into the mountains by the Celtic migrations. That the Leptonii used the Etruscan alphabet seems to be well attested in the archaeological record.

Their behavior and lifestyle is a lot like the Ligurians and I see no reason why they couldn't have been related to the Ligurians at an early period.

Definitely hard to tell after the Celtic migrations because it seems they eventualy became heavily Celticized.

[Al Amos]

Great topic guys!

I'm new here, and I'm a wargamer. (Don't shoot me!)

Would the Ligures fight as Greeks or Romans, formalized units, or as Celts, tribal organizations?

Any ideas on particular army sizes, or compositions?

Thanks.

[Pantagathus]

Would the Ligures fight as Greeks or Romans, formalized units, or as Celts, tribal organizations?

The Ligurians of Narbonesis would more than likely fight in a manner that was part war band - part Hoplite style due to the Phocaean Greek (Massalia) influence. The mountain tribes fought more in a predatory, guerilla type manner.

Any ideas on particular army sizes, or compositions?

Well, numbers are always a tricky one... With the Ligurians, numbers given mostly refer to those resettled afterwards like:

Consul P. Cornelius resettled 40,000 men, women & children to Samnium in 180 BC after defeating them. 7000 more the next year.

Proconsul Aemilius Paullus allegedly killed 15,000 & took 2,500 Inguani prisoner in 181 BC. However, from all I've researched, I'd say the average Ligurian tribe would have between 6,000 - 8,000 men of fighting age as a reliable average.

This post has been edited by Pantagathus: Aug 15 2006, 06:23 PM

[Al Amos]

Thank you sir, this helps.

[julieboy]

Didn't the Sicani in Sicily,and perhaps the Siculi also descend from the Ligurians?

[Guest_Dave_*]

Fascinating stuff. Thank you for your contributions.

I'm new here - first post.

I'm concerned about the interaction between pre-republican and early republican Rome and the its interaction with the Ligurian people. That go for Venetic and Rhaetic peoples too, but not in this thread.

Would there have been any contact between the Latins (rome and others) and Ligurians?

Was republican conquest also exploration and discovery for the Romans?

What sources do you recommend? Strabo, Pliny....

I'm also particularly interested in the geography as it relates to my initial question.

[Pantagathus]

I'm new here - first post.

Welcome Dave! I'll do my best to answer your questions...

I'm concerned about the interaction between pre-republican and early republican Rome and the interaction with the Ligurian people… Would there have been any contact between the Latins (rome and others) and Ligurians?

For the Regal Period and during the Early Republic, it is probable that the Latins were ‘aware’ of the Ligurians via the Etruscans but the later would have inadvertently created/provided a sort of buffer zone (geographically & culturally) between the Latins and their so called “troublesome neighbors” the Ligurians.

Rome didn’t really have to ‘deal’ with the Ligurians until they had assumed northwestern Etrurian power centers like Pisae, Luna, etc… The first Roman ‘triumphs’ reported against Ligurians where in the middle-late 3rd Century B.C. but most of the hard fighting against them occurred between 187 B.C. and ~120 B.C.

Was republican conquest also exploration and discovery for the Romans?

Probably to a certain extent they learned a few things along the way. However, in the early 2nd Century B.C. it’s no real mystery why the Romans started to clash with the Ligurians. After the 2nd Punic War, Rome was now in possession of a large swath of the Iberian Peninsula which was wealthy but also quite troublesome. Consular armies were constantly streaming in and out of there and the major land route from Italy to Spain marched them right though Ligurian lands.

The Ligurians were quite bold and constantly harassed this Roman supply artery; plundering legionary loot and capturing & killing Roman magistrates was quite the norm. Even after multiple campaigns against the Ligurian tribes of Gallia Transalpina (Narbonensis) and Liguria proper, it’s said that the Roman road was only then secured by a 12 mile ‘safe zone’. So the ‘conquest’ wasn’t just a means for well to do Romans to make a name for themselves, it was absolutely vital to holding Spain.

What sources do you recommend? Strabo, Pliny....

Strabo (Chapter 4.6), Diodorus (Books IV & V), Livy, Polybius and Pliny all contain decent nuggets of information in regards to the Ligurians.

I'm also particularly interested in the geography as it relates to my initial question.

In what regards?