The Numbers To Overcome Sentinum Loss?

[Valens]

Anyone have any figures for Romans liable to military service in the early 3rd Century BC (I've had horrible luck; maybe someone here can do better)?

 

The purpose of these numbers would be to see if Rome could've staged one of their trademark comebacks after a defeat at Sentinum (which they actually won in 295) or Apulonia (which they actually won in 293).

[Hamilcar Barca]

Roman history up until the mid 3rd Century BC is not paticulary well documented, your best bet is Livy, but he should be treated cautiously.

 

Anyone have any figures for Romans liable to military service in the early 3rd Century BC

 

 

What kind of figures are you talking about?

 

The purpose of these numbers would be to see if Rome could've staged one of their trademark comebacks after a defeat at Sentinum (which they actually won in 295) or Apulonia (which they actually won in 293).

 

 

Also, what do you mean by "comebacks", they won those battles like you said. How do you make a comeback after already winning?

[Valens]

What kind of figures are you talking about?

 

 

An estimate of Romans liable to military service at the beginning of the 3rd Century...

 

Also, what do you mean by "comebacks", they won those battles like you said. How do you make a comeback after already winning?

 

 

Obviously, this is a hypothetical situation calling for us to assume Romans lost at these two battles.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Well at this time Rome had alliances with several surrounding Latin based towns as well as Capua. However, Livy makes no mention of Rome's complete military strength. But from that you could probably make an estimate. So probably around 150,000 max strength.

 

As for a hypothetical defeats at Sentinum (295BC), it was a decisive battle for Rome. If Rome had lost, they would of had a hell of a time recovering. The 35,000 stong force of Umbrians, Gauls and Samnites would have crossed the Appenines and caused some serious damage. Roman confidence would be smashed while the enemy's would be elevated to an all new level, this easilly could have caused Capua and other Latin based towns in alliance with Rome to desert to the Samnites. The Romans would then be fighting badly outnumbered in a war where they could be attacked from all directions. Even before they were holding off attacks from the Etruscans/Gauls in the North and the Samnites/Umbrians in the East. Sentinum was of massive importance. It would be like if Hasdrubal had defeated Nero at he Metaurus. After Sentinum the Romans convinced the Gauls to retire and from there it was all downhill.

 

As for Aqualonia (293BC), well the Samnites didn't have a chance. Their confidence was virtually nought and they were fighting by threat of death from their officers. The Roman morale on the other hand was excellent and the Consul Papirius Cursor was a highly experienced and respected general. The Samnites were pushed back the entire battle and when they were led (falsely) to believe that Roman reinforcements were on the way, they all retreated, even the officers and generals. If by some miracle they had won then I think it would have only been a setback from their enevitable destruction. The Gauls and Etruscans were out of the picture by this stage and Aqualonia marked the last major stand by the Samnites. They had almost their entire force of 40,000 men there, if by some miracle it had been victorious it would of had to immediatly deal with another Roman army under the consul Spurius Carvilius who was at this time smashing another Samnite force at Cominium. They themselves knew this in the battle and it was the speculation that Spurius would appear that sent them to rout.

 

So Sentinum was a must-win victory but Aqualonia was a sure-thing victory.

[Valens]

Well at this time Rome had alliances with several surrounding Latin based towns as well as Capua. However, Livy makes no mention of Rome's complete military strength. But from that you could probably make an estimate. So probably around 150,000 max strength.

That seems low, as Polybius tells us that only about 70 years later (at the start of the 2nd Punic War), the Romans had some 700, 000 men liable to military service (granted, the number would be a bit high).

[Hamilcar Barca]

Yes but within 70 years Rome had conquered all of Italy and had access to far more troops. Roman territory at this stage was even smaller than what the Samnites had.

[Valens]

Yes but within 70 years Rome had conquered all of Italy and had access to far more troops. Roman territory at this stage was even smaller than what the Samnites had.

Thinking about it, that number must be a little high. An estimated strength of the Samnite army that fought the Romans at Apulonia was 36, 000+(and, in fact, this could be high). Given the stipulations for not going to war in Samnitic society, it is probably pretty fair to assume this was the vast majority of Samnite manpower.

 

Nicholas Sekunda (granted, he can be quite sketchy at times) puts the Roman army at the same time from about 16, 000 to 20, 000 strong. Not really sure what a fair estimate of total manpower would be given this number...