How would you make them? Differences and similarities with the Samnites.

Not to mention differences to Campanians and Brutti.

This is a very interesting question. I suppose You can find the answers in ancient findings like pottery, grave paintings and Livi´s description so on. It seems that people in the neighborhood of Magna Grecia tend to use round shiled - sometimes even the hoplon shield. People further way ( geographically and by their philosophy) like the Samnite tend to wear the Samnite shield or the old Italian oval scutum type shield.

I have my theories, and GeorgeDanielis has his, but we won't mind extra input. I will post my theories, later :) Give people a chance to comment.

Ok, I will post anyway, because I had time to make some pictures (we all love those) and because my paint is still sticky on my figures.

First, let us address the elephant in the room. The idea that Bruttians, Lucanians, Campanians and Samnites were seperate people might be a bit overblown, and no, they probably did not have a sense of nation as we do today. They were more likely loose confederations. Also, they probably had some similarities, understood the way that it is possible for clothes and armor would be found all places. Some would however probably be more common some places than others.

The following information I have gathered, mostly from logic, and from research into books, looking at plates from Osprey's books too. I gave up looking at other peoples representations of the different Oscan people (which is a catch-all for Italics in the Southern part of Italy that descended from the Samnites, well basically). In the following I will avoid talking about Apullia, since I have not researched into it.

Samnites live in a mountainous terrain mainly and fight in a different style than the early Romans (before they learned from the Samnite encounters) who fought as hoplites. They therefore require mobility of their warriors, and they are not heavy units, but medium armored at best. Luckily this is not a problem with the sets that are out there. They would have smaller shields, and definitely not Hoplons. Their typical armor was the triple disc breastplate, if they had any.

Campanians were very influenced by the Etruscans who fought in Hoplite formation at this time, and the Early Romans. It makes sense that their Infantry would fight more like Hoplites than the Samnites did. The landscape is large plains, which is perfect for Cavalry, so that is an element to bare in mind. There are of course mountains too, so some elements might be lighter equipped for ease of fighting there.

Lucanians were a direct descendant from Samnites, but lived near Greek colonies. They were influenced so much by the Greeks that they did not use the Oscan alphabet, but the Greek one. It is therefore logical to assume that they were more Greek in fighting style than their Samnite breathern, though perhaps not as much as the Campanians. Do they have units equipped with Hoplons? Possibly.

Bruttians were part of the Lucanians in times older than the one I am looking at. They rebelled against them, and gained control of the landscape in the "Toe" of Italy. They were mountain people, according to what I've read. When in trouble they would retreat to those. They were more likely to look like Samnites in fighting tactics.

I took the trouble of commenting the HäT 8040 Italian Allies for the Punic war set.

Here are the 8 figures, and my comments.

















My final conclusion for the HäT set is that it is somewhat of a compromise set. Some figures can be many different Oscan people. Some however are very fixed in what they are.

I took the HäT 8054 set and did the same as the above.

Hierzu ein interessanter Link:

https://x-legio.com/en/wiki/samnite-warrior

and Livius description

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex...0&lang=original

Ok, when it comes to colors, there is some archeological evidence, but it must be stressed that the warriors depicted on tombs and such, most likely were the richest, not the poorest of people. Still we can get a good idea of what colors were "in", and what was not.

If we go by the plates in Osprey's then the Campanians are predominantly white in clothes, with red decorations. The Lucanians are red, with blue decorations, the Samnites there is a lot of knowledge about and they could probably be many colors, least is known about the Bruttians, but I found in my old notes from some years ago that they were blue.

Are those reasonable colors? Perhaps. I did cheat a little, I must admit. To guide me I asked that feared friend, that can be wrong at times, and says at the beginning of the conversation

"While there isn't specific documentation detailing the exact colors used by the [Oscans] during this period, we can make some educated guesses based on what we know about ancient Italian clothing. Generally, clothing during this time was made from wool and dyed using natural substances derived from plants, minerals, or insects."

And that friend is ChatGPT :o

When asked what was the most expensive colors in order, this is what it says:

[ ...B]ased on broader historical trends and the rarity of certain dyes and pigments, we can make some educated guesses. Here's a speculative list of colors that were likely among the most expensive:

Purple: Purple was historically one of the most expensive and prestigious colors in the ancient world. The production of purple dye, extracted from certain mollusk shells, was labor-intensive and required vast quantities of shells to produce even a small amount of dye. Purple was associated with royalty, nobility, and high status, and its use in clothing and textiles was restricted to the elite.

Turquoise: While turquoise itself might not have been readily available in Bruttia, if it were imported from distant regions such as Persia or Egypt, it would have been considered rare and valuable due to its exotic nature.

Red: Red dyes, particularly those derived from sources like the kermes insect or madder root, were valuable in ancient times. Red was a popular color for clothing and was associated with vitality, power, and prestige. Its cost would have varied depending on the specific dye source and the availability of alternatives.

Indigo: Indigo dye, obtained from the indigo plant, was highly prized for its deep blue color. It was more expensive than many other natural dyes due to the complexity of its extraction and the cultivation of the plant. Indigo was commonly used for dyeing textiles blue across various cultures in the ancient world.

Gold and Silver: While not colors in the traditional sense, gold and silver were precious metals used for embellishments and decorations on clothing and accessories. Their use would have been limited to the wealthiest members of Bruttian society due to their rarity and high intrinsic value.

Certain Shades of Green: Green dyes, especially those produced from rare or exotic sources such as the woad plant or certain minerals, might have been relatively expensive. However, the cost would have depended on factors such as availability and demand in the region.

Black: Black dyes, particularly those derived from specific materials like oak galls or iron-rich substances, might have been more costly than other natural dyes due to the specialized processes required for their production."

Notice how white is an even more common color than the above, since it even isn't mentioned. Wool and such was easily bleached, and cheap. I am surprised that Golden and Silver are mentioned below red. In fact I think red should be more common. Maybe it is, in other places than Bruttia.

Zitat von Misteredd im Beitrag #8

---

Hierzu ein interessanter Link:

https://x-legio.com/en/wiki/samnite-warrior

---

Oh, and it should be noted that the Campanians were richer than the rest of the Oscan people. The next richest would be the Lucanians due to their close proximity to the Greek settlements, then the Samnites, then and finally the Bruttians who were as aforementioned a mountainous people.

Campania was conquered by the Samnites/Oscans and taken from the Etruscan grip. Considering that Capua was the second city to Rome itself this was a huge accomplishment. I think those Samnites did adopt the urban lifestyle an dispersed into the established population - a kind of Etrusco-Samnite Melting-Pot. Therefore they used Samnite Cavalry and Etrusco-Samnite Infantry Hoplites ?

Zitat von Misteredd im Beitrag #12

---

Campania was conquered by the Samnites/Oscans and taken from the Etruscan grip. Considering that Capua was the second city to Rome itself this was a huge accomplishment. I think those Samnites did adopt the urban lifestyle an dispersed into the established population - a kind of Etrusco-Samnite Melting-Pot. Therefore they used Samnite Cavalry and Etrusco-Samnite Infantry Hoplites ?

---

I forgot to mention that the reason I list the HäT figures by helmets, armor and shields, is to allow conversions. For instance a head from a Lucanian can be used on other cavalry or infantry bodies. That is what I am doing :)

Zitat von cernief im Beitrag #5

---

Ok, I will post anyway, because I had time to make some pictures (we all love those) and because my paint is still sticky on my figures.

First, let us address the elephant in the room. The idea that Bruttians, Lucanians, Campanians and Samnites were seperate people might be a bit overblown, and no, they probably did not have a sense of nation as we do today. They were more likely loose confederations. Also, they probably had some similarities, understood the way that it is possible for clothes and armor would be found all places. Some would however probably be more common some places than others.

The following information I have gathered, mostly from logic, and from research into books, looking at plates from Osprey's books too. I gave up looking at other peoples representations of the different Oscan people (which is a catch-all for Italics in the Southern part of Italy that descended from the Samnites, well basically). In the following I will avoid talking about Apullia, since I have not researched into it.

Samnites live in a mountainous terrain mainly and fight in a different style than the early Romans (before they learned from the Samnite encounters) who fought as hoplites. They therefore require mobility of their warriors, and they are not heavy units, but medium armored at best. Luckily this is not a problem with the sets that are out there. They would have smaller shields, and definitely not Hoplons. Their typical armor was the triple disc breastplate, if they had any.

Campanians were very influenced by the Etruscans who fought in Hoplite formation at this time, and the Early Romans. It makes sense that their Infantry would fight more like Hoplites than the Samnites did. The landscape is large plains, which is perfect for Cavalry, so that is an element to bare in mind. There are of course mountains too, so some elements might be lighter equipped for ease of fighting there.

Lucanians were a direct descendant from Samnites, but lived near Greek colonies. They were influenced so much by the Greeks that they did not use the Oscan alphabet, but the Greek one. It is therefore logical to assume that they were more Greek in fighting style than their Samnite breathern, though perhaps not as much as the Campanians. Do they have units equipped with Hoplons? Possibly.

Bruttians were part of the Lucanians in times older than the one I am looking at. They rebelled against them, and gained control of the landscape in the "Toe" of Italy. They were mountain people, according to what I've read. When in trouble they would retreat to those. They were more likely to look like Samnites in fighting tactics.

---

Zitat von cernief im Beitrag #6

---

I took the trouble of commenting the HäT 8040 Italian Allies for the Punic war set.

Here are the 8 figures, and my comments.

















My final conclusion for the HäT set is that it is somewhat of a compromise set. Some figures can be many different Oscan people. Some however are very fixed in what they are.

---

Zitat von cernief im Beitrag #7

---

I took the HäT 8054 set and did the same as the above.

---

Zitat von Misteredd im Beitrag #8

---

Hierzu ein interessanter Link:

https://x-legio.com/en/wiki/samnite-warrior

and Livius description

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex...0&lang=original

---

You wrote:

Zitat

---

For this Hät box I have another theory. In the first place my view of the equipment of the Italian tribes is that it was common. Italian-style helmets and breastplates were used by all Italian tribes. We cannot tell an Italian by his helmet or breastplate. The same applies to the Greeks. Their equipment was common. Only by the symbols on the shields could we distinguish an Athenian from a Corinthian.
In particular the third figure wears a beautiful Greek muscular metal breastplate. This does not mean that it depicts a Greek warrior. The helmet of the figure is of the Italo-Phrygian type and was used simultaneously by all the Italian tribes.
So my theory is this: The only thing that separates these figures is the way they fought. I would separate the figures into those holding a hoplon shield and the others. I would do some conversions so that I have more hoplite figures. I would make a unit of hoplites that I would call Campanians or Etruscans. I would still make a unit of the figures with the other shields. This unit could represent Samnites or Bruttians or Lucanians or Apulians.

---

I believe I wrote:

Zitat

---

First, let us address the elephant in the room. The idea that Bruttians, Lucanians, Campanians and Samnites were seperate people might be a bit overblown, and no, they probably did not have a sense of nation as we do today. They were more likely loose confederations. Also, they probably had some similarities, understood the way that it is possible for clothes and armor would be found all places. Some would however probably be more common some places than others.

---

Which does sort of cover what you are saying about the figures being almost universal. What we disagree on is the distribution of the equipment, and where it was to be found locally. What you are saying is that there is no "locally". While what I am saying is yes there was a "locally" common way of dressing. That is some things were more common than others.

You wrote:

Zitat

---

In particular the third figure wears a beautiful Greek muscular metal breastplate. This does not mean that it depicts a Greek warrior. The helmet of the figure is of the Italo-Phrygian type and was used simultaneously by all the Italian tribes.

---

If you study the figure closely, and look at the back (something that the picture does not show) it shows that it is only a front plate, held in place in the front by straps. So it is not a Greek Style breastplate. What makes this look like it is, is also that the Typical Italian belt looks a bit like armor here.

The Greeks also had such half breastplates. Alexander granted them so that his warriors would not turn their backs.

Zitat von GeorgeDianelis im Beitrag #21

---

The Greeks also had such half breastplates. Alexander granted them so that his warriors would not turn their backs.

---

Zitat

---

and Livius description

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex...0&lang=original

---

I will have to trust Livy. I guess that means that the Trapezoid shield is Samnite in nature, or general Oscan. That the Samnites were either parti-colored (and armor golden) or white (and armor silver) in case of the Oathsworn Linnea league. Somewhere else I wrote that I made a mistake in painting the Linnea league white with silver armor, when it should have been golden. I admit that mistake. I was wrong there.

Ok, I found some critique of Livy in Peter Connolly's: Greece and Rome at War:



Also I found Duncan Head has made some contributions on a forum, here:

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2548.0

I appreciate the ODEMARS Set Oscan warriors.

https://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=652