A few random historical rather than strictly gameplay observations:
SwordsThe thrusting sword used by the Romans before the adoption of the gladius Hispaniensis (Spanish sword) will almost certainly have been of a Greek type. A Roman aes grave (heavy bronze) coin dating to around the time of the bellum Pyrrhicum depicts a short straight sword and this may have been the style most commonly used by Roman infantry during the third century
The appearance of the gladius Hispaniensis is linked with the end of the bellum Hannibalicum (Suda, M302 = Polyb. fr. 179) i.e.
The Celtiberians differ greatly from others in the construction of their swords; for it has an effective point, and can deliver a powerful downward stroke from both hands. Wherefore the Romans abandoned their ancestral swords after the wars with Hannibal, and adopted those of the Iberians.
However, an earlier adoption during or after the first bellum Punicum is also possible
ScutaThe Roman panoply emerged in an Italo-Celtic context and whilst there is an ancient literary tradition suggesting that the oval/oblong shield (Gk. thureos and Lat. scutum) was first introduced by M. Furius Camillus under Celtic influence (Dion. Hal. 14.9.1-2, Plut. Cam. 40.3-4) Diodoros Sikulos probably gets closer to the truth when says that the Romans originally used thureoi, then aspides and then thureoi again (Rawson, Rome, 1971); albeit it is important to recognise that archaic thureos/scutum Diodoros refers to should not be confused with the Mid-Republican shield described in detail by Polybios (Polyb. 6.23.2-5).
The earliest archaeological example I am aware of that appears to confirm the existence of an archaic ‘Italic’ thureos/scutum are the stone covers found protecting depositions in the Poggio alla Guardia necropolis at Vetulonia which were cut in imitation of oval shields complete with spina and 'barleycorn' boss. These date roughly to the middle of the 8th century BCE. It is therefore possible that the antecedents of the Roman scutum can be traced to the Villanovan culture tribes of Northern Italy. Nevertheless, Eichberg likely goes too far when arguing that the oval scutum was strictly ‘Italic’ in origin and as a result he minimises the fluid two way nature of military acculturation and the possibility of a parallel development in shield design among the La Tene culture tribes (Eichberg. M, Scutum: die Entwicklung einer italich-etruskischen Schildform von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit Caesars, Frankfurt, 1987).
There is also iconographical evidence for use of the thureos/scutum among the South Italic peoples with the oblong or oval shield beginning to appear in tomb paintings from Capua and Nola during the last 30 years of the fourth century BCE. This coincides with the period when Rome was engaged in almost fifty years of near continuous conflict with the Samnite peoples and during which time the Romans most likely introduced manipular tactics and (re)-adopted the thureos/scutum
So what type of thureos/scutum was likely carried by the Roman milites at the time of the bellum Pyrrhicum?
The width of the south Italic scutum seems to be narrower than the second century Roman scutum and iconographical representations suggest it was flat not convex, therefore sharing a number of characteristics with the Celtic scutum. Interestingly, the Kasr el-Harit shield, although curved in the manner described by Polybios, is also narrower. Moreover, it lacks iron bound edges and umbo (Polyb. 6.23.4-5) instead having a wooden spina and boss, a design which can be clearly seen in the shield representations on the Altar of Ahenobarbus.
It is unlikely, however, that the scutum existed in the 4th century as Polybius knew it in the 2d century. By this time the Romans had been using the shield for nearly 200 years before Polybius first observed it, and they would have had ample opportunity during that time to introduce various modifications and improvements. Considering the largely decentralised nature of equipment manufacture it would, in fact, be quite surprising if they did not.
Burns. M, South Italic military equipment: the cultural and military significance of the warrior's panoply from the 5th to the 3rd centuries B.C; PhD Thesis, London, 2005
Eichberg (Frankfurt, 1987) argues that that the larger convex version of the Roman scutum, which protected the body better than the narrower flat version (Liv. 38.21.4) was probably introduced only during the Second Punic War. However, this cannot be proved. Indeed I believe the earliest iconographical representation of the large curved Roman shield is the monument depicting the decisive victory over Perseos at Pydna in 168 BCE. It does therefore seem reasonable to infer that the Roman army during the bellum Pyrrhicum was equipped with narrower flat scuta, possibly of the wooden spina and barleycorn boss variety.
Note: No scholar argues the triarii carried aspides by the end of the third century and it seems unlikely they did so at the time of the bellum Pyrrhicum, although I concede the possibility cannot be entirely discounted. On this basis I wouldn't recommend equipping Early Triarii units in the mod with Greek hoplite style shields as suggested.
The Light-ArmedMuch ink has been spilt analysing the role of the accensi and rorarii who were supposedly stationed at the rear of the legion (Liv 8.8.8 ). Livy’s specific identification of the leves as light-armed milites (soldiers) implies that he did not regard the rorarii or the accensi as being similarly equipped. Consequently, some modern writers have suggested that the accensi and rorarii were spearmen recruited from the fourth and fifth classes (Connolly. P, Greece and Rome at War revised edition, London, 1998). Livy’s account of the battle of Veseris in 340 BCE (8.9.14; 8.10.2–4), where the accensi and rorarii are reported to have moved forward to support the antepilani (the hastati and principes) and the triarii respectively in the main battle line might be seen as evidence that supports this view.
However, there are serious reservations about such an interpretation. For example, Cato writing in the second century BCE, says that the accensi (lit “attendants”) were messengers and orderlies (Varr. L.L. 7.58) whilst a much later source defines accensi as those assigned to serve officers (Veg. Epit. 2.19.). It is possible that the accensi had originally been attendants to the Roman hoplites in the manner of the servants who carried the panoply of Greek infantrymen and who might also have acted as light armed troops during battle (Herod. 7.229, 9.29; Thuc. 3.17.3, 7.75.5; Xen. Hell. 4.8.39). If the Romans were still fighting with a hoplite formation in the battle of Veseris then the role assigned to the accensi becomes more explicable. However, perhaps the triarii in the early manipular legion were also accompanied by their own armour bearing attendants. Indeed we learn of hypapistai (armour-bearers) marching along with Scipio’s aides and scribes during his triumph of 201 BCE (App. Pun. 9.66). This possibility increases if the dilectus (levy) was still conducted on a centuriate rather than a tribal basis with wealth continuing to shape the organisation of the legion and a higher concentration of the prima classis to be found in the ranks of the triarii (Dion. Hal. 4.19.1-4 contra 4.14.2, Gabba. E, Republican Rome, The Army and the Allies trans Cuff PJ; Blackwell, 1976). Of course, it must be said that that Livy follows Polybios (6.21.7) in describing a legionary structure based on age rather than wealth (Liv. 8.8.6-8).
Finally Livy’s narrative of the battle of Veseris partly calls to mind Varro’s etymology of the word adscriptivi (a word closely related to accensi) which supposedly derived from the men in the legion who did not receive arms and who used to be enrolled as extras to take the place of the regularly armed soldiers if any of them should be killed (Varr. LL. 5.56). Whilst this type of deployment cannot have been common practise there are examples of Roman supernumeraries being pressed into a combat role (Liv. 27.13.13, Front. Strat. 2.4.6) and perhaps Livy had this in mind when counting the accensi among the ranks of the early manipular legion.
Livy does not provide a clear description about the precise tactical role and armament of the rorarii although he clearly envisages them as more heavily armed than the leves. Other ancient writers associated the term rorarii with the men who opened the battle like shower before the rain (Varr. L.L. 7.58; cf. Paul., Epit. Fest. 323). In other words the rorarii were considered to have been lightly armed skirmishers rather than spear and scutum armed pilani. Without reprising the full range of scholarly discussion on the subject it does seem that this view is the more compelling one. Nevertheless, Livy may have been correct in stationing the rorarii at the back of the Legion. For example, witness Lucilius:
Behind those in soldier's cloaks was standing the swift rorarius
Luc. 10.293
It is also possible that the Rorarii were stationed in the rear to cover the vulnerable flanks of the phalanx operating Triarii. All hoplite phalanxes, while nearly impenetrable from the front, were very vulnerable from attacks from the side or rear. It could be that the Rorarii provided wing support to cover the vulnerable areas of the Triarii as the earlier Peltasts did for the Greek and Macedonian phalanxes but could have fallen away by the time of Polybius’ Legion.
Charl du Plessis. J. The Accounts of Livy and Polybius on the Battle of Lake Trasimene, MPhil Working Paper, 2011
Dionysios of Halikarnassos reports that the Roman light-armed at the Battle of Asculum in 279 BCE included “bowmen, hurlers of stones and slingers” (DH. 20.1.7). This appears to roughly reflect the composition of the 'fifth class', although neither Livy or Dionysios of Halikarnassos refer to archers being included among these centuries (Liv. 1.43.7, DH. 4.17.2). According to Dionysios of Halikarnassos the javelineers and slingers of the fifth class were “placed outside the line of battle”.
In his account of the Roman army Polybios distributes the light-armed 'javelin-fighters' (Gk. grosphomachoi) equally among all thirty maniples in a legion (Polyb 6.24.4). The 'javelin-fighters' are equipped with a round shield, several light javelins, a short sword and a plain helmet (Polyb.6.22.1–2). This contrasts with Livy (8.8.5) who has the light-armed (Lat. leves), who are equipped with a spear and javelins, with no reference to sword and shield, only enrolled in the maniples of the hastati.
So what sense can we make of the information available to us? Unfortunately space and time preclude a full discussion of the sources and the possible implications. Therefore I will simply make the following observations:
1) The evidence of Dionysios of Halikarnassos about the deployment of the Roman army at Asculum is notoriously difficult to make sense of. Whilst it is possible that light troops other than javelineers were deployed there is no reason to believe that an early third century legion routinely enrolled bowmen or slingers.
2) Whilst Sumner's arguments are not uiversally accepted (Sumner, G. V. The Legion and the Centuriate Organization, The Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 60, 1970) his statement that Livy’s account of the Roman army in Book 8 is a strained attempt to establish some sort of relation between the new military order and the five categories of the census classification is not unreasonable.
3) Although Livy appears not to have considered either the rorarii or accensi as light troops there is good reason to believe that the rorarii were indeed part of the light-armed. The accensi might more properly be viewed as non-combatant supernumeraries.
4) In attempting to reconcile Polybios and Livy the two most likely scenarios are:-)
i) The leves distributed amongst the hastati were less well equipped than the rorarii of the ‘fourth line’, who may have been equipped in a similar manner to Polybios’ grosphomachoi (usually translated into Latin as ‘velites’)
ii) The leves and the rorarii were conterminous; both being equipped with only a spear and javelins.
It is not possible to reach an incontrovertible position.
However, since you are designing a mod and therefore need to make a final decision the latter alternative appears to offer more scope for depicting the transition of the 'light-armed' into better equipped velites during the last quarter of the third century BCE.
I referred elsewhere to the questionable historicity of the 'Camillan' military reform (s), which the EB Team appears to accept as indisputable fact. Consequently, regardless of which units you finally include in the mod, it is perhaps more accurate to use the less loaded term 'Early' rather than 'Camillan'. Of course, if you wish to include separate leves, rorarii and accensi units, which I wouldn't necessarily recommend, then the term 'Livian' is more apposite.
Regards
buc