Why the Samnites couldn't beat the Romans?

[twgamer20197]

Was it because the Romans soldiers were both better trained and disciplined for combat? And did the Samnites have some elite infantry?

[conon394]

Nope nothing to do with troops - well sort of obviously the Roman's put together a good militia army for the time and place... but it is not like they were super or something.. Rather the Romans hit on a very very effective political organization. Basically the pragmatic settlement the Romans made after they succeeded in the Rome/Latin (circa 340BC-330BC) war gave them the basis to best the Samnites.

On the one hand the Oligarchy of the Roman elite was maintained but not obviously and not profoundly unequally. By adding adding various citizens, non voting citizens and some other municipalities that were not citizen but autonomous locked in a pattern. The various groups essentially only owed Rome military service so Rome only benefited from them if at war. But Rome created a bit of pyramid scheme if you will. If you went to war as a loyal subject you would get a small but not insignificant part of the Roman operation. Rome and Roman citizens get land from the deafened. But so do the allies. And the new conquered assuming they toe the line and sign the contract are now in on the deal as well.

It is also worth pointing out that as a sort moderate oligarchy Rome had it was not too hard a bargain to strike in order to get local elites defeated or on the edge of defeat to buy into the system.

Obviously the came to a head in the social war later when the volume of non Roman allies became large and the Republic started outside of Italy doing mostly normal empire and tribute started to seem like it was flowing mostly to just the Roman citizens and not allies of one form or another.

Edit for clarification sorry.

[VINC.XXIII]

Ultimatly manpower was a problem for Samnites.

According Livy there were a group of 16k and a group of 20k. The 16k group was supposedly more elitish, while the second group was supposed less good.

I think there were several classes of warriors as well, based on extrapolation of other sabellian and regional armies and archeologies, but, not really because of this Linteata story. According Dominique Briquel this was made up to paint Samnites as more distinctive and add some drama(the oath and self-cursing...etc) despite oath was not something extraordinary in itself in the context of italic polities.

To answer, yes they must had differences in infantry coming from wealth and age.

One thing that goes in favor of the division is how samnite had an institution which implied new soldiers, probably the youngest, were appointed to keep some doors/entrance.

[Gaius Baltar]

The Samnites beat the Romans in battle many times, often badly too. But it was Rome's superior organization and resources that eventually turned the tide.

[Flinn]

The Samnites beat the Romans in battle many times, often badly too. But it was Rome's superior organization and resources that eventually turned the tide.

This actually happened other times indeed, see the Punic wars for instance

[The Despondent Mind]

Was it because the Romans soldiers were both better trained and disciplined for combat? And did the Samnites have some elite infantry?

Samnites just weren't balanced well, they badly needed an update patch but I guess the developers didn't care and never gave them Tier III units.

[VINC.XXIII]

While its about 225 BC(on Polybius account) you see Samnites proper had less troops than Romans-Latins, no matter If numbers are not totally accurate, or whether they're pure theory it shows the proportion is in favor of Romans. Unless all socii would unite which had little chance to happen.

Its the meaning of Gellius Egnatius movement during the Third Samnite War, he joined the Senons in the north and expected Umbrians as Etruscans would also join and make a bigger army in order to defeat the Romans.

By Sentinum numbers provided by Livy are somewhat close to this, a little less which make it credible imo.


Edit: for some reasons the numbers don't appear here...strange

see manpower section: 77k Samnites vs 310k in 225BC

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socii

[conon394]

While its about 225 BC(on Polybius account) you see Samnites proper had less troops than Romans-Latins, no matter If numbers are not totally accurate, or whether they're pure theory it shows the proportion is in favor of Romans. Unless all socii would unite which had little chance to happen.

Its the meaning of Gellius Egnatius movement during the Third Samnite War, he joined the Senons in the north and expected Umbrians as Etruscans would also join and make a bigger army in order to defeat the Romans.

By Sentinum numbers provided by Livy are somewhat close to this, a little less which make it credible imo.


Edit: for some reasons the numbers don't appear here...strange

see manpower section: 77k Samnites vs 310k in 225BC

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socii

Although of course the numbers from 225 BC are some 60 years after the last of the Samnite wars. Circa 340s the numbers would not have been so starkly different.

[VINC.XXIII]

Although of course the numbers from 225 BC are some 60 years after the last of the Samnite wars. Circa 340s the numbers would not have been so starkly different.

Essentially yes.

There were important adjustments under Appius Claudius Caecus censorship that eventually integrated even more peoples as eligible for service but the disparities between roman-latin and samnite respective manpowers were already here and that is related to general demographics and economics of the respective territories.

[conon394]

Essentially yes.

There were important adjustments under Appius Claudius Caecus censorship that eventually integrated even more peoples as eligible for service but the disparities between roman-latin and samnite respective manpowers were already here and that is related to general demographics and economics of the respective territories.

JUst saying the 225 figures do however very much overstate the original imbalance.

Economics is also likely a factor. As far a I recall the Samnites seem to have lacked much slave holding but also whatever the lowest rung of their population was it does not seem to have been servile or non military. So the mobilized a lot of their manpower out of the total population. But I suspect that was nominally only easy for raids or defense. I thinking the Romans came to the fight with a initial economic advantage that they could sustain invasion longer and be more apt to follow up on victories.

[VINC.XXIII]

J. I thinking the Romans came to the fight with a initial economic advantage that they could sustain invasion longer and be more apt to follow up on victories.

Yes there was an economic advantage in the nature of the territories and indirectly generated activities(craftmanship, trade), having large amounts of farmlands allow you to feed a bigger population and overal helps better the economic development than mountains.

Samnium= more hills, mountains
Latium, Etruria, Campania= more farmlands

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: