Bret Devereaux

Moreover, we need to caveat that the ancients often don't speak in terms of states: not Athens, but the Athenians, no the Seleucid Empire, but Antiochus or Seleucus does things. And Hall makes these arguments very well, and they are worth making. 5/21

But there are other points I don't fully follow. First off, I think it's probably a bit overeager to talk about the 'dismissal' of the notion of a hoplite army in early Rome. The irony here is that I am myself somewhat skeptical about an early hoplite Roman army... 6/21

...and I tend to avoid making any kind of pronouncements prior to Polybius kicking in because the evidence is really But early Italian hoplite-esque combat is still regularly asserted, e.g. @DrMichaelJTayl1 "Panoply and Identity During the Roman Republic" PBSR (2020). 7/21

I think it is a bit premature to call a position 'dismissed' which is still standard in narratives for the early republic and continues to appear in the scholarship of specialists in the field. Maybe that's coming, but it doesn't seem to be here yet. 8/21

I have thoughts on your comments throughout, and will try to respond tomorrow, but I will point out that I _am_ a subject expert in early Italy. My PhD was on war and social power in pre-Roman Italy (including early Rome) and am in the process of finishing two books...

on warfare in pre-Roman Italy. The idea of a "hoplite" army in early Rome has been dismissed and needs to stay there. Just because people carry aspides doesn't mean they fought in the Western Civ-lover's fantasy that was a "hoplite" army.

Oh, I know you work on this too and didn't mean to imply you didn't. Just that other specialists working in the same do not yet appear to all be in agreement.