RomanArmyTalk

Pages: 1 2

While doing research on the 5th Century military, I came across several comments about the reduction in use of the pilum. My assessment of this theory is that it is based primarily on Vegetius. There certainly is a dearth of artefacts to either support or refute such arguments. 
 
Personally, I find that Vegetius is at best a dubious source given that he confused his data about the organisation of historical and contemporary Roman forces. His own lack of first hand experience with the military was probably a major factor in creating this confusion. 
 
Physical evidence of Roman military equipment is so limited that I find it difficult to accept some of the theories currently being discussed concerning the arms and armour of the Roman military. Much discussion is based on a few discoveries which have influenced the general representation of Roman troops. 
 
I am well aware of the studies done be such well respected scholars as HR Robinson, Mike Bishop and others. This is not the place to list the many references that I have read about arms and armour, although they extensive. 
 
I am curious as to why scholars are less inclined to view a continuity in terms of the arms and armour of the Roman army. My own impression is that the legions continued to be employed as armoured swordsmen, who were equipped with a variety of shafted missile weapons (pila, veruta, plumbata, etc.) to supplement their spathae and shields.

Hi PR, 
 
I'm not sure you're reading Vegetius right. Sure, he does seem a very lucid author in the first plce, and he may well not be a military man either, but it is not so easy to dismiss him out of hand. 
For one, I doubt whether Vegetius 'confused his data about the organisation of historical and contemporary Roman forces' as you say. It has been popular to assume that he is describing the ancient Legion, a force clearly anachronistic when he writes. But all is not as it seems. Sure, Vegetius offers a whole chapter about this ancient army structure, but he is not writing with only an old manual as a source. For while clearly admonishing his contemporaies to look back in time to a period when soldiers were more disciplined, etc., Vegetius is very much aware that his theorethical 'ideal' force is not just a copy of that legionary force. 
Also, his descriptions of the use of weapons, etc. in his 'modern' army is not just simple copy of that ancient legion, but a description of what must be assumed an army looked like in his day. 
 
So when he tells us gladii were no longer use but semispathae existed, we cannot but conclude he is describing Late Roman forces. And when he divides an army into three lines, one of which is throwing plumbatae, we must assume he is up to date with military technology, and not describing an ancient legion. 
 
therefore, when Vegetius tells us pila were no longer in use, but veruta and such javelin-type weapons had taken their place, I cannot but assume he is right. And is that not confirmed by the archaeological record as well? 
 
Furthermore, it is not only pila that vanish - the gladius is indeed changed for a spatha, which is also shown in the artistic record. helmets change as well, also proven by finds and images. 
On what exactly do you base your thinking that there was still a continuity? 
And of what exactly? For your conclusion that Late Roman forces were "armoured swordsmen, who were equipped with a variety of shafted missile weapons (pila, veruta, plumbata, etc.) to supplement their spathae and shields" seems by no means contradictory to what Vegetius writes! 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

I am more aware of your own level of knowledge and experience through Vortigern Studies than you are likely to know of mine. This does not mean that either of us can deduce with confidence what motivated Vegetius to write his book and what sources he used apart from what he states in his book. 
 
To clarify my own understanding of Vegetius, I offer the following information. Most of which is derived from the two translations that I have read: 
 
Clarke, J. tr., Vegetius (London 1767) 
Milner, N.P., tr., Vegetius (Pennsylvania, 1993) 
 
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (c. 385ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“400) was from the western half of the Roman Empire, although most of his career was spent in Constantinople. Since he was from Hispania (or possibly Gaul) like the Emperor Theodosius I, he may have been one of the many westerners, who moved to Constantinople with the emperor or later joined the court because of a relationship with one or more courtiers. This is suggested by the inclusion of Flavius in his name, as this was the family name of Theodosius. He was the author of Epitoma rei militaris (a summary of military matters), which is an important source of information about the later Roman military system, as he provides a detailed description of military equipment, organization and practice. However, using Vegetius is complicated by his idealizing view of the past. Milner suggests that Vegetius did not use the ancient sources he acknowledged, but rather extracts used by other authors. Therefore he relied on secondary sources, despite crediting primary sources. In this he may have been emulating other authors of historiographical empitomes such as Sextus Aurelius Victor, Festus and Eutropius. Vegetius may have been trying to use his writings to secure advancement in the civil service. This was certainly done by his contemporaries; so he selected a military subject to attract notice from a military ruler (if Theodosius I was the intended audience of the epitome). 
 
According the versions that I have read, his motivation was to collect and synthesise from ancient manuscripts and regulations the military customs and wisdom that made Rome great and/or he intended his work to serve as a guide for his contemporaries so that current practices could be reformed in light of the practices of the republic and early empire (hence the appearance of such archaic terms as principes, hastati and triarii). Since Vegetius wrote in late antiquity, this presents us with serious problems regarding his sources--Cato, Celsus, Frontinus and Paternus--who wrote in the late Republic and early empire. Bibliographies did not accompany ancient texts so unless the author specifically stated his or her sources, it is difficult to know what was used. By this I mean the sources that Vegetius does not credit, specifically those pertaining to more recent times (for example, what was his source for the Plumbata or dart as these are not mentioned in his ancient sources). Moreover, Vegetius was not a soldier, so it is advisable to be wary of his handling of technical terms. He was not the only ancient author to mix synonyms. His near contemporary Ammianus Marcellinus uses catafractarii and clibanarii to describe Roman cavalry, although some modern writers have argued that these were two distinct troop types (just as both hussars and lancers are now tank drivers). 
 
Vegetius describes himself as a "vir illustris et comes" suggesting that he held senior positions in the Imperial government and court. As such, he possibly had access to the emperor, but this does not mean that his recommendations would have been accepted. Nonetheless, the work was not filed in an obscure archive but was copied frequently. Vegetius' work became very popular in medieval and Renaissance Europe for two reasons: 
 
-unlike the earlier Greek and Roman military manuals, it was highly practical (even inexperienced generals could use it as a guide in the field); and 
-it was written in a clear and simple Latin, which could be read by many military leaders and translated easily into contemporary European languages. 
 
I would point out that these two reasons pertain to his popularity among later audiences. It is less obvious (from my own research) what his reception was among his contemporaries. He was writing in a traditional fashion in that it was often philosophers or those who just liked to write to put pen to paper. We know about ancient military treatises or manuals because copies of Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander and Vegetius survived. Despite what he uses to justify his penmanship, Vegetius may have sought promotion because of his erudition rather than military knowledge. I would suggest that his military contemporaries of the imperial civil service could have written far superior works (if so inclined), unfortunately there is as yet no evidence to suggest that such books were written. 
 
Referring to your own research based on ancient sources of the same period as Vegetius, surely you are aware that they often are subject to much interpretation. Much has been deduced from the texts of Olympiodorus, Zosimius, and Zosomenus about Roman history of the late 4th and early 5th Centuries. Just as much of our knowledge about the historical King Arthur is derived from the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum and the collection of heroic death-songs known as Y Gododdin. I do not consider any of these sources as reliable, and yet they are among the only known sources to survive. The choice can be narrowed to accepting them or not. If we accept them, then we have information about what might have happened. If they are rejected, then we have nothing upon which to base our studies of the events. 
 
All of the above is actually tangential to my main point, which pertains to the modern theories about the arms and armour of 5th Century Roman soldiers. Two recent publications, MC Bishop and JCN Coulston, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (London, 1993), and IP Stephenson, Roman Infantry Equipment: The Later Empire (Stroud, 1999), suggest that the Roman infantry stopped using the pilum as the most important shafted weapon, although neither book states why. 
 
On page 123 of the former, the authors wrote: 
 
ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œPila therefore continued in use during the third century, but they probably ceased to be the priority shafted weapon for legionaries that they were in earlier periodsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Ross Cowan put forward some evidence for continuity in the using of pila and swords for thrusting (Cowan, Ross: Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161-284, Osprey Publishing 2003, p.30-32 and p.41): 
Archeology: pila heads at legio II Augustas fortress at Caerleon, Wales dating to after 260; at the fort of Saalburg c. 260; a pilum from Krefeld-Gellep c. 275. 
Light and heavy weighted pila on gravestones of legionaries and praetorians until the early 4th c. 
Literary: Ammianus records spicula, a form of socketed pilum, the the StraÃƒÆ’Ã…Â¸burg battle 357. 
Cowan concludes: "The pilum almost certainly remained the essential weapon of front-rank legionaries." 
Regarding swords for thrusting: 
short swords were more and more succeded by medium and long swords. But most of these were "cut and thrust weapons with substantial triangular or tapering points" (Cowan p.32). Thats confirmed by literal sources, again Ammianus on StraÃƒÆ’Ã…Â¸burg: "... with drawn swords [the roman soldiers] thrust at the enemy's sides" (AM 16.12.49). Only when pursuing the broken enemy the swords are used for slashing (16.12.52). 
 
As im writing my thesis on the battle of StraÃƒÆ’Ã…Â¸burg and am quite into Ammianus i can only support Cowans view.

The Battle of Straussburg is one of the battles that has long interested me, although it has been frustrating trying to find more information about it to supplement what Ammianus wrote. 
 
Simon MacDowall and I often discussed the battle particularly when he was thinking about writing a book for Osprey on the campaign as a companion to his Adrianople book. One of the obstacles was the lack of information to help identify the location of the battlefield. He was more successful with Adrianople, although his site is still only one of several possibilities. 
 
I certainly would be interested in your own efforts to throw light onto the campaign. 
 
One of the reasons that I did not mention Cowan's book is that it generally supports my opinion that Roman soldiers continued to employ the same tactics and weapons up to the 5th Century and possibly beyond. it is only with the advent of the Byzantine manuals, specifically the Strategicon, that there is any evidence of the typical Roman infantry arms and tactics. Most readers of this book agree that there had been changes made sometime during the 6th Century or possibly earlier.

Hi Perry, 
I chose the Strasbourg battle because it is the best documented one of late antiquity. Weve got three main authors (Ammianus, Libanius, Zosimus) providing us with a hell of details, drawing from contemporary sources (mainly Julians lost own account) and rectifying each other. Additionally there are other authors providing some further minor details (Aurelius Victor, Julian himself, ...). 
The place where the battle was fought seems to be clear: Oberhausbergen northeast of Strasbourg. Not only supposed by guesswork, but fortunatly supported by archeology: the aquaduct mentioned in the sources was found. 
If youve got any questions, please ask me Perry. I'd be glad if you could help me too with some things (maybe togehter with your friend Simon McDowall? although I'm going to contradict him in some points )

I msut say that my opinions about Strassburg are dated as I have not given much thought to the battle in years. When I was stationed in Germany in the Canadian sector, I frequently travelled up and down both sides of the Rhine; however, that was 12 years ago. I was not aware that a location had been identified. 
 
Currently, my studies have been more about the Romano-Byzantine military forces from 395 to 1453. At some point I do want to compare battle descriptions to learn more about the tactics, which is the subject of a more recent thread. 
 
Thank you for your kind offer to share information. 
 
Perry

Hi Perry, 
 
I hear your view on Vegetius, which indeed seems correct to me. Yes, use Vegetius with caution. But does the fact that Vegetius does not use primary sources make him less reliable? Milner also explains that this was a normal practise amongst contemporary historians. So why would Vegetius be a bad writer, are why should his writings earn more distrust, than say, Zosimus? 
Equally, who are we to judge if those 9th-c. British sources contain any reliable material ornot? I'm not so keen on calling any sources unreliable, but rather unveryfiable. It's not quite the same thing. 
 
But before we go on about sources, this was all to do with pila. And while I'm not too certain you are in fact saying that the pilum continued ijn use after the 3rd century (which I think it did not), how does Vegetius figure in all this? Because as I read your conclusion about swordsmen carrying an arry of throwing weapons, I was not under the impression that vegetius said otherwise. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 8/5/04 12:42 am

My initial post included comments about the weapons because there have been theories about Later Roman soldiers being spearmen rather than swordsmen. IP Stephenson favoured this theory and yet I cannot find anything that suggests that the Roman soldier depended more on spears than swords as the principal combat weapon. Bishop and Coulston wrote that the pilum lost favour or popularity as support weapons, and yet physical evidence suggest that pila were still in use during the Fifth Century. 
 
My main point is that the Roman infantry continued to be swordsmen who threw a variety of shafted misile weapons prior to contact. These additional weapons had different names and structures, but seem to me to be used to inflict casualties and disrupt enemy formations prior to melee. 
 
This is contrary to what Stephenson and others have suggested. I am still curious as to why and how these theories came about. This is one of the few fora in which I can communicate as I do not have access to good academic sources re-enactment groups or other resources. 
 
On the subject of Vegetius, Michael Grant actually described him as a military expert. I really cannot accept that view. As well, I do not like the reliance on such unverifiable sources. I really do get frustrated with Gothic history being dependent on Jordanes and Olympiodorus and especially the movements of Alaric. Peter Heather seems much too confident in his writings with regard to who was this barbarian warlord. I consider him more of an opportunistic Roman warlord with similarities to the post-Imperial Chinese warlords of the last century. 
 
More on this later. 
 
Perry

Hi Perry, 
 
Like you and Ross Cowan, I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t agree with the main argument of IP Stephenson. But Stephenson seems to have held the opinion that swords were discarded altogether, and I canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t believe that to have been the case. 
Now, regarding the pilum, I believe youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d be hard put to find that classical weapon during the 5th century, or even during much of the 4th. But of course there were lots of pila-alike weapons around, such as the gaesum, the spiculum, the veruta, and even the plumbata. It seems clear that these missiles, throw upon or just before contact, remained very much in use. 
But as primary weapon? I tend to agree that the spear as main arm (with the sword a close second) was a clear development which must have begun somewhere between the early 3rd century and the 6th, when it is clear enough that the spear had become the main armament in an infantry formation. The spatha, of which it is clear enough that it replaced the gladius during the 3rd century, is not a stabbing weapon but a slashing weapon. Nor can you duel very well with a spatha (it has no crossguard so youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ll hurt your hand badly), which also speaks against the infantryman being mainly a swordsman. 
 
Now IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m very willing to debate the exact moment where it can be said that from that time onwards, spears had become the main weapon, but that this was a development which finally led to that is in no doubt. 
 
What do you mean by ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œmeleeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Stephenson's textual support for the idea that the thrusting-spear had become the principal weapon of Roman infantry seems to be mainly, or solely, a speech in Herodian: Caracalla allegedly told the Parthian king that "the Romans had an infantry force which was invincible in close-quarter fighting with spears" (ten dia doraton sustaden machen - Herodian 4.10.3) in contrast with the Parthians' invincible archers. 
 
"Dorata" primarily means thrusting-spears, though it would certainly not be impossible to use the word for pila. My Greek's not really good enough to be sure that "sustaden machen" really means only hand-to-hand combat or wheher it could include short-range spear-throwing. If the passage genuinely does mean fighting with hand-held spears, it's hard to see why Herodian would have written this if missile-spears were still the main weapon - he wasn't a military man, but he was an educated contemporary and I'd have thought he would have got the basics right. Perhaps he was thinking only of the literary opposition between close-fighting Romans and far-shooting Parthians, or perhaps he was thinking of Caracalla's "Macedonian" phalanx! Dio does use the same word - "doru makron" - for the pikes with which these men were allegedly equipped....

Robert, 
 
I disagree that the spatha was a slashing weapon. Its main difference from the gladius is its length. The modern sources that I have used as my references seem to agree on this point. I would be interested in your opinion. 
 
"Now, regarding the pilum, I believe youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d be hard put to find that classical weapon during the 5th century, or even during much of the 4th." 
 
I also disagree with this statement based on the fact that there is continued reference to pilum and other shafted missile weapons in the Roman weapons inventory. One problem with written sources is the ambiguity of the terminology that obscures the type of weapon being described. Vegetius wrote that the pilum was called a spiculum. Ammianus uses a variant of spiculum in his whistory when identifying the throwing of missile weapons by Roman soldiers. Now both writers used Latin so the terminology is similar. They may have used different words if writing in Greek, possibly doru or dorata. 
 
Words were not always clearly translated between the two languages. Arithmoi and numerus, catafractari and kataphractoi are examples of straight forward translation. I am not sure what word in Greek would be used for pilum. 
 
I am not aware of the writings of the person that you mentioned. Please educate me about him. 
 
Perry

Robert, 
 
I started a new thread under References & Reviews in which I comment on the use of sources. I refer you to that as a continuation about the pros and cons of ancient and modern written sources. 
 
On the subject of the continued use of pila, we may have to agree to disagree. In my opinion there is just not enough evidence to accept what Bishop and Coulston wrote about the the reduction in use. You commented on the gaesum and even Vegetius mentions another pilum-like weapon. Regardless of the name (bebrae, angon, spiculum, pilum, etc.) such weapons existed; however, it is difficult to determine their popularity apart from what Vegetius wrote. There is certainly not much physical evidence and the pictorial evidence is subject to debate as is obvious by the debate at this site and others. 
 
There is a difference between fencing and sword fighting. Having used riot gear, the Roman gladius and spatha are certainly ideal for thrusting just as is the modern baton or stick. I have seen enough examples of reenactors using swords to see the merit in thrusting or punching with a sword or baton. It is less fatiguing than slashing or cutting as is more the case in fencing. 
 
Perry

Hi Perry, 
 
The main difference between a spatha and a gladius is not its lenght, but the completely different balance. You could never stab withthe spatha as you do with the gladius. of course you can stab with a spatha, it was first used in the Roman army as a cavlry sword, the lenght being useful for the cavalryman to reach his opponent below him. 
But for an infantryman, the story is different. If you find yourslef in a tightly packed unit, it becomes immediately clear why the spatha is not your primary weapon - you have no room to wield it. But if you can, the most effective way to use it is through its main advantage - the weight of the blade. Hitting your opponent from above means dmaging the helmet or the shoulder. 
This difference makes it immediately clear in what way the 'classic' Roman front differed from a 'late Roman one. It is because of this difference that i see the long spear as the main weapon of the infantry formation, and only then the sword. 
 
About pila, are we talking about the same thing? I do not deny in any of my posts that the Late Romans did throw volleys of shafted missile weapons. I just can't call any of these weapons a pilum. 
 
I see a pilum as the javelin-type weapon of the 'classic' Legion, with a long metal shaft which was intended to break or bend. I maintain that this particular weapon was no longer around after the 3rd century. 
Now, I agree that Roman infantry formations threw mass volleys of pilum-like javelins, but these were made from wooden shafts and small spearheads, no longer the fancy construction of the pilum. That's why I say 'no more pilum'. 
There was a Germanic 'copy' of the pilum, called the angon, which also had a long metal shaft, mounted on top of a simple wooden shaft. I believe this 'simple' version of the pilum also beded on impact. 
 
This started with you doubting Vegetius about the use of shafted missile weapons. Can you tell me where he states that such weapons were no longer used? 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Robert, 
 
I must admit that I have no practical experience with any Roman swords. This is because I have never had any association with an organisation that deals with fencing or re-enactment. I wish that this was different as I truly would like to belong to a Roman re-enactment group. Alas, I live in Canada and the nearest group is hundreds of miles from me. 
 
I am aware of the origins of the spatha; however, I thought that there were differences between the types of spathae such that the infantry models were more like gladii in that they were designed for thrusting more than slashing. This is why I compared them to the modern riot baton which does come in varying length. 
 
The variation in swords carries over to pila and other weapons. There were several different types of pila with the wood and metal content varying. These have been divided into heavy and light types with variants in between. Some writers have postulated that pila could be thrown or used for melee. Arrian has his front rank of infantry retaining their pila to thrust at the advancing Alan cavalry, while the remainder of the infantry threw their pila and lancaea (see Arraian's "Array Against the Alans" for more details). Again there has been debate on these issues because of the wide range in experience among historians. 
 
For example, I saw a TV programme about the Crusades that included a segement with David Nicolle watching a weapons expert shoot a composite bow using the European and Asian draws. Nicolle expressed surprise that the Asian thumb release resulted in a slower arrow speed, although it seemed to be a more accurate way to release the arrow. 
 
In another TV programme, John Haldon provided the source material for the reconstruction of a Greek fire projector. Haldon was surprised that this was difficult to use because he had carefully read the original directions on the construction. The modern version certainly operated in a unsafe manner. There seemed to be as much threat to the firing platform as to the target. 
 
Could you give a specific definition of your impression of a long spear? I ask as this is another hotly debated wargaming topic. Weapon length and reach have been discussed with there being plenty of conflicting views of their importance. Some consider the classical Greek hoplite spear as long, although its length varied. Pike length also varied and the later Byzantine infantry kontos has been defined as both a spear and a pike. 
 
To my knowledge, IP Stephenson is the only recent author to suggest that the Roman infantry were spearmen rather than swordsmen. Can you provide references to support your opinion? 
 
 
You have really piqued my interest with this discussion. 
 
Perry

Pages: 1 2

Anonymous

Robert Vermaat

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Robert Vermaat

Anonymous

Robert Vermaat

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Robert Vermaat

Anonymous