spear or pilum?

[Robert Vermaat]

Flavius Arrianus Xenophon, to give him his full name

Hmm.. Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon'?

Arrian called his legionaries ‘kontophoroi’ and lonchophoroi’, without clearly describing what he meant, although his description of battle tactics points to infantry with thrusting spears, supported by lighter infantry with throwing spears. The ‘kontus’ is then a long thrusting spear, probably, but mostly used in a cavalry context, as a two-handed spear with a length between 2.5 and 4 metres. Also, Arrian’s kontos is used several times during the battle sequence, which is impossible if throwing had been meant (Arrian, Acies 16-17, 26).

.........Again, this is not quite correct.
The kontos described here appears to be the pilum, the classic heavy javelin of the legionary heavy infantry with its bendable iron shank,(Arrian tells us this un-mistakably) rather than the two handed 12 ft cavalry spear used by some heavy cavalry contarii. A generally applied Greek vocabulary for translation of Latin terminology does not seem to have been adopted despite centuries of contact with the Roman army. The word hyssos was used by several Greek authors, most notably Polybius, as the Greek term for pilum, while Flavius Josephus employed the word xyston.

Well, exactly. Confusion.
Why do you interpret the ‘kontos’ as “un-mistakablyâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

Sorry to but in again, but I thought I would address the point about auxiliaries needing javelins.

Pila were far from the only type of javelin used by the Roman army and small spearheads and large 'bolt heads' are fairly common finds on many Roman military sites. In all likelihood many or most of these are javelin heads. Therefore, there is no need to think that just because auxilia did not have the pilum they would have been without javelins. I think the opposite would have been true in fact. I get the feeling from this and the tombstone evidence that being equipped with two or more javelins would have fairly normal in many auxiliary units. These javelins do not need to have been pila.

Crispvs, I wrote this yeaterday:

I find it very hard to accept that legionaries were confined to the Pilum and Auxiliaries to the Hasta. As has been shown above these terms are often

My thoughts exactly Martin! And I knew I read it somewhere, and here it is:
Marchant, David (1990): Roman weapons in Great Britain, a case study: spearheads, problems in dating and typology, in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 1-6.

Some of the finds [pilum points] are clearly in legionary contexts but there are enough finds from auxiliary forts to suggest that the pilum may have been used outside the legions.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Sorry to but in again, but I thought I would address the point about auxiliaries needing javelins.

.... I get the feeling from this and the tombstone evidence that being equipped with two or more javelins would have fairly normal in many auxiliary units. These javelins do not need to have been pila.

Crispvs, I wrote this yeaterday:

I find it very hard to accept that legionaries were confined to the Pilum and Auxiliaries to the Hasta. As has been shown above these terms are often

My thoughts exactly Martin! And I knew I read it somewhere, and here it is:
Marchant, David (1990): Roman weapons in Great Britain, a case study: spearheads, problems in dating and typology, in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 1-6.

Some of the finds [pilum points] are clearly in legionary contexts but there are enough finds from auxiliary forts to suggest that the pilum may have been used outside the legions.

From what I see, it appears that there is an assumption, that auxiliary spears/hastae were thrusting weapons. I think it needs to be proven that an auxiliary hasta was actually not a javelin. From the references I have seen so far it appears that use of any infantry spears was primary throwing, and only occasionally thrusting (as with the kontoi/pila etc. in the above references). Secondly, the tombstone evidence, as indicated above, suggests that the auxiliary spears were javelins. Admittedly, there are images on the TC and the Adamklissi monument of soldiers using their spears to stub an enemy (often fallen), but that does not prove that auxiliary spears were not javelins since any pointed weapon can be used for stabbing if necessary.

[Robert Vermaat]

Flavius Josephus equipped regular Roman infantry with a unique ‘xyston’ (Bella Judaica III.95), which is taken as meaning a pilum, but the word is also synonym for ‘dory’, which is the long thrusting spear of Hoplite warfare.

......this is not quite correct and we must back-pedal a little.Xyston is originally the generic term for a spear-shaft , but later is specifically the 8-12 ft (2.4-3.6 m) cavalry lance, carried by Alexander and the Companion cavalry. Josephus was a Jewish historian in the first century, trying to write a history of the revolt for Romans, in Greek, which he all too obviously, from his writings, did not speak well - as all his translators acknowledge. Hardly surprising that he used one of many Greek words for 'spear' (and be it noted, there was no proper Greek word for pila because this was not a Greek weapon, just as sarissa was not a Roman one). He also incorrectly calls the Legionary shield 'Aspis(round circular Hoplite shield)' when talking of the legionary General's bodyguard, and may mean a roman circular shield (parma) ( longche/lancea and Aspis armed)but correctly calls the ordinary legionary shield and the cavalry shield 'thureos'(Greek equivalent of scutum/oval shield/'long' shield), and refers to legionaries as 'hoplites' at times. He calls the Roman cavalry lance a 'kontos' ( lit: punting pole used in shallow rivers, or 'bargepole'), which was Greek slang for a xyston !!)
All in all, writing in a foreign language about technical military terms, we can forgive Josephus' occasional errors - if indeed they are so (see below), I think!

Paul, the ‘xyston’ is maybe only ‘taken as a pilum’ because it is customary to associate the legionary infantry with the pilum. But as I recently quoted from Marchant, that may not necessarily be the case as a pure black & white think. Josephus as well as Arrian might be pointing to a stabbing spear here, and maybe even to a longer one as well.
IF the ‘xyston’ is specifically a cavalry lance of 8-12 ft., it’s considerably different from the pilum. Is this simply Josephus mixing up terminology?

Equally, Arrian who wrote a generation later equipped his infantry (also) with the ‘kontos’, which is also a long cavalry lance of between 2.5 and 4 metres – yet people insist it must be a pilum as well. So is Arrian also blundering, like Josephus?

The Greek word for ‘pilum’ was ‘hyssos’ – if they both meant ‘pilum’, why did they not use that word? So far I’ve seen no explanation by anyone of that simple question.

I get the feeling that people ‘want’ to see Josephus’ guards as well as Arrians ‘kontophoroi’ equipped with pila, and that ‘therefore they translate ‘kontos’ as well as ‘xyston’ with ‘pilum’, even though the text of both need not, and synonyms of those words do not support that.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Alexander,

From what I see, it appears that there is an assumption, that auxiliary spears/hastae were thrusting weapons. I think it needs to be proven that an auxiliary hasta was actually not a javelin.

I think it would be wrong to assume that pila and hastae were either/or. As Paul says, it's clear that the pilum could well be used for stabbing, and the hasta was clearly also thrown. But that does not mean they were both throwing weapons or both stabbing weapons. The Roman army was extremely adaptable and would surely not have had weapons cabale just for one purpose.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Hi Alexander,

From what I see, it appears that there is an assumption, that auxiliary spears/hastae were thrusting weapons. I think it needs to be proven that an auxiliary hasta was actually not a javelin.

I think it would be wrong to assume that pila and hastae were either/or. As Paul says, it's clear that the pilum could well be used for stabbing, and the hasta was clearly also thrown. But that does not mean they were both throwing weapons or both stabbing weapons. The Roman army was extremely adaptable and would surely not have had weapons cabale just for one purpose.

I certainly did not suggest arguing against the point that hasta was a thrusting weapon - yes at times it was, just as at times pilum was a thrusting weapon. I suggest showing that hasta was not a javelin, since from how the discussion is phrased so far (including immediately above "and the hasta was clearly ALSO thrown" - of course it was if it was a javelin), I see the supposition that the aux. hasta was primarily a thrusting weapon. I would like to see someone believing that showing the evidence.

[Robert Vermaat]

I certainly did not suggest arguing against the point that hasta was a thrusting weapon - yes at times it was, just as at times pilum was a thrusting weapon. I suggest showing that hasta was not a javelin, since from how the discussion is phrased so far (including immediately above "and the hasta was clearly ALSO thrown" - of course it was if it was a javelin), I see the supposition that the aux. hasta was primarily a thrusting weapon. I would like to see someone believing that showing the evidence.

Well, showing the evidence may be diffficult because it would at best be a modern interpretation. This is however what my view is based on:

In design, I would venture that a pilum is designed for throwing, but also usable as a stabbing weapon. A hasta is (in my opinion) designed as a stabbing weapon (when you look at balance etc as well as the hefty spear head etc.) but also usable as a throwing weapon. Both are heavy rather than light spears.

Then there's what we might discern from the sources:
Vegetius, in describing a possible evolution, describes the pilum being supplanted by typical throwing weapons like the verutum and plumbata. That, too, suggests to me that the pilum was 'looked upon' as primarily a throwing weapon.

The hasta on the other hand seems mainly to be a synonym of a thrusting spear. True, the word itself could be used for any number of spears, but when a specific sort is mentioned, it's always the thrusting spear, whether a cavalry lance or an infantry spear. The word continues in use as a synonym until Byzantine times.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Robert,

Thank you for your response. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on some of your points.

A hasta is (in my opinion) designed as a stabbing weapon (when you look at balance etc as well as the hefty spear head etc.) but also usable as a throwing weapon. Both are heavy rather than light spears.

I am not sure that a larger spearhead could suggest the use of a spear as a primarily thrusting weapon. But even if yes, what is the evidence that the larger spearheads found belonged to infantry spears rather than calvary spears?

Also, I encountered the argument that the length of the spear - 7 feet or more - suggests its use as a primarily thrusting weapon. However - how do we know that hastae were that long? What archaeological evidence do we possess? The images suggest that hastae were about human height (about the hight of pila) - yes, they could have been shown shorter than they were due to the limitation of the image, but we do not know if they actually have.

Then there's what we might discern from the sources...
The hasta on the other hand seems mainly to be a synonym of a thrusting spear. True, the word itself could be used for any number of spears, but when a specific sort is mentioned, it's always the thrusting spear, whether a cavalry lance or an infantry spear. The word continues in use as a synonym until Byzantine times.

What texts showing that infantry hasta was a thrusting spear do you have in mind?

Thank you,

[D B Campbell]

The kontos described here appears to be the pilum, the classic heavy javelin of the legionary heavy infantry with its bendable iron shank,(Arrian tells us this un-mistakably) ...

Why do you interpret the ‘kontos’ as “un-mistakablyâ€

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I was under the impression the kontos was the spear/lance which was used by sarmations and other catephractes, held with two hands?
Or was that just a hazy misinterpretation by certain parties?

[Paullus Scipio]

Blimey !! What a lot of posts while I slept ! hock:

First, I'm sure I speak for Robert and the others in apologising for hi-jacking Vergilius' thread, but he has encouraged us by describing the discussion as 'interesting' , which it is, so I hope he won't mind if we continue our digression. D
I guess I'll adopt Robert's approach, and break up responses into chunks.

First, to deal with the less relevant stuff:
Duncan wrote:-

If you're referring to "writing 30-40 years after Josephus", then he's not! More like 60 years.

...my apologies for the inexactitude, I was simply referring to the fact that these two writers are fairly close in time, compared to others, and wrote off the top of my head. In fact '60 years' is as far out as '40 years'. Arrian repelled the Alans in 134 AD, and the dispositions are therefore contemporary with that. Josephus could not have written his work until some time after 80A.D. (on internal evidence), probably during the reign of Domitian 81-96 AD ( who is praised by Josephus).The work in Greek is a second version ( the first was in Aramaic and circulated widely in the East), and Josephus refers to using official Roman accounts/reports. If we say 85-90 AD, we shall not be too far out.......so 45-50 years then !!

Robert wrote:-

Hmm.. Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon'?

I believe so. Some have thought in the past that Xenophon was merely a nickname, but he frequently signed himself such not only on public documents but in private correspondence and Philip Stadter (Greek,Roman and Byzantine studies 8, 1967 p.155ff ) showed that it was part of his proper name, not a nickname.

Well, my references are quite OK here, I checked it.
Book IV is mostly on siege warfare and, all too bad, the English translations online fail to translate it.

.....no wonder I couldn't find it then ! The on-line translations don't even mention book IV :lol: :lol:

Crispus/Paul wrote:-

Sorry to but in again, but I thought I would address the point about auxiliaries needing javelins.

...the discussion is open to all, so you are hardly 'butting in' ! Again, my apologies for the intensive posting, but as we have seen, the subject is of great interest.....and your points are well made, and I would agree with them.
One word of caution about archaeological finds from forts etc.....not all spear/javelin heads found are weapons. Many are hunting implements, boar spears, hunting javelins etc

[Robert Vermaat]

Also, I encountered the argument that the length of the spear - 7 feet or more - suggests its use as a primarily thrusting weapon. However - how do we know that hastae were that long? What archaeological evidence do we possess? The images suggest that hastae were about human height (about the hight of pila) - yes, they could have been shown shorter than they were due to the limitation of the image, but we do not know if they actually have.

That is indeed a problem.
We've discussed Later Roman spear length earlier.
To summarise, there are NO finds of spear/lance shafts from the Roman empire, so we are left guessing. However, we have scant evidence from artistic sources (see the above discussion) that infantry spears could be longer than the 'normal' lengths seen on funerary monuments etc. I’m all for the argument that carving in stone would limit the size of the spear depicted, I think that goes for the pilum as well as the hasta, but it does not bring us any further to proving how long they exactly were.

The only spear shaft finds from this period are from Denmark. Lengths range between 7 feet and 9 feet, 2.13 to 2.74 metres, which is certainly acceptable for infantry weapons. Now it can be argued that these had nothing whatsoever to do with anything comparable on the Roman side, but arguments have been made that Roman military evolution is reflected in the German/Scandinavian zone, and that Danish spear lengths there might therefore reflect Roman spear lengths. I like that argument, but that’s just me.

What texts showing that infantry hasta was a thrusting spear do you have in mind?

Well, I’ve been suggesting several already over the past days.
Paul is right of course, the word ‘hasta’ is too common to just look at any author who uses that word, so we also have to look for synonyms. But several sources use the word hasta for the long cavalry thrusting spear as well as the long thrusting infantry spear. I’ll run the list by you again.

Livy called the ‘sarissa’ a ‘praelonga hasta’ (Ab Urbe Condita XXXII.17.13, XXXIII.8.12, XXXVI.18.7, XXXVII.42.4, XLIV.41.7). he clearly uses ‘hasta’ for a very long thrusting spear.

Curtius Rufus called the ‘sarissa’ a ‘hasta’ (Historiae Alexandri Magni III.2.13, IX.7.19. Same as Livy then, he has a long thrusting spear in mind.

Arrian’s kontos is used several times during the battle sequence, which is impossible if throwing had been meant (Arrian, Acies 16-17, 26), and a ‘kontos’ is the synonym for the 8-12 ft (2.4-3.6 m) cavalry lance.

Herodian referred to the Roman army as “an infantry force which was invincible in close-quarter fighting with spearsâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

I was under the impression the kontos was the spear/lance which was used by sarmations and other catephractes, held with two hands?
Or was that just a hazy misinterpretation by certain parties?

No. you're absolutely right. Which is why I think that if an author uses 'kontos' or 'contus' as the word for the infantry spear, he does not have the 'pilum'in mind, but a spear that's primarily meant for thrusting.

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:-

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the very detailed reaction. My listing, however, was in the first place not to look at each author for the correct use of the terminology, but to show how terminology changed over time.

....well, I don't think anyone would dispute that - we are looking at a period of over a thousand years in total, so that is hardly surprising.If I may use my modern analogy again, whilst the generic term "gun" has meant 'firearm' throughout its history, words like 'pistol', 'rifle', 'fusil', 'musket','carbine' and so on have changed meaning over time, some several times, and new weapons such as 'revolver' and 'machine gun' have entered the vocabulary.....and that over a shorter time-scale.

IF the writer chooses to inform us with that additional information (‘hasta praelonga’, ‘hasta velitaris’) there is no problem. However, most authors do not see the need to do that, which is where the confusion starts. A simple description like ‘hasta’ thus can mean anything.

.....but that is no different in modern English. If an author says 'spear' without qualification, it is a generic word too. I don't agree that most ancient authors use generic words....it would be truer to say that confusion may arise from a multiplicity of words. There are many greek words for types of spear - any lexicon will throw up a dozen - here's just a few:
dory =Great spear,long thrusting spear derived from 'plank'
kamax = long cavalry spear, derived from 'pole' or 'vine prop'
xyston = long cavalry spear, derived from 'pole' or 'spear shaft'
kontos = long cavalry spear, derived from 'punting pole' or 'barge pole'...but can also mean a boathook

....or for Roman missile weapons, we have, again not an exhaustive list:-

telum =missile weapons
pilum,spiculum=heavy throwing spear
jaculum, verutum=javelin
lancea= light/short dual purpose thrwing/thrusting spear
...not to mention martiobarbuli/plumbatum. :wink: :wink:

Now all of these are quite specific weapon types - but in some cases the name changes over time.

The difficulty occurs when latin is translated into greek and vice versa - there is no latin equivalent of 'sarissa', because Romans didn't use it, nor a greek equivalent of 'pilum' for the same reason, Greeks didn't use it.
Thus sarissa becomes a very long 'hasta'=spear-shaft/shafted weapon - but 'hasta' is not a direct translation of 'dory' (a specific weapon = long thrusting spear, whereas 'hasta' is generic)

[quote]Why do you interpret the ‘kontos’ as “un-mistakablyâ€

[D B Campbell]

...'kontos' in Arrian is a weapon which:-
1. Arms the front four ranks.
2.May be used to thrust, but is thrown by the fourth rank
3.Is soft, made of iron, and may bend when thrust into a horse or heavy armour.
...what else but a pilum?

Some archaeologically recovered spear points could be described as "long iron points"!

....and 'bendable'?

I must have missed the part where Arrian says the iron points are soft and bendable. Can you give us the quote, Paul?