11-29-2007, 05:14 AM
A couple of points:-
1. The "Great Spear" ( gk: Dory; Lat: Hasta - though Hasta can be generic for just 'spear' as well ) was generally anything from 8-12' (2.4-3.5 m) long, and was a hand-to-hand weapon ( being generally too long and heavy to throw, other than as a last resort, at very close range) -12' being pretty much the upper limit for single handed use ( and personally, I find an 8' Dory difficult enough)
2.Javelins, up to 5' (1.5m) were missile weapons, and optimal for this with a very secondary hand-to-hand capacity
3. The "short spear"(gk: longche; lat: lancea) was a dual purpose weapon, 6-7' long (1.8-2.1m) -not ideal for either purpose but good enough for both throwing and thrusting as a general purpose weapon.
4. 'weighted' javelins/missile weapons - pila, saunions in a variety of lengths [veruta/javelins 3-4'(0.9-1.2m),pila 6-7'(1.8-2.1m) ] etc sacrificed range for armour/shield piercing ability......culminating in that rather strange, but almost perfected weapon, the plumbata which had weight sufficient to give good piercing ability, and good range as well, AND was also of a size that allowed a number to be carried....
These are generalisations, I know, but they are worth keeping in mind when trying to classify or decide what a weapon's primary purpose was...and of course there are significant variations on these too...e.g. the german 'framea', Persian weighted short spears (to improve reach) and many others....as Robert indicated there is much technical stuff about use of weapons and names ( but then future historians might wonder what the difference beween 'AK' and 'M-16' was, but there are significant differences...)
Nik wrote:-
There is no display about their equipment; their shields [scuta] alone are marked with very choice colors. A few only have corslets [loricae], and just one or two here and there a metal or leather helmet.[cassis aut galea] Their horses are remarkable neither for beauty nor for fleetness. Nor are they taught various evolutions after our fashion, but are driven straight forward, or so as to make one wheel to the right in such a compact body that none is left behind another. On the whole, one would say that their chief strength is in their infantry, which fights along with the cavalry; admirably adapted to the action of the latter is the swiftness of certain foot-soldiers, who are picked from the entire youth of their country, and stationed in front of the line."
Tacitus Annals1.64:"The barbarians attempted to break through the outposts and to throw themselves on the engineering parties, which they harassed, pacing round them and continually charging them. There was a confused din from the men at work and the combatants. Everything alike was unfavourable to the Romans, the place with its deep swamps, insecure to the foot and slippery as one advanced, limbs burdened with coats of mail/heavy armour, and the impossibility of aiming their javelins/pila amid the water. The Cherusci, on the other hand, were familiar with fighting in fens; they had huge frames, and lances long enough to inflict wounds even at a distance."
Annals2.14; Germanicus tries to raise morale by denigrating the Germans: "For the huge shields and unwieldy lances of the barbarians cannot, amid trunks of trees and brushwood that springs from the ground, be so well managed as our javelins and swords and closefitting armour. Shower your blows thickly; strike at the face with your swords' points. The German has neither cuirass nor helmet; even his shield is not strengthened with leather or steel, but is of osiers woven together or of thin and painted board. If their first line is armed with spears, the rest have only weapons hardened by fire or very short.[framea]"
Their number is fixed -- a hundred from each district; and from this they take their name among their countrymen, so that what was originally a mere number has no become a title of distinction. Their line of battle is drawn up in a wedge-like formation. To give ground, provided you return to the attack, is considered prudence rather than cowardice. The bodies of their slain they carry off even in indecisive engagements. To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes; nor may a man thus disgraced be present at the sacred rites, or enter their council; many, indeed, after escaping from battle, have ended their infamy with the halter."
...so in the first century, only the front rank/best equipped/warrior elite had long spears, and iron was precious. Doubtless this changed ( as has been referred to elsewhere ) and the Germans had more iron swords, iron spearheads etc later, though not that much....I can give figures from bog-finds of different periods if you like, which tend to confirm this view.
1. The "Great Spear" ( gk: Dory; Lat: Hasta - though Hasta can be generic for just 'spear' as well ) was generally anything from 8-12' (2.4-3.5 m) long, and was a hand-to-hand weapon ( being generally too long and heavy to throw, other than as a last resort, at very close range) -12' being pretty much the upper limit for single handed use ( and personally, I find an 8' Dory difficult enough)
2.Javelins, up to 5' (1.5m) were missile weapons, and optimal for this with a very secondary hand-to-hand capacity
3. The "short spear"(gk: longche; lat: lancea) was a dual purpose weapon, 6-7' long (1.8-2.1m) -not ideal for either purpose but good enough for both throwing and thrusting as a general purpose weapon.
4. 'weighted' javelins/missile weapons - pila, saunions in a variety of lengths [veruta/javelins 3-4'(0.9-1.2m),pila 6-7'(1.8-2.1m) ] etc sacrificed range for armour/shield piercing ability......culminating in that rather strange, but almost perfected weapon, the plumbata which had weight sufficient to give good piercing ability, and good range as well, AND was also of a size that allowed a number to be carried....
These are generalisations, I know, but they are worth keeping in mind when trying to classify or decide what a weapon's primary purpose was...and of course there are significant variations on these too...e.g. the german 'framea', Persian weighted short spears (to improve reach) and many others....as Robert indicated there is much technical stuff about use of weapons and names ( but then future historians might wonder what the difference beween 'AK' and 'M-16' was, but there are significant differences...)
Nik wrote:-
Quote:On Germans adopting longer spears - doesn't Tacitus mention one tribe using long spears in the C1stAD?...Tacitus 'Germania' 6 "Even iron is not plentiful with them,(the germans) as we infer from the character of their weapons. But few use swords or long lances.(maioribus lanceis) They carry a spear [hasta] (framea is their name for it), with a narrow and short head, but so sharp and easy to wield that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conflict. [c.f. lancea] As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a shield [scuto]and spear[framea]; the foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles[missilia] each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak.
There is no display about their equipment; their shields [scuta] alone are marked with very choice colors. A few only have corslets [loricae], and just one or two here and there a metal or leather helmet.[cassis aut galea] Their horses are remarkable neither for beauty nor for fleetness. Nor are they taught various evolutions after our fashion, but are driven straight forward, or so as to make one wheel to the right in such a compact body that none is left behind another. On the whole, one would say that their chief strength is in their infantry, which fights along with the cavalry; admirably adapted to the action of the latter is the swiftness of certain foot-soldiers, who are picked from the entire youth of their country, and stationed in front of the line."
Tacitus Annals1.64:"The barbarians attempted to break through the outposts and to throw themselves on the engineering parties, which they harassed, pacing round them and continually charging them. There was a confused din from the men at work and the combatants. Everything alike was unfavourable to the Romans, the place with its deep swamps, insecure to the foot and slippery as one advanced, limbs burdened with coats of mail/heavy armour, and the impossibility of aiming their javelins/pila amid the water. The Cherusci, on the other hand, were familiar with fighting in fens; they had huge frames, and lances long enough to inflict wounds even at a distance."
Annals2.14; Germanicus tries to raise morale by denigrating the Germans: "For the huge shields and unwieldy lances of the barbarians cannot, amid trunks of trees and brushwood that springs from the ground, be so well managed as our javelins and swords and closefitting armour. Shower your blows thickly; strike at the face with your swords' points. The German has neither cuirass nor helmet; even his shield is not strengthened with leather or steel, but is of osiers woven together or of thin and painted board. If their first line is armed with spears, the rest have only weapons hardened by fire or very short.[framea]"
Their number is fixed -- a hundred from each district; and from this they take their name among their countrymen, so that what was originally a mere number has no become a title of distinction. Their line of battle is drawn up in a wedge-like formation. To give ground, provided you return to the attack, is considered prudence rather than cowardice. The bodies of their slain they carry off even in indecisive engagements. To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes; nor may a man thus disgraced be present at the sacred rites, or enter their council; many, indeed, after escaping from battle, have ended their infamy with the halter."
...so in the first century, only the front rank/best equipped/warrior elite had long spears, and iron was precious. Doubtless this changed ( as has been referred to elsewhere ) and the Germans had more iron swords, iron spearheads etc later, though not that much....I can give figures from bog-finds of different periods if you like, which tend to confirm this view.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
