spear or pilum?

[Robert Vermaat]

I disagree. The word ‘kontos’, like you say, becomes the name of a 12 ft. cavalry spear.

...that is not what I said. 'Nickname' and 'name' in English have two completely different meanings, To say in slang that a cavalryman carried a 'bargepole' is a humourous reference to a large spear, not at all the same as a proper name for a 12 ft cavalry spear.

Yes, in that last quote you said it was a nickname, but in every post in this discussion you have used the word 'name' when discussing the kontos. I really don't see what the problem is here - are you suggesting that the 12-ft cavalry spear was nicknamed 'kontos' but named something different? If not, wwhat are you on about? If so, then what was the 'proper' name?
And are you suggesting that when Arrian has his infantry use a 'kontos', which you time again again say was slang for a bargepole, he was still thinking of a pilum that does not even remotely look like the 12-ft cavalry spear but apparently (according to you) was still fit to be called a 'bargepole' like 12-ft cavalry spear?

You've lost me there.

...or a long infantry spear. Both are thrusting weapons.

This is important. No ancient source demonstrably uses the term 'kontos' to mean an Infantry spear. This is pure supposition, based on the known cavalry weapon nickname, and Arrian and others use of the word. There is no connection, in fact. This is not "incorrect" as you claim.

I seem to have to repeat myself again. Ancient sources who use the word 'kontos'or 'contus' for infantry spears:"
Julianus Africanus mentioned that Macrinus’ legions at Nisibis (217 AD) were equipped with ‘kontoi’ (Jul.Afr. Cest. I.1.82, 84).
Vegetius mentioned the kontos as an infantry spear by referring to enemy infantry as ‘contati’, as well as the ‘contus’ being used in a siege (Veg. III.6, IV.17).
Agathios mentioned that Narses’ heavy infantry at Casilinum (554 AD) had ‘kontoi’ (Agath. II.9.10).
Maurice equipped his heavy infantry with ‘kontaria’ (Strat. XIIA.57-60, BXVI.41-51) that were used in defence amongst others against cavalry attacks.

These are all infantry spears.

And I’ve been quoting plenty of people who are at least contemplating the possibility.

....and I know plenty of people who are not only contemplating, but actually allege, the earth is flat ! :wink:
Don't make it so, though, Robert ! :lol: :lol: It all depends on their credibility...perhaps we will see more when you post the promised study on Arrian....

Are in an election or something, that you feel you must throw mud at me? :x I have not even presented my case and already you need to make ad hominem remarks about credibility?

And that suddenly means that everywhere an author uses ‘kontos’ in an infantry connection, it means that they had a pilum in mind?

...of course, I agree with you here - not necessarily so, but in the context, a pilum is consistent with all the references each of us has referred to, but a 12ft cavalry spear is not....

Paul, you know as well as I do that a weapon changed name and appearance. When Ammianus Marcellinus writes that Late Roman infantry used the spatha, do we call him nuts or a user of archaic language? When authors have infantry use a kontos or a contus, of course that does not mean they see a 12-ft lance, the weapon may well have been shorter. But only if you insist that EVERY time the word was used we MUST think of a 12-ft lance, yes, then of course it become silly.
But frankly, insisting that a kontos/contus was always and always and always 12-ft long, that sounds rather silly to me.
Especially since almost no ancient author ever gives details about length. By far the most use generic words like 'hasta' when it comes to spears, anyway.
I could begin arguing that the word 'pilum' changed it's meaning from a 6-7 ft throwing spear to a 9-ft. throwing lance with as much conviction as your insisting that the word 'kontos' always must refer to a 12-ft. lance.

So you ARE claiming that the legionary infantry carried the pilum or the lancea and that in your opinion there is no room for a suggestion of anything else.

...not at all, but the iconography/archaeology also happens to be consistent with pila/lancea armed legionaries, and no shred of evidence for legionaries armed with thick 12 ft cavalry spears.....

Well, see my reply above. You have in the past denied that you support the dogma of legionary infantry being armed only with pila and lancea, but you keep coming back to it.. No-one is arguing that they were armed with a 12-ft lance, but you insist that the kontos could be only that. While at the same time you see no problem of translating 'kontos' with 'pilum' when used by Africanus and Arrian.

Paullus Scipio\\n[quote][quote]And furthermore, it never “came to be used as a translation of 'pilum'â€