All Things Cannae

[Paullus Scipio]

Steven/Antiochus wrote:

Quote:
Do you suggest that a portion of the 'choicest' troops were left out of battle, while the elder Triarii took their place in the line?


I will back Polybius when he states two legions remained in the larger camp in order to attack Hannibal’s camp. I also believe the secondary camp was not manned during the battle, due to fourteen legions standing between it and Hannibal’s army.

...some misunderstanding here, I think. I agree with you that it is more likely that Paullus detailed two Legions etc to attack Hannibal's camp( see earlier post)......my quoted remark was intended in a general sense, to indicate that the 'elder' troops ( together with unfit for duty types) would generally be left to guard a camp, rather than 'choice' or 'prime troops', as a general rule. Unusually, Paullus wants to attack Hannibal's camp, and so details two legions etc to the task rather than 'the usual camp guard'

Duncan wrote:

If the source used the term hasta velitaris, would Livy know that an allusion to the pilum might have been meant?

...since he takes the trouble to describe the 'hastis velitaribus' in detail, a weapon not used in his day and hence unfamiliar to his readers, but not the pilum ( which was), I think it fairly clear that Livy knew the h.v. was not a pilum. If, as I think you mean 'pilum' may have been a generic term for all throwing weapons with long iron heads, and h.v. synonymous with this, then surely Livy would have said so.Instead he says it is a species of javelin(iacula) Livy's source obviously does mention the h.v., and may have described it too.Certainly Livy must have felt confident that he knew what this 'ancient' weapon of the 'special force', which replaced their 'normal pila', looked like to describe it in detail and say that the head was 'like that of the light troops'....which also matches Polybius' description of the Velites weapon. If ( and we don't know this for certain) the army Polybius described in his digression is that of the time, then the digression occurs at 217 BC and resumes at 216 BC, but Polybius does make the point that that he is digressing at this point in the narrative to describe the Roman Institutions (including the Military) at it's height....

But do we really know how long the socketed pilum was in the 3rd century?

I think we can be fairly certain .......archaeological specimens of socketed heads from Etruscan graves from Volci and dated 5th C BC, through to Imperial times, while varying individually, are consistently 70-80 cm (28-30 inches) long, with another group 28-35 cm(11-15 ins) corresponding reasonably well to Livy and Polybius' descriptions, of socketed pilum and h.v. respectively. Incidently, though I hesitate to mention it because I haven't verified it, John Gerson referred to an h.v. head, supposed to have been found on the battlefield of Telamon (225 BC) in issue no.109 of that August Journal "Slingshot", edited at the time by your illustrious self.... :wink:
If correct, that would demonstrate the weapon in use before the second Punic War.....

I'm a little confused here, so I'm going to edit this a little...In any case, Livy doesn't say that the weapon (of the picked force of legionaries) was a hasta velitaris, just that it was tipped like one agreed - "praefixa ferro quale hastis uelitaribus", as you quoted yourself. Whatever this weapon was ( of the picked force), therefore, it was not a hasta velitaris in the way that Livy (or Livy's source) understood the word. Hence the "not quite" of my original post - Livy does not say, as you implied, that the hasta velitaris was in use by the light infantry before this incident (or even during this incident, strictly!) Ah ! I see, you are saying that strictly speaking, Livy says "like hastis velitaribus", but does not specifically say that the h.v. is the weapon of light infantry ( though all translators treat it as such, as do lexicons)...but may be a generic piloum, as expressed by Rawson, but I don't find his idea at all convincing.)

Whatever this weapon was, therefore, it was not a hasta velitaris in the way that Livy (or Livy's source) understood the word.

That seems to be rather splitting hairs, especially given the individual variation in weapons.
Perhaps 'not quite identical' might be more appropriate....combining Livy's statement with Polybius' description,( and archaeological examples) they must be very alike, if not identical, and surely all are referring to the same weapon.

...and "swift ones", "fliers", presumably connected with velox.

I believe this is the more generally accepted derivation.....

light infantry (such as the rorarii) had always been "legionary", always been included in the organisation of the legions: the rorarii were as much "legionaries" as the hastati or principes.

...again, I don't think that is exactly what Livy says. His description referring to 'Rorarii' is specifically of the Roman Army (exercitus) lined up for battle, and not a description of a Legion.(Livy VIII.viii.9)That being so, it follows that 'leves' 'rorarii' and 'accenses' are probably not legionaries, who not only had to be full citizens, but of a certain wealth qualification to boot. ( and 'accenses' = attendants/slaves/servants are surely not qualified? ). In the light of Steven/Antiochus' last post, bearing in mind he has a thesis/book on this very subject, I'd be most interested to see his comments. He seems to be categoric that velites/light infantry only became part of the legions in 211 BC....

You're handling Livy a little selectively here, aren't you: accepting what he says about the hastati, but ignoring the fact that he does not anywhere mention shields for the rorarii, the "leves" of VIII.viii, or any other light infantry?

I don't believe so.Strictly speaking, in the paragraph[VIII.viii.8] describing the vexilla(Triarii,Rorarii and Accenses), making up the third line(ordo) he does not mention shields.So are they all shieldless? No-one doubts that Triarii had them though, not least because because he describes the Triarii kneeling beneath their banners (sub vexillis ) from which we may conclude he means all the vexilla/elements making up the third line(ordo) with shields leaning on their shoulders. Many scholars (e.g. Connolly, or Graham Vine in "Slingshot" no.116, again under your illustrious editorship ), therefore consider 'Rorarii' and 'Accenses' as Heavy Infantry with scuta, (Rorarii and accensi stand together in a line (Varro, l.c. from the Frivolaria of Plautus. ) or Peltast/thureophoroi-like, able to skirmish ( there are several references to this skirmishing - Livy , Festus and even Symmachus, in one of his epistles (VIII.47), draws an illustration from this source "tamquam levis armaturae miles Rorarios aemularis." etc

All somewhat confusing, I'll agree, and hence the on-going debate on the subject...as usual on subjects ancient, evidence is thin, and several interpretations are possible, such as the one you have put, but I believe on balance of probability.....'Rorarii' were essentially the Roman equivalent of thureophoroi....

Shielded peltasts may well have replaced unshielded javelinmen in Greece, but I think it would be hard to demonstrate such a change in Italy before 211.

The evidence is scanty, I would agree, and much must be deduced, but the 'rorarii' and possibly 'accensi' certainly sound to me in armament and role, much like their near contemporary Greek cousins, thureophoroi as a troop-type..... though the 'accensi', being mere attendants, may have been poorly armed as slingers and such-like - similar to the previous "5th class" troops.Even that agrees with contemporary practice elsewhere with mixed groups of javelinmen and slingers skirmishing. After all, in the whole Mediterranean world from Spain to Syria, shielded skirmishers seem to be the norm at this time.....

And "the rorarii(light infantry) of earlier Roman armies ... being incorporated in the Legions, may have had a name change" - but they were always part of the legions!

There is a curious link between rorarii and velites; the phrase "Rorarius velox" occurs twice in the fragments of Lucilius.....
...and as to them always being part of the legions, I strongly doubt that, for the reasons set out above regarding "army" rather than "legion", Livy's unambiguous statement [(and) it was made the practice to have light-armed/velites in the legions], Polybius' change of nomenclature corresponding to Livy's, and Steven/Antiochus' certainty about the matter !! D