3rd centrury Roman infantry tactics - Stephenson vs Cowan

[Anonymous]

In Ross Cowan's new book "Imperial Roman Legionary 161-284 A.D.", he asserts that Stephenson's view that the 3rd Century Roman infantryman had become primarily a spearman was "..nonsense". He maintains that the pilum, or some variation thereof, and "cut-and thrust" sword play were still the main tactic. He uses archeological evidence as his main argument, while Stephenson seems to use more contemporary written sources for his thesis. What divide to you forum members fall on? or a little of both?. It seems to me that both tactical approaches, dependent on the foe or situation, could be used in an era which demanded great flexilibity of Roam arms.<br>
<br>
Tom <p></p><i></i>