spear or pilum?

[vergilius]

Hello
Like I said in the 'new recruits' topic I'm a painter of figurines. I'm about to start on a soldier of an auxiliary unit.
I read a lot of them now and most books say that auxiliary units didn't use a pilum but a 'common' spear.
Is this true because I saw some pictures on the internet of reenactors dressed like them but with a pilum? Did they use both or not?

[M. Demetrius]

All I've ever heard is that auxilia used hasta, legionary regulars used the pilum.

[Praefectusclassis]

And a hasta means spear in general (ie stick with point). :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

I heard that there was no such restriction, and that both weapons were found in forts of both legionary- as well as auxilia units.

[arklore70]

Patrick,
as a general rule the auxilia used the spear/hasta. There is some evidence/finds surfacing that might in the future conclude that this may not have always been the case. RMRS has some good articles on the topic of auxilia equipment.

Legionaries were not solely limited to the use of the Lorica Segmentata and would have also worn Lorica Hamata and Lorcia Squamata like the Auxilia troops. This may be perhaps what is causing the confusion.

Post a pic and we can get a bit more clarity for you.
v/r
Mike

[Marcus Julius]

What about javelin throwers in the Auxilliaries. If the Pila were so superior to an ordinary javelin, wouldn't the generals have wanted their javelin chucking skirmishers to have them?

Certainly the hasta for melee combat, though.

[M. Demetrius]

I can't remember where I read it right now, but in "a text" there was a statment of concern that auxiliary groups might rebel, and if they* did, the legions would not have wanted their foes to have the "best" javelins.

[Marcus Julius]

I can't remember where I read it right now, but in "a text" there was a statment of concern that auxiliary groups might rebel, and if they* did, the legions would not have wanted their foes to have the "best" javelins.

That would make sense. I seem to remember something along the lines of a warning not to let the auxilliaries overpower or outnumber the legions? Vegetius maybe?

[vergilius]

Thank you for the vast amont of answers. When the figure is finished I'll post a picture of it (with Hasta !)

[vergilius]

http://www.romeomodels.com/product_info ... ucts_id=45

with this link you can see some pictures of the figure I'm going to paint. I replace the sword with a hasta and put him on a piece representing Hadrians wall.
Now let your expert eyes take a look and let me know if there 're some mistakes or impossibilities on this figure.

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

As I understood it, the typical weapon of the auxiliary was the lancea, a lighter spear good for throwing or thrusting. It's shown in artwork as having a throwing loop, and soldiers on gravestones and such often have a pair. "Hasta" is generally used these days for a spear mainly made for thrusting, not throwing, but of course the ancients were a lot looser in their use of terminology than we like!

I had also thought that there was growing evidence for mixed garrisons in many forts. So a pilum head in an "auxiliary" fort might have come from a small legionary contingent. BUT it could be a circular argument--the evidence for a mixed garrison could BE that pilum head! I don't recall if there is more evidence besides finds like that. (Inscriptions, maybe?)

So it's a gray area, but keeping the pilum with the legionaries and spears with the auxiliaries is still "safe", at least.

Valete,

Matthew

[Robert Vermaat]

"Hasta" is generally used these days for a spear mainly made for thrusting, not throwing, but of course the ancients were a lot looser in their use of terminology than we like!

Exactly! And apart from using names in a very loose manner, the ancient sources are also very unclear what was done with the weapons described. So, personally, when a source does not explicitly tells us that a weapon was used more than once (in which case it must be a thrusting weapon), it's even unsafe to assume it was used for thrusting OR throwing.

[Paullus Scipio]

Valerius/Robert wrote:-

Exactly! And apart from using names in a very loose manner, the ancient sources are also very unclear what was done with the weapons described. So, personally, when a source does not explicitly tells us that a weapon was used more than once (in which case it must be a thrusting weapon), it's even unsafe to assume it was used for thrusting OR throwing.

...I'm not sure I would agree with this, Robert......the impression I get is that when the source is contemporary, military terminology tends to be exact, especially if the writer has a military background e.g. Xenophon or Polybius. Thus if a longche/lancea is referred to, the reader was expected to know this was a dual purpose, short spear for throwing and/or thrusting, and this was a different weapon from a veles (light pila-like javelin) or indeed pila, which was different again from a saunion! Polybius and his readers well knew the differences between the weapons, and how they were used...just as a modern militaria reader would know what the author meant if they referred to an AK47, M16 or HK MP5. Later writers and lexicographers then often 'muddy the waters' by trying to sound learned about weapons that no longer exist, or whose meaning has changed.(writing often some hundreds of years later...just as a few hundred years from now, an author might explain that Ak47,M16 and MP5 were basically all just 'automatic rifles', blurring their very different performances) This in turn leads to 'modern' confusion. Hasta, I think, originally meant the long (7-8 ft) thrusting spear, equivalent to the greek Dory, or "great spear". Later it may have come to have a more generic meaning, equivalent to "spear".
As Matt Amt wrote, the typical weapon of early imperial auxiliaries seems to be the lancea(larn-chee-a), the short dual-purpose throwing/thrusting spear. This weapon had a long pedigree, going back to Homeric times ( when Heroes carried a pair of 'throwing' spears) until replaced in Southern Greece with the rise of 'Hoplite' warfare by the Dory "great Spear"/long thrusting spear. The 'throwing spear', generally used and carried in pairs, and as Matt pointed pointed out, often with throwing loops attached continued in use in the Balkans/Macedonia/Thrace as the Longche(lon-chee-er) from where it spread to be used by mercenaries etc. Some Classical Greek writers may have called it the 'Thracian spear' to distinguish it from the DoryThe weapon may also have been native to Italy and other places too, but Polybius calls this weapon longche and evidently this balkan name stuck(since lancea is clearly derived from it.) No doubt it was its dual purpose flexibility as a weapon that led to its longevity and eventual use in Imperial Legions after 100 AD.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,

I’ve cut up your post a bit to make my answer easier. Btw I think we agree more than you think. Some authors indeed have a good grasp of what they are describing, but later meaning change so much that we modern readers must take great care in interpreting what we read.

...I'm not sure I would agree with this, Robert......the impression I get is that when the source is contemporary, military terminology tends to be exact, especially if the writer has a military background e.g. Xenophon or Polybius.
[..]
Polybius and his readers well knew the differences between the weapons, and how they were used...just as a modern militaria reader would know what the author meant if they referred to an AK47, M16 or HK MP5. Later writers and lexicographers then often 'muddy the waters' by trying to sound learned about weapons that no longer exist, or whose meaning has changed.(writing often some hundreds of years later...just as a few hundred years from now, an author might explain that Ak47,M16 and MP5 were basically all just 'automatic rifles', blurring their very different performances) This in turn leads to 'modern' confusion.

It's most of the time not that easy. IF ONLY typology (AK47, M16 or HK MP5) had existed like that. But of course it did not, and even today it does not. mentioning a AK47, M16 or HK MP5 will no doubt mean a lot to specialists, but to my mother it would mean nothing.
And the trouble is that even most contemporary sources do not use words like that, but (as you already indicated) generalistic descriptions like ‘gun’, semi-automatic-gun’, or ‘automatic weapon’, which of course tells the specialist nothing.

Thus if a longche/lancea is referred to, the reader was expected to know this was a dual purpose, short spear for throwing and/or thrusting, and this was a different weapon from a veles (light pila-like javelin) or indeed pila, which was different again from a saunion!

Hasta, I think, originally meant the long (7-8 ft) thrusting spear, equivalent to the greek Dory, or "great spear". Later it may have come to have a more generic meaning, equivalent to "spear".

As Matt Amt wrote, the typical weapon of early imperial auxiliaries seems to be the lancea(larn-chee-a), the short dual-purpose throwing/thrusting spear. This weapon had a long pedigree, going back to Homeric times ( when Heroes carried a pair of 'throwing' spears) until replaced in Southern Greece with the rise of 'Hoplite' warfare by the Dory "great Spear"/long thrusting spear. The 'throwing spear', generally used and carried in pairs, and as Matt pointed pointed out, often with throwing loops attached continued in use in the Balkans/Macedonia/Thrace as the Longche(lon-chee-er) from where it spread to be used by mercenaries etc. Some Classical Greek writers may have called it the 'Thracian spear' to distinguish it from the DoryThe weapon may also have been native to Italy and other places too, but Polybius calls this weapon longche and evidently this balkan name stuck(since lancea is clearly derived from it.) No doubt it was its dual purpose flexibility as a weapon that led to its longevity and eventual use in Imperial Legions after 100 AD.

OK, that sounds clear enough, provided we can be sure that the word used rally refers to the weapon used. Take the hasta for instance. Or the kontus. Synomys are used for varying weapons, and clearly the names of weapons over time become used for entirely different weapons.

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.

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.

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).
So what does Arrian mean? A hasta? Not a pilum, because the Greek word for that is ‘hyssos’, while the common Greek word for hasta would indeed be ‘dory’. And since his ranks 2 to 4 must level their spears for skirmishing and not throw them, so it’s not likely that he had a ‘lancea’ in mind either.

Herodian referred to the Roman army in the Parthian War of Caracalla (216-218 AD) as “an infantry force which was invincible in close-quarter fighting with spearsâ€

[Matthew Amt]

Ooooo, you guys are GOOOD! Great stuff. I also recall running across some passage or other that referred to someone throwing javelins, but when we eagerly looked up the original text it simply said "tela"--"weapons"! Not much help when they get vague like that.

Valete!

Matthew