Later Roman spear length

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Do we have any evidence for how long spears were in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries AD?

Wondering because they often seem to be illustrated (and also reconstructed by some re-enactors looking at some pictures) as fairly long - well over man height in the 8' or longer region in some cases.

It was the illustration in the last issue of Ancient Warfare that promted me to think about it. (On which note was it just me or did those Alamanni have ND shield patterns?)

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Quite surprised that there haven't been any suggestions to my question hock:

Am I to take it that there is no information and the illustrators and re-enactors are just guessing and/or using what they feel comfortable with?

Oh, and whilst I'm at it, what's with this strange shoulder height spear position as (again) in the illustration in the Oct/Nov Ancient Warfare? Where did this come from?

[Robert Vermaat]

Quite surprised that there haven't been any suggestions to my question hock:

Hi Nick,

You take 7 hours as a reaction time? I just read your question! Hold your horses, will ya?

Actually, there's an article in the making about that...

I can give you a short answer - no actual finds from the Roman period exist.

The only physical remains come from the Danish Illerup Ǻdal and Nydam bog finds, which included three spear shafts. The Illerup examples measured between 2.23 m and 2.74m (app. 7-9 ft). The Nydam examples measured between 2.52 and 3.54m (app. 8-11 ft.).
Many of the weapons found there can be dated to the 3rd century, and many weapons seem to have originated in the Roman Empire (Stephenson 1999, 55; Stephenson 2006, 83; Ilkjaer 1989, 54-61, catalogue 1990).

Oh, and whilst I'm at it, what's with this strange shoulder height spear position as (again) in the illustration in the Oct/Nov Ancient Warfare? Where did this come from?

You mean good old Lepontius? I convinced that his hasta, like that of many others, is limited in lenght only by the available space of his funeral monument. Shal we say it's 'Vertically Challenged'? :wink:

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

You take 7 hours as a reaction time? I just read your question! Hold your horses, will ya?

On this forum that's slow :twisted:

Actually, there's an article in the making about that...

I can give you a short answer - no actual finds from the Roman period exist.

The only physical remains come from the Danish Illerup Ǻdal and Nydam bog finds, which included three spear shafts. The Illerup examples measured between 2.23 m and 2.74m (app. 7-9 ft). The Nydam examples measured between 2.52 and 3.54m (app. 8-11 ft.).
Many of the weapons found there can be dated to the 3rd century, and many weapons seem to have originated in the Roman Empire (Stephenson 1999, 55; Stephenson 2006, 83; Ilkjaer 1989, 54-61, catalogue 1990).

Thanks. I have to say I'm slightly skeptical about these sorts of finds being attributed wholly to the Romans as it is, IMO, quite possible that whilst the metal parts were Roman that the wooden parts may have been local - either as made originally with a Roman spearpoint then attached or as a later replacement for breakage.

Oh, and whilst I'm at it, what's with this strange shoulder height spear position as (again) in the illustration in the Oct/Nov Ancient Warfare? Where did this come from?

You mean good old Lepontius? I convinced that his hasta, like that of many others, is limited in lenght only by the available space of his funeral monument. Shal we say it's 'Vertically Challenged'? :wink:

Ah, sorry I was unclear - I meant the illustration of Strasbourg in the latest Ancient Warfare. However, I recall, since you mention the book, that the strage (IMO) spear use position also comes from Stephenson's book - didn't really believe it would be (commonly) used when I read the book, and still don't.

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks. I have to say I'm slightly skeptical about these sorts of finds being attributed wholly to the Romans as it is, IMO, quite possible that whilst the metal parts were Roman that the wooden parts may have been local - either as made originally with a Roman spearpoint then attached or as a later replacement for breakage.

OK, I can accept that, but from my end I accept the theory that the method of warfare up North had begun to reflect the warfare down South. In other words, if germans began to use longer infantry spears, chances are the long infantry spears of the Romans would have been of similar lenght.

If you're looking for answers from actual finds that's where you'll end up. Now, when it comes to sources, I've found a few that could actually speak for longer hastae. Now don't think ill of me if I don't blow all my aeticle away.. I'll be brief.

Some written sources express the pilum as too short for the anti-cavalry warfare in the early 3rd c. In Greek sources, the words used for the hasta (sarissa, dory) allow us to see it as a longer weapon, longer than the pilum at any rate. However, none of these sources actually tell us how short or long the weapons described were. Nor can we unequivocally determine if the weapon is too long to be thrown. I have several pages worth of pure terminology, where the main task is to determine what each author had in mind when he chose the word that he actually used.

So let's turn to images for better answers. Here we have more success, there are some clear depictings of hastae that are between 7 and 9 ft. long, like the Danish bog finds. Can't show you all of them, but some.
For instance, from different versions of the Vergilius Vaticanus, like this image :

Or the Theodosius misssorium:

Ah, sorry I was unclear - I meant the illustration of Strasbourg in the latest Ancient Warfare. However, I recall, since you mention the book, that the strage (IMO) spear use position also comes from Stephenson's book - didn't really believe it would be (commonly) used when I read the book, and still don't.

Oh, the hasta at horizontal position!

Well, I can assure you from personal experience that for a horizontal stab I prefer this above the overarm position! Johnson is surely right about two things: you can grab the shaft much further to the rear (increasing your range) and your arm is indeed much more protected.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Thanks for the pics - very useful.

On Germans adopting longer spears - doesn't Tacitus mention one tribe using long spears in the C1stAD?

On the spear grip one of my issues with it is if it is so good why didn't hoplites and earlier spearmen use it? Ages ago I gave it ago and I found that compared with the overarm thrust it was much weaker in terms of the blow that can be delivered.

Mind you I'm not convinced about the abandonment of throwing the spear and getting stuck in with the sword either so ... :lol:

[Iagoba]

You child scarer!:lol:
They loved it, no?

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks for the pics - very useful.

My pleasure.

On the spear grip one of my issues with it is if it is so good why didn't hoplites and earlier spearmen use it? Ages ago I gave it ago and I found that compared with the overarm thrust it was much weaker in terms of the blow that can be delivered.

Can't tell you for sure, it's a theory and no-one actually describes an overarm or underarm grip. But my guess would be that hoplites fought hoplites, and the first time we hear of the complaints about too short spears it's against heavy cavalry. But Macedonian phalangists did not use their sarissas overarm, right?

Mind you I'm not convinced about the abandonment of throwing the spear and getting stuck in with the sword either so ... :lol:

Me neither, it's not that effective whilst engaging enemy cavalry... :wink:

You child scarer!:lol:
They loved it, no?

They sure did!!

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

On the spear grip one of my issues with it is if it is so good why didn't hoplites and earlier spearmen use it? Ages ago I gave it ago and I found that compared with the overarm thrust it was much weaker in terms of the blow that can be delivered.

Can't tell you for sure, it's a theory and no-one actually describes an overarm or underarm grip. But my guess would be that hoplites fought hoplites, and the first time we hear of the complaints about too short spears it's against heavy cavalry. But Macedonian phalangists did not use their sarissas overarm, right?

At least for hoplites we have depictions of them in both overarm and underarm style, but never, to my (imperfect) knowledge, with a stance like that proposed for the Romans.

BTW whose complaints about too short spears against cavalry are you refering to? Greeks or Romans?

Regarding the sarissa - you try holding an 18' spear one handed and you'll probably find out why they used both hands :wink: and underarm works better for that on foot I would suggest. I'd also note in passing that the sarissa doesn't appear to have been adopted as a response to cavalry (well so conventional thinking says, there is a suggestion by sombody that the Makedonians only adopted it before Hydaspes IIRC but I'm not sure about that).

[FAVENTIANVS]

Is this manuscript the original or a mediaeval copy like the Notitia Dignitatum?

[PMBardunias]

On the spear grip one of my issues with it is if it is so good why didn't hoplites and earlier spearmen use it? Ages ago I gave it ago and I found that compared with the overarm thrust it was much weaker in terms of the blow that can be delivered.

If we accept that the dory had to be thrust through the "V" formed by overlapping shields the overarm thrust becomes more attractive. In this setting the overarm thrust can be brought to bear in a much wider range of motion and from above.

Additionally, if hoplites fought square to the enemy with their shields against their bodies from upperchest to thighs, as opposed to the side-on stance pictured above, the protection of this posture is lost.

I agree that if they fought as the fellow in the picture above then the high underhand might be useful. All of the images of this position I can think of from greek vases are men in single combat, usually heroic, and when they face cavalry.

[Paullus Scipio]

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:-

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.

[Agraes]

Late roman infantry seems to have fight with the lance overarm. IMO it's more effective in an infantry vs infantry combat, this way you can use your scutum in percussion in full strenght. Fighting with the spear underarm is very static, and I think good only versus cavalry. So spear shouldn't be too long, I would say around 2 meters.

There is some iconographical evidence of this overarm fight. Here on the arch of Constantine:
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8258 ... in29qx.jpg

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree that if they fought as the fellow in the picture above then the high underhand might be useful. All of the images of this position I can think of from greek vases are men in single combat, usually heroic, and when they face cavalry.

As 'the fellow above' I would be very much interested in images of the 'high underhand' grip.

[Robert Vermaat]

Is this manuscript the original or a mediaeval copy like the Notitia Dignitatum?

Hi Ivan,

The The Vergilius Vaticanus, Cod. Vat. lat. 3225 is an original manuscript, dated to the 4th or 5th c.