spear or pilum?

[Crispvs]

Sorry to break into what has really become as very interesting thread, but I thought I would comment on the figure that Vergilius is planning to paint.

To my mind the helmet would give the figure a dating of the very late second or probably early third century (I am not keen on the practice of assigning entire centuries in place of more accurate dating). This probably makes the position of his sword a bit incongruous, as I believe there is good reason to think that by that point the sword was generally being worn on the left side. Added to that the sword appears to be a Pompeii type, which would by then be a museum piece which had been replaced by other sword types for eighty years or more. Similarly he is wearing an apron on the front of his belt in the manner of mid-first century AD soldiers. All in all then, I am afraid that this model is rather a mish-mash and would probably require a lot of conversion work to get it right prior to painting. Of course, if the head were to be changed for one which is wearing something along the lines of the Hebron helmet then that would probably be an easier conversion and would give a general dating of the end of the first quarter of the second century AD, although I am not sure what the evidence is for aprons by then.

Crispvs

[vergilius]

Thanks for checking the figure Crispus!
the head can be removed (hard handedly) as well as the sword.
Another discussion is the colour of the cape. Everybody things Romans wore only Red mantles But what other realistic colours could have been used?
By the way, this is indeed getting a very interesting thread. (And I thought I just asked a stupid question)

[Nerva]

I find it very hard to accept that legionaries were confined to the Pilum and Auxiliaries to the Hasta. As has been shown above these terms are often used loosely and the original text can often be less specific than quoted.

Think of it practically. To say that such a restriction existed would be to imply a degree of standardization of equipment and the army which I find hard to accept. Look at a modern army in the field and look at the variation of equipment used by soldiers serving similar functions. Just to give you one specific and simple example. The Irish army use the Styre Aug. They were issued with a 'standard' bayonet that is prone to failure. Look at any army unit now and you will see a handful of 'standard' bayonets and a whole range of private purchases.

Yes I do believe that there were auxiliary units that did only use a thrusting spear, but I believe that was because it suited their fighting style more than the Pilum.

The archaeological record is inconclusive, 'spear' heads have been found with Pilum shaft's and both lorica segmentata fittings and pilum shafts have been found at auxiliary sites in the UK. Soldiers are shown carrying both at Adamklissi. The only monument that I'm aware of to shown such standardization is Trajans Column, and we've never found evidence that such a style of segmentata existed.

Personally I think that the pilum/hasta argument is a bit like the bending pilum shaft one. There are certain ideas that make it into our historical memory, making them difficult to challenge. I have no doubt that as time passes and archeology develops a very different image of the Roman army will emerge.

As for the painted figure...give him H&K G36 :wink:

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Yes I do believe that there were auxiliary units that did only use a thrusting spear, but I believe that was because it suited their fighting style more than the Pilum

Could you please point to the evidence that some auxiliary units used spears only for thrusting?

Thanks,

[Robert Vermaat]

I find it very hard to accept that legionaries were confined to the Pilum and Auxiliaries to the Hasta. As has been shown above these terms are often

My thoughts exactly Martin! And I knew I read it somewhere, and here it is:
Marchant, David (1990): Roman weapons in Great Britain, a case study: spearheads, problems in dating and typology, in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 1-6.

Some of the finds [pilum points] are clearly in legionary contexts but there are enough finds from auxiliary forts to suggest that the pilum may have been used outside the legions.

[D B Campbell]

Synomys are used for varying weapons, and clearly the names of weapons over time become used for entirely different weapons.

Well said, Robert!

I just noticed this thread -- apologies for chipping in so belatedly -- and my first thought was the terminology of Arrian (a "technical" writer whose terminology can be infuriatingly obscure). You have gone one better with your excellent catalogue of examples!

The papyri and original documents ought to be the safest evidence, reflecting actual contemporary usage. But of course, the fact that the cavalry troopers at Carlisle were using lanceae doesn't necessarily mean that all cavalry troopers used this weapon.

[M. Demetrius]

Don't forget also, that many cultures used iron tipped javelins that partly or very closely resembled the pilum in function...solifera in Spain, angon and gaesum in other Celtic and Germanic cultures, and add in that there were at least three generic types of pila, and the whole questions gets a little harder to pin down. Some pila had small leaf shaped points, others the more often seen pyramid.

So is it safe to say that when it comes right down to the razor, nobody totally knows for sure?

[Robert Vermaat]

angon and gaesum in other Celtic and Germanic cultures

Both the angon and the gaesum are much later weapons. While both seem developed from the Roman pilum they're different - the gaesum, as far as we know of course, seems to have been a barbed weapon unlike the pilum. Besides, I can see the difference between a pilum and an angon right away, it's not difficult.

[M. Demetrius]

Of course we can see the difference, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that the same general sort of javelin existed in other places, and some say the solifera was the daddy of them all. I don't think I could make that claim, nor would I try, but the records over in Iberia aren't all as complete as Tacitus. We don't know for sure if the idea wasn't taken back to Rome by some traveller or explorer, and the Roman smiths used that plan, but substituted a wood shaft for the first 4 feet or so.

What I was talking about was the elongated iron shaft/point is not unique to the pilum of Roman issue. Other cultures had the same sort of spear tip, and not all originated with Rome.

The point is, as originally mentioned, that we don't know for sure if auxilia were allowed to use the pilum as a regular matter of course. My gut guess is that if the fort were under attack, whatever could be put in the hand of an able soldier would be put there. Pilum, javelin, fist sized rock, whatever.

[Paullus Scipio]

O.K. - let us continue with our little digression on the subject of 'weapon types' and the way in which later writers used ( or, as is so often the case mis-used terminology. Later writers are indeed, as you have pointed out, Robert, something of a mine-field - not least because of their predilection and fondness for wanting to use 'archaic' terms borrowed from 'ancient' and revered literature.........

Robert wrote:-

Synonyms are used for varying weapons, and clearly the names of weapons over time become used for entirely different weapons.

....see above explanation - the desire to use 'ancient' terminology is strong in later writers....

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

......and that is exactly right. If we take Hasta as the single handed 7-8ft thrusting spear, then the sarissa(Macedonian pike) is indeed " a very long thrusting spear" - no confusion or problem here !
Hasta at this time also has a generic meaning of 'spear/shafted weapon', similar to English - thus Polybius refers to hasta velitaris lit; 'spear or shafted weapon of the velites' to mean the 'mini pila/javelin' with which they were equipped (carrying seven in total)

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.

....quite right - using generic Hasta/spear as a translation, a sarissa is a type of spear - a very long one, for which the Romans had no word in latin because they didn't use this Macedonian weapon. Livy and Curtius are also writing for audiences several hundred years after Macedonian sarissas have vanished, hence their need to explain to audiences in words they would understand just what it is.

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.

......this is not quite correct and we must back-pedal a little.Xyston is originally the generic term for a spear-shaft , but later is specifically the 8-12 ft (2.4-3.6 m) cavalry lance, carried by Alexander and the Companion cavalry. Josephus was a jewish historian in the first century, trying to write a history of the revolt for Romans, in Greek, which he all too obviously, from his writings, did not speak well - as all his translators acknowledge. Hardly surprising that he used one of many greek words for 'spear' ( and be it noted, there was no proper greek word for pila because this was not a greek weapon, just as sarissa was not a Roman one). He also incorrectly calls the Legionary shield 'Aspis(round circular Hoplite shield)' when talking of the legionary General's bodyguard,and may mean a roman circular shield (parma) ( longche/lancea and Aspis armed)but correctly calls the ordinary legionary shield and the cavalry shield 'thureos'( greek equivalent of scutum/oval shield/'long' shield), and refers to legionaries as 'hoplites' at times. He calls the Roman cavalry lance a 'kontos' ( lit: punting pole used in shallow rivers, or 'bargepole'), which was greek slang for a xyston !!)
All in all, writing in a foreign language about technical military terms, we can forgive Josephus' occasional errors - if indeed they are so (see below), I think!

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).

.........Again, this is not quite correct.
Flavius Arrianus Xenophon, to give him his full name, was of Greek descent and grew up in Bythinia, and eventually rose to be Consul under Hadrian and in his "Contra Alani", we have preserved a genuine set of Roman battle dispositions, written by the commander.The kontos described here appears to be the pilum, the classic heavy javelin of the legionary heavy infantry with its bendable iron shank,(Arrian tells us this un-mistakeably) rather than the two handed 12 ft cavalry spear used by some heavy cavalry contarii. A generally applied Greek vocabulary for translation of Latin terminology does not seem to have been adopted despite centuries of contact with the Roman army. The word hyssos was used by several Greek authors, most notably Polybius, as the Greek term for pilum, while Flavius Josephus employed the word xyston.Interestingly, Arrian is writing only thirty or forty years after Josephus, and he uses kontos( the slang for xyston) so in essence the same term.Perhaps Josephus is accurately using a contemporary greek term for pilum correctly after all. The use of the pilum as a stabbing weapon rather than a javelin is not unique: Caesar’s legionaries had done the same during the siege of Alesia according to the De bello Gallico and it occurs on other occasions too.
The 'lonchophoroi' are clearly lancea armed legionaries ( though it should be noted that Arrian has some skirmishers (gk: Psiloi) armed with lancea too.
[digression; Josephus has legionary guards armed with lancea,Arrian a proportion of the legionaries lancea armed, as does the Marcus Aurelius column and later Lanciarii are a recognised heavy infantry type, so it appears that from the late 1st C AD, the pilum was gradually partly replaced by the more generalised lancea in the legions.]
No confusion here then - kontophoroi are pila armed and longchophoroi are lancea armed !!
[quote]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€

[Paullus Scipio]

David/M.Demetrius wrote:-

What I meant was that the same general sort of javelin existed in other places, and some say the solifera was the daddy of them all. I don't think I could make that claim, nor would I try, but the records over in Iberia aren't all as complete as Tacitus. We don't know for sure if the idea wasn't taken back to Rome by some traveller or explorer, and the Roman smiths used that plan, but substituted a wood shaft for the first 4 feet or so.

The pilum first appears in northern Italy at the beginning of the fourth century BC, and the earliest examples are painted in Etruscan tombs, together with archaeological examples - it is clearly a native Italian invention.
The heavy throwing spear called soliferrum is a different weapon again, being a slender, all-iron affair and appearing at around the same time or actually a little later in fourth century Spain. By the late third century, the expensive all-iron soliferra are less often seen, and are supplemented by pila copies, called falarica, though the all-iron soliferra lingers on - the Macedonian king Perseus is wounded by one, possibly wielded by a spanish auxiliary, (168 BC) and an officer of Sextus Pompeius is hit by one in a naval battle in the Civil Wars.
The intention ( heavy penetrating throwing weapon) was the same but Italians and Iberians came up with different solutions and the two weapons are clearly not related.......

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the very detailed reaction. My listing, however, was in the first place not to look at each author for the correct use of the terminology, but to show how terminology changed over time.

To the list an apology about the massive quotes, but in this case I felt that, otherwise, it would become a bit difficult to follow. For that reason I’ve also cut up the original reply into sections dealing with each author.

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

......and that is exactly right. If we take Hasta as the single handed 7-8ft thrusting spear, then the sarissa(Macedonian pike) is indeed " a very long thrusting spear" - no confusion or problem here !
Hasta at this time also has a generic meaning of 'spear/shafted weapon', similar to English - thus Polybius refers to hasta velitaris lit; 'spear or shafted weapon of the velites' to mean the 'mini pila/javelin' with which they were equipped (carrying seven in total)

IF the writer chooses to inform us with that additional information (‘hasta praelonga’, ‘hasta velitaris’) there is no problem. However, most authors do not see the need to do that, which is where the confusion starts. A simple description like ‘hasta’ thus can mean anything.

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

....quite right - using generic Hasta/spear as a translation, a sarissa is a type of spear - a very long one, for which the Romans had no word in latin because they didn't use this Macedonian weapon. Livy and Curtius are also writing for audiences several hundred years after Macedonian sarissas have vanished, hence their need to explain to audiences in words they would understand just what it is.

Isn’t that exactly the problem? IF we use ‘hasta’ as a generic word for spear we’re not confused, but we are then still not an inch further in lifting the confusion that is still possible – DID the author in question really mean a two handed long spear or just any spear? As I said above, if a sarissa can be a hasta and a one-handed spear can be a hasta, and a kontos can be a long infantry spear, and a pilum as well (your interpretation of Arrian, below), then what do we actually know when an author uses the word ‘hasta’? Not much, we’d still be looking at the circumstances and speculate.

[Robert Vermaat]

Vegetius mentioned the kontos as an infantry spear by referring to enemy infantry as ‘contati’, as well as the ‘contus’ being used as a throwing weapon in a siege (Veg. III.6, IV.17). So here the kontus, a two-handed cavalry thrusting weapon, already becomes an infantry weapon that can be thrown

.....something is wrong with your references here - Vegetius wrote in latin(not greek), and there are only three books ( so no book IV) but whatever the correct source/reference, there is again no problem provided we remember the 'kontos' is the preferred greek translation of pilum( or as Vegetius tells us, latterly called spiculum)...so the pilum/spiculum is thrown in a siege, and barbarian infantry may carry it.

Well, my references are quite OK here, I checked it.
Book IV is mostly on siege warfare and, all too bad, the English translations online fail to translate it. Nevertheless we have a good online version from the Latin Library..
Anyway, even though Vegetius wrote in Latin, it is the terminology he used:
Veg. III.6: Iam uero utrum peditibus an equitibus, utrum contatis an sagittariis amplius ualeant,
Veg. IV.17: In superioribus autem turris illius partibus contati et sagittarii collocantur, qui defensores urbis ex alto contis missibilibus saxisque prosternant.

And actually, the description of the two-handed Sarmatian cavalry spears with a similar word as the (one-handed) infantry spear may not cause confusion, but it’s typical for the terminology – just about any pole arm is called a hasta in this list, whether it’s a two-handed infantry spear, a two-handed cavalry spear, a longer or a shorter infantry spear. If that’s not confusing I don’t know what is.

[Crispvs]

Sorry to but in again, but I thought I would address the point about auxiliaries needing javelins.

Pila were far from the only type of javelin used by the Roman army and small spearheads and large 'bolt heads' are fairly common finds on many Roman military sites. In all likelihood many or most of these are javelin heads. Therefore, there is no need to think that just because auxilia did not have the pilum they would have been without javelins. I think the opposite would have been true in fact. I get the feeling from this and the tombstone evidence that being equipped with two or more javelins would have fairly normal in many auxiliary units. These javelins do not need to have been pila.

I tend to see the pilum as something of a shock trooper's weapon. It is a heavy javelin designed to be used over a short distance. To my mind the obvious tactics for use with this type of weapon would be either to break an enemy charge at close range or to use as an immediate prelude to charging into combat with the sword. If legionaries filled the role of shock troops this might also help explain the apparent brigading of different units with each other in newly conquered areas.

Crispvs