spear or pilum?

[M. Demetrius]

Well, Robert, you're ahead of me! I was confused before the discussion even began. A little more salt in the shaker isn't a big thing from my perspective... :? lol:

[D B Campbell]

IMPENDING HERESY WARNING!
Paullus Scipio\\n[quote]Vortigern Studies\\n[quote]Why do you interpret the ‘kontos’ as “un-mistakablyâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

Duncan my friend, you're mowing the grass before my feet!

I was preparing a reply specifically about Arrian and the possible use of a topos in one of his passages.

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

There is a third possibility, which Robert hinted at, and I think it's a very real possibility. If we assume that, for some bizarre reason, Arrian has decided to call the pilum a kontos, has he lazily inserted a topos which properly belongs to the thrown pilum, but is inappropriate here because his men are not going to throw their pila?
And, if we acknowledge that the "bending" is just a topos that Arrian has inserted because he read it in Caesar, maybe the weapon isn't a pilum at all! How can we tell?

Robert wrote:-

I was preparing a reply specifically about Arrian and the possible use of a topos in one of his passages.

Gentlemen, this is surely 'special pleading' and clutching at straws, most unlikely in the extreme! hock:
Firstly, all commentators on Arrian that I have seen in over forty years are agreed that the Ectaxis is a genuine set of Roman Battle Orders, or Military Briefing.What place would a 'topos' or literary flourish have in such a document ? So why should we 'acknowlege' something you've just made up on the basis of no evidence whatever. This is just "what if ?" stuff. Highly unlikely, to say the least!
Secondly, it is not thrown pila which bend. A thrown pilum ,as physics laws would tell you, is only subject to longitudinal forces along a linear path. It simply penetrates/lodges in the target without bending. It is not until sufficient lateral forces come into play that there is any prospect of bending - such as if the head is lodged firmly in the ground, when it may bend under its own weight, or if held in the hand, lodged in something, and then lateral forces come into play.( Arrian evidently knows this, which is why he mentions it). This has been backed up by practical experiments, notably by Peter Connolly, and here on RAT by Jef Princeel. Sure enough, if you read your Caesar properly, in the battle against the Helvetii ( Bello Gallica I.25), he describes individual pila penetrating more than one shield. The Gauls are unable to pull them out as the iron bends. Lateral forces at work as the Gauls try to disentangle their shields.
Thirdly, accepting ( which I don't) that this is a 'topos', why on earth, if Arrian is going to insert a 'topos', he chooses one about a pilum, if the troops were armed with something else? Surely it would be a 'topos' about what they actually had? Duncan's point here, if true, simply re-inforces the pilum idea ...and I don't follow the logic of 'it's a 'topos' about a pilum, lazily and randomly inserted, so maybe the weapon isn't a pilum at all?' In the words of Mr Spock ( whom I've just seen on another thread), "That's illogical, Captain!" :lol: :lol:
Duncan wrote:-

After all, why would they use words that, everywhere else, imply a thrusting spear?

Incorrect! As we have seen, in each instance Robert and I described, where the writer was writing in Greek from the 1st C AD on, kontos could be, and on balance of probability was, a pilum-type
weapon, not a 12 ft cavalry lance for which there is no other evidence.

But Robert's point is that Josephus and Arrian don't say pilum (or a recognised Greek equivalent), so how do we know that they meant pilum?
You say you're "reasonably certain", Paul. But how can you be?

First, there is no recognised greek word that translates pila, for the same reason there is no latin word for sarissa - see previous posts. At least three different words - hyssos, xyston and kontos are used by different writers.
Secondly, during this time, all the iconographic evidence is for Roman troops armed with 'pila and lancea' and all the contemporaryLatin literature (e.g. Tacitus) unequivocally refers to pila and lancea, no evidence whatever elsewhere for Roman troops being generally armed with anything else... that's what I mean by 'holistic' - looking at all the evidence, rather than just the document itself and saying 'it could mean...'
That's why I am 'reasonably certain'........As I have remarked elsewhere, we cannot 'prove beyond doubt' about such matters, but we can decide, on the limited evidence we have, where the 'balance of probability' lies.

But that's precisely the point, Paul. What if they aren't talking about the pilum?

...that of course is possible, but based on all the evidence we have, or at least all that which Robert and I have set out, plus archaeology and icongraphy it is probable and likely that Arrian's kontophoroi were pila armed, and that subsequent writers in Greek followed this usage.

Robert and I have both set out our 'wares' in the form of evidence from texts, and our reasoning, and the thoughtful reader must make up their own mind, as ever ! :wink: :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

First of all an apology to Paul about ‘putting words in his mouth’, that was indeed far too hasty of me. The reason for writing that was based on a strong feeling that I got, because it seemed that everywhere I argued that anything else could have been used instead of a pilum, you would have none of it. But I was wrong there, I agree.

I still don´t agree with your identification, though.. :wink:

The Trajanic Adamklissi Metope xxiv shows an infantryman who holds a spear (his hand behind him) while stabbing an enemy in a tree(!) – the weapon must be longer than 2 metres.

not so.. the man holding it is taller than the tree!( 4 metres tall?) - so the tree is not to scale. It is also too damaged to be sure whether it is a 'pilum' or 'lancea'.

You don´t agree this is a ´spear´longer than 2 m? OK...... 8)

The tree has nothing to do with the interpretation. I don't care if the enemy is meant to sit on the lowest branch or in the top - it's how the Roman holds the spear. Either we say he is holding this spear at the very bottom of the shaft, as the metope seems to suggest, or we accept that he grips the shaft in a manner that will give him balance, and hence in a spot about halfway of the shaft, or higher. Judging from the length of the shaft compared to his arm, that will give a spear length of more than 2m.

You can't hold a pilum that low on the shaft and stab with it - due to the weight being on the top half, you need to hold it at least halfway. If that's halfway and that's a pilum, it must be a very long pilum. I don't think it's too damaged btw, I just see a nice slender shaft, without any pilum weight attached.

Same for the lancea - a very awkward grip if you stab with that, but it might be posssible, if it were a longish lancea (but I thought a lancea was supposedly a shorter throwing spear).

But this could be a thrusting spear - whatever you would call it, 'hasta', 'kontos', 'dory'.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

'The Gauls are unable to pull them out as the iron bends. Lateral forces at work as the Gauls try to disentangle their shields. '

Couldn't agree more!

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:-

First of all an apology to Paul about ‘putting words in his mouth’, that was indeed far too hasty of me. The reason for writing that was based on a strong feeling that I got, because it seemed that everywhere I argued that anything else could have been used instead of a pilum, you would have none of it. But I was wrong there, I agree.

...and I in turn apologise if my views came across a little too ardently and vehemently so as to give the impression of dogma......

The tree has nothing to do with the interpretation. I don't care if the enemy is meant to sit on the lowest branch or in the top - it's how the Roman holds the spear. Either we say he is holding this spear at the very bottom of the shaft, as the metope seems to suggest, or we accept that he grips the shaft in a manner that will give him balance, and hence in a spot about halfway of the shaft, or higher. Judging from the length of the shaft compared to his arm, that will give a spear length of more than 2m.

..... As to weapon type, the photo I have was evidently taken some time ago - more detail is visible, such as the soldier's face,his braccae, more detail on the dead Bastarnae's torso etc.
I think there are two possible interpretations. Either the legionary is holding a 'pila' close to it's base ( because he is stabbing up into a tree), and the damaged 'bulge' visible is the joint between shaft and shank, with the shank hidden behind the archer's arm OR ( and in my view more likely, so we can agree there ) the damaged 'bulge' represents a leaf-shape spear-point and the weapon is being held at it's balance point ( roughly half way down), with the rear part of the shaft 'out of picture'. If you trace an imaginary shaft back beyond the hand, it is apparent that the weapon cannot be more than twice as long as the section shown ( because of the "ground"). By scaling this against the figure, ( swing it upright) it becomes apparent that the weapon is a lttle over the soldier's height - lancea length !
Now it is possible to argue that the sculptor, as often happens, has had to shorten the weapon to fit it in, but here he could have depicted a longer one if he wanted to, quite easily, by lowering it slightly and going under the archer's arm. So, while not entirely ruling out a longer weapon; on balance of probability, I'd say a lancea is shown here. 8)

On a more general note, I am getting the strong impression ( see e.g. enquiries on the 'Byzantine weapons' thread - though I wish I had a copy of Maurice! ) that like 'Hasta' in latin, 'kontos' has a generic meaning; in this case of, "any thick shafted weapon/shaft/pole, especially if tipped with iron".... and that its specific meaning depends on context, or whatever shafted weapon happens to be in vogue at a particular period....thus it can apply equally to a boathook, a punting pole/bargepole, a heavy cavalry spear, or a 'pilum' :? ) D

[Robert Vermaat]

By scaling this against the figure, ( swing it upright) it becomes apparent that the weapon is a lttle over the soldier's height - lancea length !

Refresh my memory - what are you arguing that the lancea was? A thrusting or throwing spear?
I would say the spear length (a man's height or taller) seems to be what we (today) in general refer to as a hasta?

On a more general note, I am getting the strong impression ( see e.g. enquiries on the 'Byzantine weapons' thread - though I wish I had a copy of Maurice! ) that like 'Hasta' in latin, 'kontos' has a generic meaning; in this case of, "any thick shafted weapon/shaft/pole, especially if tipped with iron".... and that its specific meaning depends on context, or whatever shafted weapon happens to be in vogue at a particular period....thus it can apply equally to a boathook, a punting pole/bargepole, a heavy cavalry spear, or a 'pilum' :? ) D

Yeah, I noticed you were thinking of that. However, I can't follow you there. You would have to prove at what point the kontos would start changing meaning from a thrusting spear to a throwing spear, if you want ancient authors to use it a translation for a pilum. For at this moment I think that throughout Roman military history it did not change meaning - it remains mainly used for a thrusting spear, either with cavalry or infantry.

So why would any author it also denote a throwing spear, seeing that we have enough words for such a weapon?

And if you discount Arrian for the moment (I promise I deal with Arrian's Acies 16, 17 and 26 in great detail soon), are there occurances where we clearly can see that an author used the word 'kontos' for a 'pilum'without doubt?

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:-

Refresh my memory - what are you arguing that the lancea was? A thrusting or throwing spear?

....neither ! Rather a dual purpose weapon.... see my broad definitions ante...

short dual purpose spear; dual purpose weapon which may be thrown or used to thrust, generally 5-6 ft long, with a spear point and long wooden shaft, thicker and stiffer than javelins. A general purpose weapon.

.....as opposed to a longer thrusting spear over 7ft long, and generally 8 ft or so, such as the greek dory...'short' spear as opposed to 'long' spear, if you will.

You would have to prove at what point the kontos would start changing meaning from a thrusting spear to a throwing spear, if you want ancient authors to use it a translation for a pilum.

...that assumes that it meant 'thrusting spear' in the first place, which can't be right, because it doesn't allow for its 'civilian' meanings - remember its military use began as a nickname - whereas I think it probably originally meant 'any thick shafted pole' ( especially if iron tipped)...see above....the crucial characteristic is a (relatively) thick shaft.

And if you discount Arrian for the moment ..... are there occurances where we clearly can see that an author used the word 'kontos' for a 'pilum'without doubt?

....I don't think it fair to apply a 'proof beyond doubt' standard, for reasons stated previously....but as to other examples where 'kontos' most likely means pilum/spiculum/heavy throwing weapon, you have fortunately supplied several examples! ( see ante)
Lucian; usage of 'kontophroi' and 'longcophoroi' armed infantry guards seems identical to Arrian's........
Julius Africanus;'kontoi' in 217 AD, when pila were a major weapon of legionaries ( see e.g. Bishop and Coulston; Roman Military equipment p.122-123) along with lancea
Vegetius; barbarian infantry carrying 'kontoi' and 'kontoi' being thrown..........

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert wrote:-

Refresh my memory - what are you arguing that the lancea was? A thrusting or throwing spear?

....neither ! Rather a dual purpose weapon.... see my broad definitions ante...

I think every spear could be used as a thrusting and a throwing weapon, but I think that every spear was designed to one thing primarily. I mean, a pilum was designed as a throwing weapon, even though very fit to thrust with. But (I think) a kontos was designed as a thrusting weapon, even if you could throw it.

You would have to prove at what point the kontos would start changing meaning from a thrusting spear to a throwing spear, if you want ancient authors to use it a translation for a pilum.

...that assumes that it meant 'thrusting spear' in the first place, which can't be right, because it doesn't allow for its 'civilian' meanings - remember its military use began as a nickname - whereas I think it probably originally meant 'any thick shafted pole' ( especially if iron tipped)...see above....the crucial characteristic is a (relatively) thick shaft.

So many weapons have nicknames – but do we even know for sure that the spear was named after the civilian object and not vice versa?
A thick shaft which characterises a thrusting spear design in my opinion.

And if you discount Arrian for the moment ..... are there occurrences where we clearly can see that an author used the word 'kontos' for a 'pilum' without doubt?

....I don't think it fair to apply a 'proof beyond doubt' standard, for reasons stated previously....but as to other examples where 'kontos' most likely means pilum/spiculum/heavy throwing weapon, you have fortunately supplied several examples! ( see ante)
Lucian; usage of 'kontophroi' and 'longcophoroi' armed infantry guards seems identical to Arrian's........
Julius Africanus;'kontoi' in 217 AD, when pila were a major weapon of legionaries ( see e.g. Bishop and Coulston; Roman Military equipment p.122-123) along with lancea
Vegetius; barbarian infantry carrying 'kontoi' and 'kontoi' being thrown..........

I agree that ‘without doubt’ can be difficult, but we are looking for a specific description of the weapon (like Polybius describes (I think I recall) of the pilum how wooden shaft and iron shank are of equal length), that sort of thing.

Lucian; usage of 'kontophroi' and 'lonchophoroi' armed infantry guards seems identical to Arrian's........

Seems, because if we can’t tell with spear Arrian meant, we won’t be able to tell what Lucian meant, either. Similarly, if Arrian meant a hasta-thrusting spear, Lucian could have meant that, too.

Julius Africanus;'kontoi' in 217 AD, when pila were a major weapon of legionaries (see e.g. Bishop and Coulston; Roman Military equipment p.122-123) along with lancea

Paul, are you now going to tell me that we ‘must’ see the legionary infantry as armed with first and foremost a pilum? I sure hope not. :wink:
Nothing tells us that the ‘kontoi’ of Julius Africanus were pila, only that they were too short for his taste in defence against enemy cavalry. He uses the words ‘akontia’ (which are thrown) and ’kontoi’ (which apparently are not thrown), and uses for both the synonym ‘dorata’.

Vegetius; barbarian infantry carrying 'kontoi' and 'kontoi' being thrown..........

Nothing wrong with a long thrusting spear being thrown, is there? One of the two occasions is a contus being thrown down from a siege tower – which would be true for anything thrown that way, from a brick to a cow (Fetchez la vache!).
But by itself it means nothing. Strabo (10.1.12) claims that a kontos can be thrown, but he even claims that a sarissa can be thrown – possible, but I would not recommend it as a primary method of defence!

More important is that Vegetius tells us that the spiculum is the pilum of his day, thereby telling us also that his contus is not a synonym for a pilum.

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:-

I think every spear could be used as a thrusting and a throwing weapon, but I think that every spear was designed to one thing primarily. I mean, a pilum was designed as a throwing weapon, even though very fit to thrust with. But (I think) a kontos was designed as a thrusting weapon, even if you could throw it.

.....not entirely true....there is a range, and certainly shafted weapons at one extreme ( e.g. plumbata) are clearly optimised throwing weapons, while at the other extreme, a sarissa/pike is optimised for thrusting. The 'crossover' point - where the weapon is more or less equally suitable for both is the dual-purpose longche/lancea, 5-7 ft aprox ( bigger becomes less suitable to throw, smaller is less suitable to thrust)

But (I think) a kontos was designed as a thrusting weapon, even if you could throw it........ So many weapons have nicknames – but do we even know for sure that the spear was named after the civilian object and not vice versa?

.......I think you are making a fundamentally wrong assumption here.'Kontos', as such, did not mean a spear of any sort, at any time . From the time of Homer, through Herodotus and into Hellenistic times, a kontos just means a thick punting pole. By the third century B.C. it can be used to mean 'boathook' or even (once) 'elephant goad' ( see Liddell Scott et al). In late Hellenistic times, it becomes a 'nickname' for a 12 ft two-handed cavalry spear, due to it's heavier/thicker than usual two-handed shaft.
I think it is because of this 'boathook/goad' connection that it came to be used as a translation of 'pilum' (thick shaft with iron on the end)

Similarly, if Arrian meant a hasta-thrusting spear, Lucian could have meant that, too.

...except that there is no evidence whatever - literary, iconographic or archaeological - to even associate 'kontos' with any 'hasta' like infantry thrusting spear. None! Only a modern association/assumption that somehow a nickname for a 12 ft thick-shafted, two-handed cavalry weapon might also mean some sort of infantry thrusting spear.

Paul, are you now going to tell me that we ‘must’ see the legionary infantry as armed with first and foremost a pilum? I sure hope not.

....not at all! Holistic approach again. The literary, iconographic and archaeological evidence all agree that the legionaries carried pila or lancea at this time. No evidence at all for infantry carrying the cavalry 'contus'.

Nothing tells us that the ‘kontoi’ of Julius Africanus were pila, only that they were too short for his taste in defence against enemy cavalry. He uses the words ‘akontia’ (which are thrown) and ’kontoi’ (which apparently are not thrown), and uses for both the synonym ‘dorata’.

...so which fits the context better - the known legionary pila or some otherwise unknown ( among legionaries) 12 ft cavalry weapon? 'dorata' here is just a greek generic translation of an equally generic 'hasta'/spears....

But by itself it means nothing. Strabo (10.1.12) claims that a kontos can be thrown, but he even claims that a sarissa can be thrown – possible, but I would not recommend it as a primary method of defence!

....Strabo is here talking about a decree forbidding thrown weapons and he simply makes the same point you do - namely that any shafted weapon can be thrown at a pinch ! ...So I agree with you - Strabo adds nothing to the discussion.

More important is that Vegetius tells us that the spiculum is the pilum of his day, thereby telling us also that his contus is not a synonym for a pilum.

...I think you are confusing Latin and Greek usage of the word, which are not the same. Vegetius is writing in Latin, and in latin there is no problem. 'Contus' is a word borrowed from Greek to denote the 12 ft, thick-shafted, two-handed, cavalry lance as used by Sarmatians etc. 'Spiculum' is ( according to Vegetius) the late-Roman equivalent of 'pilum'. The meanings, in latin, are distinct and clear.
But how do writers in greek translate 'pilum/spiculum' into greek? What word can they use? Some earlier writers (e.g. Polybius etc) use 'hyssos' - but that might be an archaic word to Arrian ( like 'pilum' to Vegetius) and other later writers, so they use 'kontos' ( in it's boathook context - you can see the similarity at once) as a translation - in keeping with the Greeks tendency to use slang.
Overall, as we have seen from all the usages referred to, 'pilum' fits the context better than anything else, and when we bring in external iconographic and archaeological evidence as well, then this too is consistent with kontos as pilum......but there is no such external evidence for infantry using a 12 ft cavalry lance, and the context does not fit such a weapon very well either.
Verdict: 'Kontos' as used by these writers might conceivably mean a 12 ft cavalry lance, but there is no other evidence to support it and the frequency with which the weapon is thrown, as well as it being (relatively) short, not to mention it's bendable iron shank, makes this unlikely. On the other hand, the literary evidence of a 'shortish' weapon with an iron shank that may bend, which is thrown, but may be thrust fits the 'pilum' very well. This is supported by extraneous iconographic etc evidence as well. It is therefore very likely. :wink: 8) 8)

[Robert Vermaat]

'Kontos', as such, did not mean a spear of any sort, at any time . From the time of Homer, through Herodotus and into Hellenistic times, a kontos just means a thick punting pole. By the third century B.C. it can be used to mean 'boathook' or even (once) 'elephant goad' ( see Liddell Scott et al). In late Hellenistic times, it becomes a 'nickname' for a 12 ft two-handed cavalry spear, due to it's heavier/thicker than usual two-handed shaft.
I think it is because of this 'boathook/goad' connection that it came to be used as a translation of 'pilum' (thick shaft with iron on the end)

I disagree. The word ‘kontos’, like you say, becomes the name of a 12 ft. cavalry spear. And this meaning sticks, because we see no difference throughout the period after that, and even when the word enter Latin as ‘contus’ I see no-one having trouble as a characterisation of (still) a cavalry spear or a long infantry spear. Both are thrusting weapons.

Yet suddenly somehow it reminds people of a pilum because that supposedly looks like a ‘boathook’? I find that totally unbelievable. So the cavalry weapon does not look like a boathook? OK, I can relate to that. But the pilum somehow does? Just because it has an iron shank? And that suddenly means that everywhere an author uses ‘kontos’ in an infantry connection, it means that they had a pilum in mind?

And furthermore, it never “came to be used as a translation of 'pilum'â€

[Paullus Scipio]

I overlooked some rather misleading points here.....sorry to revive a subject where just about everything in favour of either point of view has been said.... :?
Robert wrote:-

I disagree. The word ‘kontos’, like you say, becomes the name of a 12 ft. cavalry spear.

...that is not what I said. 'Nickname' and 'name' in English have two completely different meanings, To say in slang that a cavalryman carried a 'bargepole' is a humourous reference to a large spear, not at all the same as a proper name for a 12 ft cavalry spear.

...or a long infantry spear. Both are thrusting weapons.

This is important. No ancient source demonstrably uses the term 'kontos' to mean an Infantry spear. This is pure supposition, based on the known cavalry weapon nickname, and Arrian and others use of the word. There is no connection, in fact. This is not "incorrect" as you claim.

And I’ve been quoting plenty of people who are at least contemplating the possibility.

....and I know plenty of people who are not only contemplating, but actually allege, the earth is flat ! :wink:
Don't make it so, though, Robert ! :lol: :lol: It all depends on their credibility...perhaps we will see more when you post the promised study on Arrian....

And that suddenly means that everywhere an author uses ‘kontos’ in an infantry connection, it means that they had a pilum in mind?

...of course, I agree with you here - not necessarily so, but in the context, a pilum is consistent with all the references each of us has referred to, but a 12ft cavalry spear is not....

So you ARE claiming that the legionary infantry carried the pilum or the lancea and that in your opinion there is no room for a suggestion of anything else.

...not at all, but the iconography/archaeology also happens to be consistent with pila/lancea armed legionaries, and no shred of evidence for legionaries armed with thick 12 ft cavalry spears.....
[quote]And furthermore, it never “came to be used as a translation of 'pilum'â€

[Robert Vermaat]

I disagree. The word ‘kontos’, like you say, becomes the name of a 12 ft. cavalry spear.

...that is not what I said. 'Nickname' and 'name' in English have two completely different meanings, To say in slang that a cavalryman carried a 'bargepole' is a humourous reference to a large spear, not at all the same as a proper name for a 12 ft cavalry spear.

Yes, in that last quote you said it was a nickname, but in every post in this discussion you have used the word 'name' when discussing the kontos. I really don't see what the problem is here - are you suggesting that the 12-ft cavalry spear was nicknamed 'kontos' but named something different? If not, wwhat are you on about? If so, then what was the 'proper' name?
And are you suggesting that when Arrian has his infantry use a 'kontos', which you time again again say was slang for a bargepole, he was still thinking of a pilum that does not even remotely look like the 12-ft cavalry spear but apparently (according to you) was still fit to be called a 'bargepole' like 12-ft cavalry spear?

You've lost me there.

...or a long infantry spear. Both are thrusting weapons.

This is important. No ancient source demonstrably uses the term 'kontos' to mean an Infantry spear. This is pure supposition, based on the known cavalry weapon nickname, and Arrian and others use of the word. There is no connection, in fact. This is not "incorrect" as you claim.

I seem to have to repeat myself again. Ancient sources who use the word 'kontos'or 'contus' for infantry spears:"
Julianus Africanus mentioned that Macrinus’ legions at Nisibis (217 AD) were equipped with ‘kontoi’ (Jul.Afr. Cest. I.1.82, 84).
Vegetius mentioned the kontos as an infantry spear by referring to enemy infantry as ‘contati’, as well as the ‘contus’ being used in a siege (Veg. III.6, IV.17).
Agathios mentioned that Narses’ heavy infantry at Casilinum (554 AD) had ‘kontoi’ (Agath. II.9.10).
Maurice equipped his heavy infantry with ‘kontaria’ (Strat. XIIA.57-60, BXVI.41-51) that were used in defence amongst others against cavalry attacks.

These are all infantry spears.

And I’ve been quoting plenty of people who are at least contemplating the possibility.

....and I know plenty of people who are not only contemplating, but actually allege, the earth is flat ! :wink:
Don't make it so, though, Robert ! :lol: :lol: It all depends on their credibility...perhaps we will see more when you post the promised study on Arrian....

Are in an election or something, that you feel you must throw mud at me? :x I have not even presented my case and already you need to make ad hominem remarks about credibility?

And that suddenly means that everywhere an author uses ‘kontos’ in an infantry connection, it means that they had a pilum in mind?

...of course, I agree with you here - not necessarily so, but in the context, a pilum is consistent with all the references each of us has referred to, but a 12ft cavalry spear is not....

Paul, you know as well as I do that a weapon changed name and appearance. When Ammianus Marcellinus writes that Late Roman infantry used the spatha, do we call him nuts or a user of archaic language? When authors have infantry use a kontos or a contus, of course that does not mean they see a 12-ft lance, the weapon may well have been shorter. But only if you insist that EVERY time the word was used we MUST think of a 12-ft lance, yes, then of course it become silly.
But frankly, insisting that a kontos/contus was always and always and always 12-ft long, that sounds rather silly to me.
Especially since almost no ancient author ever gives details about length. By far the most use generic words like 'hasta' when it comes to spears, anyway.
I could begin arguing that the word 'pilum' changed it's meaning from a 6-7 ft throwing spear to a 9-ft. throwing lance with as much conviction as your insisting that the word 'kontos' always must refer to a 12-ft. lance.

So you ARE claiming that the legionary infantry carried the pilum or the lancea and that in your opinion there is no room for a suggestion of anything else.

...not at all, but the iconography/archaeology also happens to be consistent with pila/lancea armed legionaries, and no shred of evidence for legionaries armed with thick 12 ft cavalry spears.....

Well, see my reply above. You have in the past denied that you support the dogma of legionary infantry being armed only with pila and lancea, but you keep coming back to it.. No-one is arguing that they were armed with a 12-ft lance, but you insist that the kontos could be only that. While at the same time you see no problem of translating 'kontos' with 'pilum' when used by Africanus and Arrian.

Paullus Scipio\\n[quote][quote]And furthermore, it never “came to be used as a translation of 'pilum'â€

[Robert Vermaat]

As promised (but a bit late due to being busy) here's the promised article about Arrian and the kontos.