Trajan\'s Column - interesting Auxiliary - Batavian?

[D B Campbell]

In Sir Mortimer Wheeler's day, even less was known, hence such speculation.

Wrong Wheeler, I think! :lol: (Robert is surely referring to Everett Wheeler.)

[Robert Vermaat]

In Sir Mortimer Wheeler's day, even less was known, hence such speculation.

Wrong Wheeler, I think! :lol: (Robert is surely referring to Everett Wheeler.)

Thanks Duncan, I did not even noticed – I had no idea what Paul was talking about, so I assumed it had to do with his research of that figure on Trajan’s column… :lol:

Indeed, I was referring to some ‘more recent’ publications by Everett Wheeler:
Wheeler, Everett L. (1978): The Occasion of Arrian's Tactica, in: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 19:4, pp. 351–65.
Wheeler, Everett L. (1979): The Legion as Phalanx, in: Chiron 9, pp. 303–318.
Wheeler, Everett L. (1993): Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy: Part I, in: The Journal of Military History 57 part 1 (Jan. 1993), pp. 7-41.
Wheeler, Everett L. (1993): Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy: Part II, in: The Journal of Military History 57 part 2 (Apr. 1993), pp. 215-40.
Wheeler, Everett L. (1997): Why the Romans can´t defeat the Parthians: Julius Africanus and the Strategy of Magic, in: Roman Frontier Studies 1997, pp. 575-9.
Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (I), in: L'Armée romaine de Dioclétian à Valentinian Ier, Actes de IIIe congrès de Lyon sur l'armée romaine, ed. Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff (Paris), pp. 309-58.
Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (II), in: Revue des Études Militaires Anciennes 1, pp. 147-75.

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:-

I merely used the word ‘synaspismos’ as a technical term, Vegetius describes such a close formation as each soldier occupying a space of 3 ft. Later manuals continue to describe such a close formation, which is neither archaic (a formation where shields touch rim to rim or overlap is by no mean alien to Roman formations from time to time), nor does anyone suggest that this would have been a Germanic influence.

....I was not suggesting that such a fundamental formation was not used by Late Romans, merely that the text-book writers followed the 'classics' in calling it 'synaspismos', and you misunderstood...I was saying that Germanic influence probably did affect Roman tactics....but that we cannot be certain that traditional Roman weaponry did not continue to predominate, judging by the little archaeological information available....

No-one would suggest that Roman weaponry did not begin to change during the third century though.
And since no spear shafts have turned up, no-one can argue for a specific length belonging to those spearheads. I would say that leaves room for discussion

...evidently, judging by our now protracted debate ...!! :? )

No-one argues either that Arrian was thinking of a ‘long cavalry spear’ when he wrote ‘kontos’, that’s just you Paul, no-one else. Which I keep finding odd, because otherwise you argue (rightly, I say) for other weapons that meanings can change, yet your ‘kontos’ always remains a 12-ft cavalry spear throughout the Roman period…

.....my point here is that'kontos' has plausibly been shown to mean '12 ft ,thick, cavalry spear' in Hellenistic times, and a translation of 'pilum' in early Imperial times, but it is pure speculation/invention by moderns to even imply that it could mean'long infantry spear'....there is simply no evidence whatever for such speculation...

So yes, I agree with you, the evidence is indeed not there. Nor does anyone say that it is

....on this we can agree.... :? wink: 8)

But others do accept that the word ‘kontos’ could also mean a thrusting spear of less cumbersome length.

....who are these 'others' and as you say, there is no evidence for it....produce even one piece of evidence that 'kontos' unequivocally means 'long infantry spear'....AFIK, there is none...

And when I see your very interesting reconstruction from Trajan’s Column, that infantryman seems to carry what other are thinking about, a thrusting spear of considerable length. Not too long before Arrian wrote, either.

.....I have never said that hastae, or long spears were not in use by the Roman Army ( the archaeological record would seem to suggest otherwise, though the caveat of hunting weapons should cause caution), merely that there is no evidence that such a weapon became the generic equipment of the Legionary...It seems to me that there is evidence to suggest that 'throwing weapon' and sword continued to be the primary weaponry of the Legions as long as they existed, and possibly even after they had evolved into 'comitatenses' etc, and that the idea that they carried a third weapon in the form of long spears is a possible mistake based on a modern supposition that ancient writers meant 'long spear' when they wrote of 'kontos'( by mistaken analogy with the hellenistic use of the term) whereas, in Arrian's day at least and very likely later, they meant the traditional 'pilum/spiculum' by this term which certainly existed in Vegetius' day....

Wrong Wheeler, I think! (Robert is surely referring to Everett Wheeler.)

......surely you are not basing your argument around the 'unproven' ideas of this one person??? hock: hock:

[Peroni]

....I think it more likely that this is the typical'dagged' edge to his mail armour, and that the clear line below it denotes his tunic hem.....

Yep! looking closer I have to agree.

[D B Campbell]

.....my point here is that'kontos' has plausibly been shown to mean '12 ft ,thick, cavalry spear' in Hellenistic times, and a translation of 'pilum' in early Imperial times, but it is pure speculation/invention by moderns to even imply that it could mean'long infantry spear'....there is simply no evidence whatever for such speculation...

Or (just to maintain some balance in this debate), "kontos ... has plausibly been shown to be a translation of 'long infantry spear', and it is pure speculation by modern writers that it could mean 'pilum' ..." :wink:

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

Or (just to maintain some balance in this debate), "kontos ... has plausibly been shown to be a translation of 'long infantry spear', and it is pure speculation by modern writers that it could mean 'pilum' ..."

...except that we see it being thrown etc! It has not been plausibly shown to be a 'long spear' ( and I have Arrian primarily in mind here, and I have yet to see a translation that didn't translate 'kontos' as 'pilum' in this work....), but the evidence, such as it is, is totally consistent with pilum :wink: :wink:

Robert wrote:-

Which I keep finding odd, because otherwise you argue (rightly, I say) for other weapons that meanings can change, yet your ‘kontos’ always remains a 12-ft cavalry spear throughout the Roman period…

.....surely some confusion here? You are the one maintaining that 'kontos' remained a slang word for a long spear, albeit now an infantry one rather than cavalry, whilst I maintain that, by Arrian's time it had changed in usage to become a Greek translation for 'pilum', for which there was no direct word in Greek..... ( and confusingly, the Romans had adopted 'contus' into Latin to mean a long heavy cavalry spear....)

These arguments have been aired on the other thread ad nauseum....can we please not hijack this one for a re-run?? ( roll:

[Robert]

Oh no! They are at it again! Paul and Robert, get back to the thread on pilum versus hasta :lol: Thanks for the picture, Paul! Batavian shielddesign and helmets, wasn't that the topic here

[Paullus Scipio]

Paullus Scipio wrote:-

These arguments have been aired on the other thread ad nauseum....can we please not hijack this one for a re-run??

My sentiments exactly Robert !! lol:

The shield design in the sketch is fairly accurate as to design and relative dimensions......it was taken from a cast of the column, so not only is the sculpture itself in far better condition than the original ( as seen in Peroni's post), but it was sketched from a distance of two-three feet away !!

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

The shield is the same as a cavalry shield presented on the column, which is referred to in this thread. Our reconstruction can be seen here.

[Paullus Scipio]

HH...hhh...mmm !
This makes me wonder if I am confusing two similar designs, Alexander....wish I could see Peroni's photo in higher resolution !

[Robert Vermaat]

Paullus Scipio wrote:-

These arguments have been aired on the other thread ad nauseum....can we please not hijack this one for a re-run??

My sentiments exactly Robert !! lol:

But of course they are your sentiments Paul - you are quoting yourself here.. lol:

No worries Robert. :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

:lol: :lol: :lol: I think it's time I went and did something usefull!

[Robert]

It would seem to be two different designs. The greek symbol Peronis mailed me from the shield on the column looks to be a single affair, used in the same way as a cresent. The other one looks to be a branching out of the central decoration, crowned by a cresent. I will use the Greek one to go with the wreath design I did (which is a pain, as all the leaves overlap and need to be picked out in dark green lines to leave the leaves visible)