08-30-2008, 10:50 PM
I'm a new forum member and have a burning question, which if anyone can answer, I suspect you folks can.
The secondary sources on the Roman army of the 2nd Punic War are unanimous in giving the pila to the hastati and principes and the hasta longa to the triarii. The source for this claim is almost invariably given as Polibius. (Book VI, 23).
The thing is, I have Polibius, or at least the Schuckburgh translation, which I think is respected, and that is not what that passage says. Instead it reads:
"The Principes and Triarii are armed in the same way as the Hastati, except that instead of the pila they carry long spears (hastae)."
That pretty unambiguously states that the Principes had the thrusting spear, not the pila. Once I read this and scratched my head over it for a while, I started looking for any other primary source support for the Principes having the pila during the 2nd Punic War, and could not find any, although there is a lot of ground there I haven't covered.
I've also been doing web searches, and the only primary source I've found cited for the claim is (again) Polibius VI, 23. One online resource even paraphrases the passage in Polibius/Shuckburgh, but renders it as, "The Principes and Triarii were armed in the same way as the Hastati, except that instead of the pila the latter carried long spears." (italics mine) That would certainly prove the point if it was indeed what the text said, but to the best of my knowledge it isn't.
So here is the question (questions, actually):
Is the Shuckburgh translation flawed?
If not, is there some other clear primary source which puts the pila in the hands of the Principes at this time?
And (finally) if not, have all these secondary sources on the Roman Army just been feeding off of each other and repeating the same mistake over and over?
Frank Chadwick
The secondary sources on the Roman army of the 2nd Punic War are unanimous in giving the pila to the hastati and principes and the hasta longa to the triarii. The source for this claim is almost invariably given as Polibius. (Book VI, 23).
The thing is, I have Polibius, or at least the Schuckburgh translation, which I think is respected, and that is not what that passage says. Instead it reads:
"The Principes and Triarii are armed in the same way as the Hastati, except that instead of the pila they carry long spears (hastae)."
That pretty unambiguously states that the Principes had the thrusting spear, not the pila. Once I read this and scratched my head over it for a while, I started looking for any other primary source support for the Principes having the pila during the 2nd Punic War, and could not find any, although there is a lot of ground there I haven't covered.
I've also been doing web searches, and the only primary source I've found cited for the claim is (again) Polibius VI, 23. One online resource even paraphrases the passage in Polibius/Shuckburgh, but renders it as, "The Principes and Triarii were armed in the same way as the Hastati, except that instead of the pila the latter carried long spears." (italics mine) That would certainly prove the point if it was indeed what the text said, but to the best of my knowledge it isn't.
So here is the question (questions, actually):
Is the Shuckburgh translation flawed?
If not, is there some other clear primary source which puts the pila in the hands of the Principes at this time?
And (finally) if not, have all these secondary sources on the Roman Army just been feeding off of each other and repeating the same mistake over and over?
Frank Chadwick
Frank Chadwick
Res ipso loquitor
Res ipso loquitor