The Primary Weapon, Spear or Sword?

[John Conyard]

I apologise if this has in part been addressed in other threads.

But what would members consider the Roman primary weapon through time? The spear or the sword? And when do they predominate?

I don't wish to answer my own question, but without much thought I can think of early spear armed Hoplite formations, the pila and gladius combination, leading to spear and spatha. But the issue is a complex one and linked to fighting style.

In particular could the spear be considered the primary weapon of the 4th century pede? I appreciate the relatively large number of illustrations showing infantry armed with spears compared to those armed with swords. And the perceived similarities of Hoplite and late Roman infantry combat. But spicula and spatha combinations can be seen in art from the period.

So I would appreciate other peoples views.

[Nihonius Legio]

I'm no expert (though I'd like to be) but I would say that spears were likely used for a longer period of time, but that swords likely outnumbered them in quantity. The early Roman Republic lasted hundreds of years, and must of that time the Roman army was filled with spearmen. For several centuries Romans used hoplite soldiers. Hoplite spearmen often carried daggers and short swords as well, I believe one was called a parazonium or something. The late Republic saw mostly swords I think, well into the Roman empire. When auxilliaries became more and more dominant, spears likely outnumbered swords. They were cheaper and easier to make in mass quantities. Because the Roman army was larger in the Empire than in the earlier Republic, it had more troops. These troops mostly carried swords. So, spears used longer, but a greater quantity of swords. This is just an opinion/theory. I have no real proof or anything to site. I may have just wasted all this time writing a bunch of BS. It's just my current opinion/thoughts.

[Caballo]

I think the key evidence for the spear being pre-eminent in the later period is in the missoria, showing spears, but very few swords being worn.
For example




Not a sword or a scabbard or chape end to be seen worn by the simple pedes, though worn by the Emperor or displayed in front of the troops (in the Valentinian example).

Clearly swords were still around, but I suggest that economics made them rarer. Also IIRC, and based on the Miks book, many more swords appear to have survived from earlier periods (though I accept that this is a dodgier piece of evidence).

Cheers

caballo

[Nerva]

Hi Cabello

To be fair, I don't think you could draw any conclusions from the illustrations. With the shield covering most of the body of the miles in both images it's quite possible that swords are being worn but are hidden in the images. I do agree that the function of polarms changed significantly in the late empire. When it comes to determining which weapon is primary or secondary, iv'e always thought of it in terms of weapon employment. A pilum or a hasta was generally employed first, followed up by sword, thus the polarm can be consdered 'primary' and sword not.

[Caballo]

Well , here are a few more examples............

[Nerva]

Hi Paul

Do you know the provenance of the first two? The fist looks later than 4th century. I do have to agree that there is little evedence of swords but without knowing the provenance of the tapestry/paintings it's difficult to draw a conclusion. By the way, how 'ol Maximio doing these days? I hope he's no too upset with Irelands rugby success :lol: Give him a good ribbing from Shane and myself :wink:

[Caballo]

Hi,

The first is from Ravenna- c. 540, the second the Vergilius Vaticanus, possibly made in 5th Century Britain- so yes, both later than 4th century.

Maximio's fine, but couldn't get there last Saturday- Ursa not well.

Cheers

Caballo

[stevesarak]

Hi,

I’d have to say the sword was the primary weapon, if you’re asking what was the key weapon that won battles. Many troops may have had spears and no swords, but through all the major battle, when the two sides closed in to hand to hand to decide the outcome, it was the sword that made the difference (speaking of most roman battles).

Keep in mind that after the spears were thrown, soldiers move in to get close and personal. Not talking about the Greeks, there were different types of swords, long, short, curved at the end to strike over the helmet, etc. and if you don't throw it, to wield it when you’re in the thick of things and fighting in close hand to hand, at those times, a long spear just gets in the way.

I once spared with someone quite good with the spear. He was pretty good at keeping me at bay for awhile, but once he gave a thrust and over extended himself, it was easy to swat the spear away then charge in and finish him off with my sword.

Just as the air force is great and softening up the ground troops, and may make a difference in the outcome of the battle, it usually doesn’t win the war, that’s left up to the ground troops (no offence to anyone in the air force)

This is of course a simple explanation without addressing battle line tactics or anything else.

That’s my two cents.

[fasta]

Looking at the later Roman period:

I don't think its a question of either or.They both have their pros & cons depending on what you are using them for.Spatha's in second and third ranks can't reach the enemy front.
You can't use its cutting edge without harming your own side.You need a spear of some sort to get to them in close combat.In open order the Spatha comes into its own on the field.Would you need/use a spear here?

I'd want a spear to go up against horse troops.

Spears seem to keep a cultural meaning in Germanic "nations" after Rome in the West becomes dominated by them.But Germanic swords have a magic spin their own!

But it was the gladius in almost mythic terms which stick in peoples minds from earlier times.

[stevesarak]

I don't think its a question of either or.They both have their pros & cons depending on what you are using them for.Spatha's in second and third ranks can't reach the enemy front.
You can't use its cutting edge without harming your own side.You need a spear of some sort to get to them in close combat.In open order the Spatha comes into its own on the field.Would you need/use a spear here?
I'd want a spear to go up against horse troops.

Couldn’t agree more, each weapon has its own purpose. A more effective fighting force will use the right weapon for the right reason.

[John Conyard]

But in terms of training, tactics and ancient literature would not the sword seem to be the most important?

I'm fishing here...........

[Theodosius the Great]

But what would members consider the Roman primary weapon through time? The spear or the sword? And when do they predominate?

According to Southern and Dixon, page 76 : Procopius implies that by the sixth century the issue of equipment (by the state)
had been completely replaced by a cash payment, since he records Belisarius telling his men before battle (5.28.14) : 'And let no
one of you spare horse or bow or any weapon. For I will immediately provide you with others in place of all that are destroyed in
battle.'

So, I would guess that the spear gradually begins to supercede the sword starting around the mid-fifth century, in the aftermath
of Attila's destructive campaigns. Such a calamity might prompt such a change in long-established military practice.

~Theo

[Caballo]

But in terms of training, tactics and ancient literature would not the sword seem to be the most important?

I'm fishing here...........

I suspect because using a sword properly requires more training than levelling a pointy stick?

I also wonder how often the lines actually came into contact as opposed to one line breaking and running.....I seem to remember some suprising stats from Napoleonic times, but can't locate them....

Cheers

Caballo

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi John,

But what would members consider the Roman primary weapon through time? The spear or the sword? And when do they predominate?

I don't wish to answer my own question, but without much thought I can think of early spear armed Hoplite formations, the pila and gladius combination, leading to spear and spatha. But the issue is a complex one and linked to fighting style.

In particular could the spear be considered the primary weapon of the 4th century pede? I appreciate the relatively large number of illustrations showing infantry armed with spears compared to those armed with swords. And the perceived similarities of Hoplite and late Roman infantry combat. But spicula and spatha combinations can be seen in art from the period.

Varying through time, indeed. The pilum is a throwing weapon of course, and the gladius would be the primary weapon. But in earlier times as well as later times we see the tight formations being usuitable for sword fighting, which in my opinion would make the spear the primary weapon. For the 4th c. this would certainly be the case. The formation would be defensive (with heavy missile barrages) rather than offensive. Only after the spear was lost or useless would the spatha come into play. I can't be sure, but over here we think that the longer spatha came into use (instead of the not-as-long gladius for use in a defensive formation, to stab over or under shields.

I disagree with Jaime about the moment when this happened, and of course it would have varied from place to place (Roman army innovations never being a universal thing), but we already hear complaints in the early 3rd c. that the spears were too short. I suspect that it was the heavy infantry on the Persian front that would have been the first to change the style of fighting when confronted by Sassanid heavy cavalry (the Persians apparently relying less on light cavalry than the Parthians before them).

[stevesarak]

I guess this question comes down to, what is being asked, what is the primary weapon used to take the field, or hold and defend the field? Except primarily for the Greeks, the spear never won the field. As far as a force on the offensive fighting toe to toe with the enemy, armies didn’t go into battle with the idea of fighting hand to hand and not using the sword.

If the purpose of the battle line is defensive however, then the spear may be the right choice if you can hold back the enemy and have them run. Through the ages, one of the most decisive weapons was the commander in charge who knew how to do the right tactic, attack flank, rear attack, feign retreat then charge with reinforcement etc. at the right moment and cause the enemy to flee. There are accounts throughout time of a larger army loosing because the line broke and men ran, when in other battles, fewer men held their ground and won the day. If you are planning on winning a battle with tactics, and don’t plan on the lines fighting toe to toe until one is destroyed, then the spear may work just fine.

Except for the Greeks, if there were two armies, both veterans that won’t run, one equipped only with the sword, and one only with the spear, and both were intent on destroying the other, then the army with swords would win. But, battles weren’t always that simple, in the later days of the eastern empire, too many roman battles were lost against enemy cavalry charges where the line broke and men ran. The Romans didn’t have the caliber of soldiers that they had before, and in that case, if you know men may run, its easier to have them stand with a long spear and hold their ground then hope they’ll stand with a short sword (in comparison to a spear).

So again, I guess this all come down to what’s being asked. There are many answers, depending on what you’re looking for, but in my opinion, (lets say the 3th or 4th bc on) with experienced soldiers, the sword was the primary weapon used for winning the field until gun powder.