Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Primary Weapon, Spear or Sword?
#16
Quote: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. .

Really?
So you have two lines of infantry with depth as well as breadth, involved in a stand up line fight.

One side just has swords with limited reach and, in order to wield them effectively they have to expose and/or extend themeselves beyond the coverage provided by their shields. Only the front rank is effective at any stage.

On the other, you have seried ranks of spearmen with a reach of at least 3-4 feet, aiming their spears right into the faces of the oncoming swordsmen whilst not having to extend any part of themselves beyond the cover proved by their spears. The first two or even three ranks can be effective throughout the action.

Hmmmm...
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
#17
I'm on the side of the spears here.

For example, Tacitus, book five describing the Batavian's revolt against Rome:-

17. Nor did Civilis marshal his army in silence. He called the field of battle to bear witness to their valour. He told the Germans and Batavians that they were standing on the monuments of their glory, that they were treading under foot the ashes and bones of legions. "Wherever," he said, "the Roman turns his eyes, captivity, disaster, and everything that is terrible, confront him. Do not be alarmed by the adverse result of the battle among the Treveri. There, their own success proved hurtful to the Germans, for, throwing away their arms, they hampered their hands with plunder. Since then everything has been favourable to us, and against the foe. All precautions, which the skill of a general should take, have been taken. Here are these flooded plains which we know so well, here the marshes so fatal to the enemy. The Rhine and the Gods of Germany are in your sight. Under their auspices give battle, remembering your wives, your parents, and your father-land. This day will either be the most glorious among the deeds of the past, or will be infamous in the eyes of posterity." These words were hailed, according to their custom, with the clash of arms and with wild antics, and then the battle was commenced by a discharge of stones, leaden balls, and other missiles, our soldiers not entering the morass, while the Germans sought to provoke, and so draw them on.


18. When their store of missiles was spent, and the battle grew hotter, a fiercer onslaught was made by the enemy. Their tall stature and very long spears enabled them, without closing, to wound our men, who were wavering and unsteady.
(18. Absumptis quae iaciuntur et ardescente pugna procursum ab hoste infestius: immensis corporibus et praelongis hastis fluitantem labantemque militem eminus fodiebant)


The Romans eventually won this skirmish through a deserter and an outflanking movement by cavalry. But in the confrontation between long Batavian spear and shorter Roman, the spears won.....

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/h05010.htm
[Image: wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg] [Image: Comitatuslogo3.jpg]


aka Paul B, moderator
http://www.romanarmy.net/auxilia.htm
Moderation in all things
Reply
#18
Well, sure, Auxiliaries were always armed with spears so for them it probably was their primary weapon. But Legionaries of the late Republic and early
Principate must have used swords as their primary weapon since most of them, for most of the period, didn't carry a spear or hasta.

Jared said as much earlier and I now think he was right. If you were armed with a spear then it was probably your primary weapon.
I just don't know when most of the soldiers began to carry spears instead of pila, spicula, veruta, or lancea.

Just my revised opinion...

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#19
I think talking about the spear over the sword would make a great topic about weapon and tactics, but most of the time people don’t want to get to into the details so I’ve tried to keep it simple.

With that said, of course there are times when one army may loose to a side they usually can beat. Loosing to the Germans is one example. There are always times when an army was expected to win over another and for some reason, didn’t. Look at what Hannibal did against the Romans with his small force. Yes he used a lot of spearmen, but it was his tactic of enveloping and narrowing the odds down to fighting only those Romans along the outside of the enclosure, keeping the rest bottled in so tight they couldn’t move or see what was going on. And even then, the Romans should have broken out and swept along the side of spearmen and won the day, but when men start running, it’s usually over. My premise of the sword being more decisive, even against the Germans and Greeks, is based on the very simplified fact that Rome kept defeating the German (not counting the end of the western empire when Rome’s armies were nothing but a shadow of their former self) and Greeks, not the other way around.

There were some battle against the Greeks where Rome took horrendous loses and couldn’t get through the wall of jabbing spears. But what it finally comes down to, is that when the mobile force of the swordsmen can move and work their way into the ranks of the spearmen, at that point (excuse the pun) the spearmen are at a disadvantage. Just like against the Greeks, as soon as an opening forms within their ranks, and they can’t keep the impenetrable wall between them and the enemy, the swordsmen move in and wins the day.

Again, if the spear was the better choice of battle, then either Rome would have adapted it, or the spear wielding Germans and Greeks would have conquered Rome.
Steve
Reply
#20
Don't we have examples of the Romans using the heavier pilum as a spear when in a defensive formation? Caesar mentions this tactic during the seige of Alesia. It is also described during one of the battles against Pompey. And a third account mentions a legionary parrying with his pilum so much that it resembled a strigil. Connolly reckons that the pilum started to be used as a thrusting spear after the velites were phased out. What about auxilliaries? Did they primarily use swords or spears? Most of Caesar's campaign was carried out by auxilliaries and practically the entire Dacian campaign involved auxilliaries. IMO the gladius was the primary weapon only on very limited occasions: when the legions were involved, when they were on open ground, and when they were on the offensive (only after throwing both pila). On all other occasions the spear was the primary weapon. Just as it was the primary weapon of virtually every other army that ever took to the field of battle.

The Romans didn't win wars because they had swords. They won because they were better organised, better trained, had better logistics, and were able to come back again and again even after severe defeats.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#21
I think if you went into battle without either, you might as well have stayed home.
The pila was definately used as a thrusting weapon, rather than be thrown, but these were on
specific orders from Caesar at Pharsalus, not the whole Legion either, so it would not be considered
normal practise, rather the logical adaptation to circumstances, which is what made Rome
Great!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#22
Quote:The pila was definately used as a thrusting weapon, rather than be thrown, but these were on specific orders from Caesar at Pharsalus, not the whole Legion either, so it would not be considered normal practise, rather the logical adaptation to circumstances, which is what made Rome Great!
It happened on more occasions than Pharsalus. I metioned three separate instances that I'm aware of. I doubt that they are the only ones.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#23
Probably not the only occassions, but more a reaction
to circumstances than the way to go, is what I am meaning.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#24
I want to steer clear of reasons why the spatha was adopted. I appreciate the remarks in Bishop and Coulston, partially mirrored by Robert. I would link it to the move to pattern welded weapons. But for the purposes of this discussion it's not key.

My opinion was that by the 3rd century century soldiers were carrying the spear and spatha. The spear wasn't for throwing so it had to be the primary weapon. It is shown prominantly in art, sometimes as the only weapon carried. And we can stand as witnesses to it's usefulness in mock combat.

But Vegetius mentions the sword when it comes to training the soldier. The soldier is perceived as a swordsman, practicing at the stake. Now Vegetius may be remembering a time when the grass was greener and the wine sweeter. Maybe he isn't.

I don't know.
John Conyard

York

A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
Reply
#25
Well, spearmen do have an advantage against horsemen, for sure, as long as they can prevent flanking manuevers!

Most of the barbarians coming into the Empire were horsemen, were they not?
Perhaps that would be influentual to the move back to spears?
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#26
Quote:Well, spearmen do have an advantage against horsemen, for sure, as long as they can prevent flanking manuevers!

Most of the barbarians coming into the Empire were horsemen, were they not?
Perhaps that would be influentual to the move back to spears?

I've always thought the barbarians - as in Germannics - were mainly infantry, why do you think they were (mainly?) cavalry?
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

mailto:[email protected]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Reply
#27
Quote:
Gaius Julius Caesar:1z5lan7h Wrote:Well, spearmen do have an advantage against horsemen, for sure, as long as they can prevent flanking manuevers!

Most of the barbarians coming into the Empire were horsemen, were they not?
Perhaps that would be influentual to the move back to spears?

I've always thought the barbarians - as in Germannics - were mainly infantry, why do you think they were (mainly?) cavalry?

I think GJC is thinking more in terms of Goths, Alans, Huns etc...all horsey chaps.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
#28
Huns and Alans clearly but these are minor foes (or indeed not foes at all in the case of the Huns) around the time it is suggest that the spear may be prominant, but why so the Goths? They certainly have cavalry but I would suggest that the majority are foot sloggers - Adrianople would seem to be a clear example of this.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

mailto:[email protected]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Reply
#29
Well no, I believe the Romans were winning against the footslogging Goths, until the goth cavelry came in? Maybe I am wrong though.

Huns, Parthians, Alans I know little about, but I recall the battle on the frozen river against Goths or sarmatians, (More horsemen) so there wee a lot of horse oriented foe to deal with in the later periods.....

I am not sure how the Huns are interpreted as a minor foe? Anyway, I am not as knowledgeable about later periods, so I must be wrong.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#30
Quote:The Romans didn't win wars because they had swords. They won because they were better organised, better trained, had better logistics, and were able to come back again and again even after severe defeats.

Well said Dan. Too often we try to reduce warfare to deterministic technology and forget the men using the tools.

I'm blanking on the battle, but I think Polybius recounts a roman battle with sword-weilding gauls where the spears of the Triarii were passed forward in the ranks and used to win the battle (by blunting and bending the swords).

Also, the Pilum was a spear, thrown or not, and a case could be made for their being the "primary" roman weapon. Romans could and did use pila in a missile duel like one uses javelins, but the manner in which the romans could use pila just prior to closing with their foes has always struck me more like using a spear- one with exceptional reach and that gives you a single thrust before being lost.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sword vs Spear Todd Lewis 4 2,365 01-28-2017, 12:15 PM
Last Post: Dan Howard
  The Sword vs. the Spear Bryan 32 8,792 01-28-2014, 04:33 PM
Last Post: Bryan
  Auxilia Primary Weapon Paul Elliott 9 2,314 06-27-2013, 04:59 PM
Last Post: Vitruvius

Forum Jump: