The Abandonment of the Pilum for the Hasta - Why ?

[Robert Vermaat]

The changes in fighting techniques such as infantry versus cavalry is plausible, but then did the mid-third century Goths really have large amounts of cavalry? Or do we conclude that the sassanian theater set the trend and started changes everywhere? Unlikely as I think romans handled eastern theater well enough. I think the danube theater was were the changes occured. In any case I tend to think economic and fashion is the simplest explanation. Over engineered and expensive armor just died out.

Hi Goffredo,
I tend to agree with you about economics and such as motivation for the biog changes, but please tell me why you think that it was the Danube theatre that was the cause for the changes?
Yes, Goths had large amounts of cavalry because they were ofted allied with nomadic peoples, such as Sarmatians, Alans and Huns.
About the Sassanian theatre, I think that Simon James has made a very good case for the ridge helmets originating in Persia. And yes, the spangenhelm probably along the Danube.

I don't think that if you are in formation you can really dodge incoming missiles. You just have to hope they don't hit you and that the centurio or optio sees the incoming missiles and orders to hold up the shields. And the number one rule when under missile fire is NOT to look up to see if missiles are coming your way! So a helmet that restricts the soldiers to look up isn't that bad IMHO...

Hi Jef,
Well, you're free to think what you want of course but this is from a mid-3rd c, with experience with the military. If he says that it was possible to dodge missiles and that the closed helmets prevented that (and that this was not a good thing), I think we would have to make a very good case to shove him aside as a first-hand source...

[Goffredo]

Hi Robert
last evening I spend some time writing a response but then my computer barfed. Here is a telegraphic summary.

I will keep in mind the third century first hand ancedotal account of a problem, but if dodging missiles was such a problem force helmet design then what is your opinion of the the old monteformio helmet? Being open and without deep neck guards wouldn't it have been just fine? Of course!
Indeed in ancient large set battles that the romans faced there were all kinds of missiles (slings arrows, what ever), and all types of enemies (celts, germans but also sophisticated enemies such as Hannibal, and those in asia minor,...). The monteformio shape should have been a robust one (evolve little) as it was flexible enough to fair well in all kinds of warefare! Why then this evolution to closer forms with deeper and deeped neck guards? Indeed the evolution was slow, certainly not as fast as the appearance of the persian or spangenhelm models.

Of course I am free to think what I want because this is not mathematics and the best we can do is exculde some explanations, but we can never prove any other one true. We come up with some story that tickles the imagination of the majority. Of course we all know the spangenhelm design was around for some time (trajan's column) and I feel it became fashionable for reasons that are more complex that allowing one to dodge sling. Dodging sling was always a problem.

Regards gothic cavalry. I think the biggest changes to the roman army occurred during the mid 3rd century where trends in tactics and weapons industry, that started earlier, suddenly accelerated. During that period the danube and the goths were a real problem! But the impression I get is in that period the goths had less cavalry than there descendants 100 years later. I do also get the impression that the rhine enemies (alemanni and more western franks) where essentially infantry. But to claim the gothic 3rd century cavalry was so important as to force the romans to adopt new tactics is a strong statement and I don't believe it. I feel the romans did address the massive danube problems with new tactics but not because of gothic cavalry, but because of the type of small scale, relatively low intensity fighting, with the enemy almost never offering a true battle and with no major oppida to seige. In other words no show-downs fights (utter destruction) but many spreadout fights. This was already true with Marcus' marcommanic wars and I believe the evolution in the amry started eralier, but in the political havoc of the 3rd century things made things very drammatic and matters accelerated terribly. Relatively large battles did happen but it was in general difficult for the romans to force one and occasionally the enemy, under a carismatic and capable leader (kniva), felt they had acquired experince and strength to take the romans on. Ultimately the romans did damage the gothic nation enough to settle the danube limes for almost a century, but it was a difficult and long fight that resulted in major changes. Some evidence that diocletian tried to keep classic legion, but overall a threshold had been crossed and the use of smaller forces for endemic low intensity fighting had changed the army. The romans emphasized the use of cavalry in this type of low-intensity scenario (as they did also elsewhere) because small enemy forces could be easily and quickly outmaneuvered (small groups have small extention and can be quickly harrassed from any direction, and being small er it is more likely to break) was useful. So I would agree with the presence of an important gothic cavalry if we were speaking of the 4th century, but I wasn't.

Of course, as I already mentioned, in the same period there was another factor that I suspect had even a larger role in making cavalry more important and changed the balance of the army: the wars between contending emperors with roman armies inside roman territory. But I have run out of time. I wanted to be telegraphic but I got carried away.

Of course you are free to disagree with me. I will keep my mind open regards the gothic cavalry and the anecdotal account of sling dodging

[Robert Vermaat]

I will keep in mind the third century first hand ancedotal account of a problem, but if dodging missiles was such a problem force helmet design then what is your opinion of the the old monteformio helmet? Being open and without deep neck guards wouldn't it have been just fine? Of course!

Well, besides the cheek and neck guards, the new helmets (spangen- or ridge-helmets), look remarkably like a Montefortino. I even have an article in which they shown an Imperial Gallic-type helmet with the neck guard and brow guard cut off, to be fitted with the ‘new’ cheek and neck protection. I can assume that if the Montefortino was still in use, they would have used that too.
Of course, one of the advantages of the spangen- or ridge-design is that the separate bowl segments are easier to make.

Indeed the evolution was slow, certainly not as fast as the appearance of the persian or spangenhelm models.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying you reject Simon James’ ideas of the ridge helmets evolving out of earlier Sassanid models?

Of course I am free to think what I want because this is not mathematics and the best we can do is exculde some explanations, but we can never prove any other one true. We come up with some story that tickles the imagination of the majority. Of course we all know the spangenhelm design was around for some time (trajan's column) and I feel it became fashionable for reasons that are more complex that allowing one to dodge sling. Dodging sling was always a problem.

It’s a free world ..
Well, of course anything is possible, but my point is that a contemporary source should have more weight on the matter than our ideas on the same matter, 18 centuries later.

I’m not talking about the spangenhelm here. Indeed, that was around longer, it’s main strength being the ease of construction. However, the spangenhelm seems to have played a secondary part against the ridge helmets, which dominated Late Roman armour from the late 3rd c. until well into the 5th. I can’t say I know the reason for that, but my guess is that the latter offered better protection but were still too expensive to continue when the West and its state-produced armour lines dissolved.

Dodging sling? Who said anything about dodging sling?

Regards gothic cavalry. I think the biggest changes to the roman army occurred during the mid 3rd century where trends in tactics and weapons industry, that started earlier, suddenly accelerated. During that period the danube and the goths were a real problem! But the impression I get is in that period the goths had less cavalry than there descendants 100 years later. I do also get the impression that the rhine enemies (alemanni and more western franks) where essentially infantry. But to claim the gothic 3rd century cavalry was so important as to force the romans to adopt new tactics is a strong statement and I don't believe it.

Nor should you, nor did I claim that!!
Goffredo, I appreciate your points here, but you missed mine. I wasn’t aware that you were only talking about the 3rd c., but sure the Goths had less cavalry than they were to have in the 4th c. But in the 4th c. as well as in the 3rd, many of their cavalry came from allied horse tribes.

However, that’s not what I meant. I wasn’t speaking of Gothic cavalry, existent or not, but of Sarmatians.
One of the main enemies along the Danube in the 3rd c. were the Sarmatians (Roxolani, Iazyges etc.) and allied enemies on horseback. When they weren’t invading Roman territory by themselves they often allied with other tribes who were bothering the Romans, such as the Goths. Therefore, one of the main influences on Roman (changes in) tactics would have been those Sarmatians, either on their own or in combination with other invaders..

[DAN OF BRITANNIA]

You've probably discussed this... but this line from Vegetius always fascinates me regarding Pila/hasta transitions:

As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches or a foot long, and were called pila. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty. At present they are seldom used by us, but are the principal weapon of the barbarian heavy-armed foot. They are called bebrae, and every man carries two or three of them to battle.

De Re Militari, Book I: On the selection and training of New Levies.

Providing, of course the translation can be relied upon.
Latin translation by Lt John Clarke
Written around 390's A.D.
British translation was first published in 1767.

Hope this helps.

[Robert Vermaat]

They are called bebrae, and every man carries two or three of them to battle.

Another name for the 'germanic pilum' is the angon, isn't it?

[DAN OF BRITANNIA]

I believe so Robert... I think they had a long shank like the pilum, but were socketed and less complicated in overall construction.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Hello
I don't know if we can say "pilum transition to the hasta" in late roman times. Vegetius talk to the spiculum like a pilum or new late name for pilum characterisation. In late latin text (Ammianus Marcellinus, anonymous panegyrics, Nazarius and co) the "missibilia", "Iaculis" and heavy javelins are calling "pila" too. In other case, In all late roman litterrary souces they don't appears Hasta use like a thrusting spears, only for fighting technics against charges cavalry (exemple: Andrinople battle...) In late primary textes the Hasta is a launching heavy javelins too.

In archéological records, no proof to a long long wood spear. In graphic records too. The late roman army fighting like a old phalangical greec army is a myth with no occurences!

[Robert Vermaat]

Hello
I don't know if we can say "pilum transition to the hasta" in late roman times. Vegetius talk to the spiculum like a pilum or new late name for pilum characterisation. In late latin text (Ammianus Marcellinus, anonymous panegyrics, Nazarius and co) the "missibilia", "Iaculis" and heavy javelins are calling "pila" too. In other case, In all late roman literary souces they don't appears Hasta use like a thrusting spears, only for fighting technics against charges cavalry (exemple: Andrinople battle...) In late primary textes the Hasta is a launching heavy javelins too.

The thing with ancient sources is that there is no dictionary of military terms.. many sources use the same word but apparently mean different weapons (or formations). Therefore we cant always be sure what somebody is talking about!

Hastae are also used as thrusting spears, but not of course in the way of a Macedonian phalanx. I agree on that! But the front rank of a Late Roman formation certainly thrusted with their spears at the enemy before closing, didn't they? But they also used the hasta for thrusting overhead, or did throw them at the enemy before fighting on with their spatha.

I think any notion of the Late Roman army as a Greek Phalanx is not correct.
But then here, too, we must watch out what is meant with that word, especially in Roman times. I agree with Wheeler when he sees many occurrances of Roman formations looking like a 'phalanx' (between brackets), but only in the sense that the whole formation is closed and moves as one. So not many soldiers with long spears, but a single line, unbroken.

In archéological records, no proof to a long long wood spear. In graphic records too. The late roman army fighting like a old phalangical greec army is a myth with no occurences!

I disagree! The manuscript of De rebus Bellicis shows a quite long hasta (thepicture with the Thoracomachus). Most lances/spears on tombs/mosaics get shorthened because there is no more space above the head of each depicted soldier. I think.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

I'm absolutly agree with you on the false old phalanx point of view. Wheeler explain very good the origin and "real" comprehension of the phalanx term in roman times (IIe century to the late roman century...)

hum! no works and interpretations to the ancient texts and difficult to have any idea on the late roman army... I base my personnal analysis to my traduction of the IVe century latin sources. Vegetius of course, Ammianus, and latin panegyrics. In this text, the lexical and latin context don't permit to conclude to a thrusting use for the "Hasta" or any weapon called "Hasta"...

an easy exemple: In Vegetius DRM; the autor never speak to an thrusting spear...

The most longer weapon is the big javeline:

"unum maius ferro triangulo unciarum nouem, hastili pedem quinque semis, quod pilum uocabant, nunc spiculum dicitur"
9 pouces 5 pieds et demi: 1, 78 meters approximativly

if the medium tall of the roman soldiers is really 1, 68 meters the Vegetius heavy javelin have 10 cm to add over the head (the Vegetius modern spiculum...)

Latin panegyrics and Ammianus too. Out of the formation technics againts cavalry... If you want I can give most exemples to the French Forum...

-Against my theory about Hasta like an heavy Javelin:

1) Right! to the DRB there are an longer spear I completly forget this!

A medieval or late corruption? I don't know...

2) Claudian's Honorius panegyric (Ve century) Claudian say to the armement soldiers of the triomphal adventus that spears to figthing far and spear to figthing near... (sorry for the bad traduction...)

A specialisation of the weapons?


3)VIe century (599) in Théophylacte Simocatta corpus text, general Priscus give the battle to the avars near to Viminacium. He orders his army to three phalanx/Acies lines like classical roman times The roman soldiers fighting hand to hand with ennemies troops with the spears...


4) The references to the principal thrusting spear come from the late roman early Byzantine time (see Procopius wars or the Mauricius Strategikon, but the spear can be launch against the ennemies...) less in IVe and Ve century sources...

But we must talk to a spear/Hasta or we must talk to the a spear/Contus?? I search in this direction in my latin locution analysis. I have not finished, I just begin.

"Most lances/spears on tombs/mosaics get shorthened because there is no more space above the head of each depicted soldier. I think."

Yes interesting hypothesis but if you take the codex vergilius vaticanus; the spear is not very longer beyond the head of the characters soldiers and there are place...

Finally the modern experimentation show (and ours experimentation..) show that is really easy to passing the spears menace when the front battle line use the spear thrusting overhead...

we try it with you if you want with blumted weapons....

A plus!