Quick question about hastati

[LostWraith]

I was just wondering why the Camilian Hastati use swords instead of spears. I always thought the Hastati got their name by the word Hastae which was the Latin spear. Their equipment was changed to swords after Polybian reforms but earlier on I thought they would use spears instead.

I don't know this history very well so please enlighten me. Thanks.

[Alkibiadēs]

That intserests me as well. Also, why do Camillan Principes *do* have spears while the Hastati don't?

[talknight2]

I've also wondered. Previosly I believed Hasta was the shield's name, which would have made more sense. But since it's the spear (Why do the Triarii and Principes use different spears? Aren't all the Romans supposed to use the same one?) it has become a bit more confusing.

[Atilius]

I was just wondering why the Camilian Hastati use swords instead of spears. I always thought the Hastati got their name by the word Hastae which was the Latin spear. Their equipment was changed to swords after Polybian reforms but earlier on I thought they would use spears instead.

I don't know this history very well so please enlighten me. Thanks.

That intserests me as well. Also, why do Camillan Principes *do* have spears while the Hastati don't?

In the very early Servian army, all infantry but the skirmishers were armed with spears. Unfortunately, we have very little information on the weapons of the Hastati and Principes during the late Camillan period. It's possible that both were armed with spears or that both were armed with swords. We gave them the weapons we did because Dionysios of Halikarnassos mentions Romans soldiers using swords against Pyrrhos' phalanx, and he also specifically states that the Principes used a spear. This is weak evidence, but there's very little else to go on.

[LostWraith]

In the very early Servian army, all infantry but the skirmishers were armed with spears. Unfortunately, we have very little information on the weapons of the Hastati and Principes during the late Camillan period. It's possible that both were armed with spears or that both were armed with swords. We gave them the weapons we did because Dionysios of Halikarnassos mentions Romans soldiers using swords against Pyrrhos' phalanx, and he also specifically states that the Principes used a spear. This is weak evidence, but there's very little else to go on.

I see. Thanks for the info.
I could guess that the sword users were skirmishers and not heavy/medium infantry, but that's pure speculation.

[Alkibiadēs]

Thank you Atilius, that is enough information for me :-)

[talknight2]

Maybe you can give them a sword as a secondary weapon, like I saw you did with German bodyguard units?

[LostWraith]

Maybe you can give them a sword as a secondary weapon, like I saw you did with German bodyguard units?

Well their primary weapon is the pilum, so they'd need a third weapon for a sword, which I don't think is possible as each unit is limited to two weapons.

I still think all early Roman units should have the hastae. Camilian troops were separated on social wealth and not experience (as in the Polybian case), so it would be somewhat a stretch to say that every hastati (second poorest next to the leves) would be able to afford a sword. Perhaps a secondary sword weapon for the triarii (who don't have javelins) would be realistic as they fought in a hoplite phalanx fashion and may resort to sword fighting after their lines are broken and troops start mingling.

[talknight2]

Good idea.

[Atilius]

Well their primary weapon is the pilum, so they'd need a third weapon for a sword, which I don't think is possible as each unit is limited to two weapons.

Yes, that's correct.

Camilian troops were separated on social wealth and not experience (as in the Polybian case), so it would be somewhat a stretch to say that every hastati (second poorest next to the leves) would be able to afford a sword.

The degree to which the Camillan army was segregated by wealth is not clear. Our only description of it (Livy 8.8) indicates that the Hastati, Principes, and Triarii were segregated by age, not wealth. If they were segregated by wealth, the Hastati would have been wealthier than the Rorarii, Leves, and Accensi.

Note that in the Servian army (Livy 1.42-3, Dion. Hal. 4.16), in which the classes certainly were divided by wealth, the third class (in some sense the precursors of the Hastati) used a sword as a secondary weapon. Dionysios also claims the fourth class was armed with both spear and sword.

Perhaps a secondary sword weapon for the triarii (who don't have javelins) would be realistic as they fought in a hoplite phalanx fashion and may resort to sword fighting after their lines are broken and troops start mingling.

Our Triarii and most other spear-armed troops do not have swords as a secondary weapon because we felt that they switched weapons far too early. They actually spent most of their time as swordsmen rather than spearmen.

[talknight2]

OK. Why did you give the sword\spear combo to Sweboz bodyguards then?

[bobbin]

I imagine because historically they used them more, the triari (like hoplites who also only get a spear) fought primarily with their spears, the sword was mainly used as a backup weapon.

[Atilius]

OK. Why did you give the sword\spear combo to Sweboz bodyguards then?

I'm afraid I can't answer that. We've got 500 units, so it's difficult to stay informed about the design decisions made for every one. Hypaspistai also have both spear and sword, and all Phalangitai have a pike and some secondary weapon.

[ThePianist]

OK. Why did you give the sword\spear combo to Sweboz bodyguards then?

Because, it's not a unit that can be mass-produced, so whether it uses mostly spear or mostly swords, has no effect on simulation of history.

But, triarii is a unit that can be mass-produced, so for this reason, they need to use spears for most of the time. That's how the triarii fought. Since giving swords to the triarii would cause that unit, in-game, to fight as swordsmen most of the time, then it is more accurate to only let them have spears.

Maybe in a future total war game, it would be possible to have a notepad file, where for each unit, you can specify the % of time a unit should use its primary weapon compared to its secondary weapon.

[motiv-8]

In the very early Servian army, all infantry but the skirmishers were armed with spears. Unfortunately, we have very little information on the weapons of the Hastati and Principes during the late Camillan period. It's possible that both were armed with spears or that both were armed with swords. We gave them the weapons we did because Dionysios of Halikarnassos mentions Romans soldiers using swords against Pyrrhos' phalanx, and he also specifically states that the Principes used a spear. This is weak evidence, but there's very little else to go on.

I wonder if that account about using swords against Pyrrhos' phalanx could be an example of an ad hoc decision on the battlefield to counter the mass of pikes. I mean, trying to counter with spears in that situation would be idioitic, no? Compared to using swords to strike at them from an oblique angle? Makes simple game logic sense in that context, too.

Apologies if I'm butchering history in the process of this comment.

[Ludens]

That's possible, but you face the same contradiction with most literary sources. Did the author mention it because it was unusual, or does he describe the norm?

[Ciisar]

Hastati (singular: Hastatus) were a class of infantry in the armies of the early Roman Republic who originally fought as spearmen, and later as swordsmen. They were originally some of the poorest men in the legion, and could afford only modest equipment — light armour and a large shield, in their service as the lighter infantry of the legion. Later, the hastati contained the younger men rather than just the poorer, though most men of their age were relatively poor. Their usual position was the first battle line. They fought in a quincunx formation, supported by light troops. They were eventually done away with after the Marian reforms of 107 BC.

[Atilius]

Hastati (singular: Hastatus) were a class of infantry in the armies of the early Roman Republic who originally fought as spearmen, and later as swordsmen. They were originally some of the poorest men in the legion, and could afford only modest equipment — light armour and a large shield, in their service as the lighter infantry of the legion. Later, the hastati contained the younger men rather than just the poorer, though most men of their age were relatively poor. Their usual position was the first battle line. They fought in a quincunx formation, supported by light troops. They were eventually done away with after the Marian reforms of 107 BC.

What is the point of this post?

The content is apparently from Wikipedia and, not surprisingly, contains errors.

At no time were the Hastati among the poorest men in the legion. In the Camillan era, both the Rorarii and Accensi would have been poorer. In the Polybian period, the only distinction by wealth in the infantry was that some of the Velites were too poor to serve as Hastati, Principes, or Triarii. Polybios actually reports that some of the Hastati belonged to the first class, the wealthiest infantry class, and that they were required to wear mail instead of a pectoral plate.

The Hastati did not disappear with the advent of the professional army. The Hastati, Principes, and Triarii were simply equipped in the same fashion, which lessened the distinction among them. We know from numerous inscriptions that each cohort's six centurions were called pilus prior, pilus posterior, princeps prior, princeps posterior, hastatus prior, and hastatus posterior. The first two men commanded the cohort's two centuries of Triarii, the next two commanded the Principes and the last two the Hastati.