Spear for all Roman infantry?

[Elianus]

I have been trying to find a clear answer but I am not sure what to believe from everything I've read so far. Are all Roman infantry units (including palatini and elites like the Herculiani) supposed to have a spear as a main weapon or not? I've also noticed that spear commitatenses have better armor than their sword counterparts. Are these all gameplay choices or is it historically correct to have both spear and sword infantry in the army?

[d35966n]

Hey man, I had been asking the same thing a while back. Although, I agree with you for the most part, it is somewhat debated (by historians) whether all roman infantry were in fact equipped with a hasta (spear) but many, perhaps most were. A theory I've come across is that the front ranks of infantry we equipped with hastae while the rear ranks were not. But yeah, either way there should be more regular roman infantry equipped with spears.

When I asked the question, the answers went something like this:

Spears and swords have distinct roles in CA's combat system, and FOTE isn't trying to change that. Also there may be some issue with having units switch between a hasta, spatha, and missile weapon (whether it be a lancea, plumbatarii, bow, or whatever).

I mean, some historians think that a large proportion of the roman infantry at this point were equipped with bows or slings in addition to their stereotypical heavy roman equipment (if they even still wore armour/helmets).

[Dresden]

The basic answer is the one you gave, unit balance and the battle mechanics. Ahiga would be able to better address the historical angle.

[david-gb]

As no one had written anything on this thread in a while I thought I would add my modest opinion.

From my understanding most of the heavy infantry, in the Late Roman Empire, would have used the Hasta (spear) as their main weapon and the Spatha (long sword) as a secondary weapon. The Roman infantry at this time did have short swords and daggers, like the Pugio, but they were unlikely to be used in battle unless in an emergency or to finish off wounded enemies at the end of a battle.

The reason why the Hasta and the Spatha had replaced the short swords like the Gladius is because the armies of the Late Roman Empire had very different military philosophy and tactics than that of the older Roman Armies of the Republic and Early Empire.
Older armies used short swords as the infantry doctrine was to be aggressive and the troops were trained to get in close. This was designed to course the maximum number of dead enemies but as a side effect would also increase the number of casualties on the Roman side. Even though the Roman Empire would have, some, access to better quality cavalry than those available to the Roman Republic the infantry remained the main battle winning force and as mentioned previously it was to be used aggressively. During the Late Republic and Early Empire there is also a disconnect between the Cohorts and the Auxiliaries. Cohorts were volunteers from Roman Citizens, mostly from Rome or modern day Italy (all officers were from the elite in Roman society normal from a few Roman senatorial families). The Auxiliaries were volunteers from non Roman citizens so either from out side the boarders of the Roman Empire or, in most cases, people within the empire which have not been given Roman citizenship. The disconnect is important as the Cohorts would be deliberately given more traditional looking Roman equipment (most notably short swords) and the Auxiliaries would be given specialist equipment depending on what role they were to play in the army.

It is also important to note that in the Republic and Early Empire the armies are not overly concerned about casualties. The Rome of these time periods could suffer large numbers of defeats and Pyrrhic victories and could still produce more field armies because of their huge manpower.

The armies of the Late Roman Era is very different; the Emperor's, of this era, could call on a much more combat effective force but could no longer afford high casualties. The constant civil wars had deleted the empires manpower to the point where the Empire, particularly the Western half, could no longer replace dead soldiers and therefore even a Pyrrhic victory would be disastrous. The armies tactics and weapons/armour changed accordingly.
The infantry is more defensively minded, the Hasta combined with the Clipeus shield (the Scutum shield was replaced because it no longer worked with the new doctrine) allowed infantry to fight in a shield wall formation which greatly reduces the number of Roman casualties in battle. The heavy infantry was no longer the primary battle winner of previous armies; the late Roman armies had a much greater focus on combined arms (light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry and heavy cavalry all working together). The infantry of the late armies could still win battles on its own, best example would be Battle of Argentoratum, however, its main role was to pin the enemy in place and allow the cavalry or light infantry to destroy them in detail. A role not too dissimilar from Hellenic Armies

It is important to note the social structure of the Roman Empire had completely changed in this time period, including what it meant to be Roman. The old power of the senatorial families, based around the city of Roman, had been completely stripped away. Officers were now promoted through the ranks of the army. All peoples within the borders of the empire were given citizenship meaning that being Roman no longer meant someone from Rome or even Italy, it meant anyone from Britain to Syria. As a result old traditional weapons like the Gladius lost its sentimental value and were replaced by more combat effective weapons (within the new doctrine). The old divide between Cohorts and Auxiliaries lost all meaning, therefore, it was no longer reasonable to have different parts of the army using radically different weapons and armour. To keep costs down everyone started using the same weapons and armour which meant that some armour designed for the cavalry, like the Berkasovo helmet, were being used by the infantry. The divide within the military now revolved around Limitanei and Comitatenses.

As it was mentioned by d35966n I thought I should bring up the debate over Late era Romans and Armour. Several early historians argued that Roman forces, particularly infantry, no longer had armour or helmets (I think Edward Gibbon argued that but don't quote me on it as it has been many years since I read his books) this has been disprove in more recent years. Archaeological evidence strongly points to Late Roman Armies being well trained and heavily armoured, even light infantry and light cavalry would have warn some armour. This tradition of well trained and well armoured forces would continue in the Eastern Roman Empire until its destruction 1453. For anyone interested in how archaeology is changing how we understand the fall of the Western Roman Empire I could recommend "The Fall of the Western Roman Empire: An Archaeological & Historical Perspective." It is not perfect but it does show how archaeology is changing how we see these events. Of course there is no shortage of books on this subject.

Wow I may have got too carried away with writing this

[CROWNROBIN]

Is it possible to add 'Toggle melee mode' (to Switch to sword_shield) for spearman?

[Damocles]

By 395 AD, Roman infantry were more typically armed with the spatha, rather than a spear.

David-gb and this AskHistorians post covers the basics of what mainstream historians agree on:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...he_gladius_to/

There might be gameplay reasons for giving them spears, but historically, swords were far more common. We also have documented historical evidence that the Romans actually had 'arsenals' that were pretty efficient at churning out mass produced swords. The capturing and control of such production centers were very important to some 'invaders' like Alaric. They were low quality, but even a low quality sword was better than a spear.

[Mentz]

Infantry units having spears this period (especially Romans) isn't historically inaccurate at all. 400 AD+ is the major era where conflicts with the eastern provinces and Sassanid Cataphracts
are more common....
Since heavy cavalry needs at least spears for infantry to properly defend (without heavy losses) it is fairly logical for these units to have them. Any cavalry unit needs spears to properly defend against it, except if you have heavy suppressing fire support in your back (archers, peltasts, ballistas etc...). But again...for your infantry unit, it's better to have a spear/pilum rather than not....

So units of swordsmen, ax-men etc...as an infantry unit. They are lacking a major weapon protective/formation weapon the spear. Of course for special-units guardsmen etc and heavily armored ones espceccially...within the walls of a city, the spear is more of a burden than an element of integrity and security of the formation.

But any infantryman also had a sidearm in the belt also....in case the spear breaks from an opponent's charge etc (or when in conflict out of formation...one-on-one situations). Romans always preferred a sword whether it is a spatha or a gladius....with the latter being more a "formation" also choice, while spatha being better in a duel situation. Depending on culture/funds/training etc. all infantry units had also a sidearm with them, apart form the spear & shield combo. Making only spear units is also not very viable...changing to a sidearm when out-of-formation mode is OFF seems pretty cool option, if it can be implemented. At least for tier II+ infanty "spear" units....