The Use of the Spiculum

[julianus heraclius]

I’m curious as to when the spiculum fell out of favour. I have in Phil Barker’s book that by the start of the 5th century it had fallen out of use with lighter and longer ranged weapons being used (veruta, plumbatarum).

For those of you who may not be aware, "a spiculum is a late Roman spear that replaced the pilum at around 250AD as the infantryman's main throwing javelin. Scholars suppose that it could have resulted from the gradual combination of the pilum and two German spears, the angon and the bebra. As more and more Germans joined the Roman army their culture and traditions became a driving force for change. The spiculum is better than the old pilum for retention in the hand, used as a thrusting spear, but still maintaining some of the former weapons penetrative power when thrown." (taken from Wikipedia)

So, I was wondering if anyone had more information that could substantiate this as it would have an effect on late roman mods in the 5th C onwards. Essentially, it would mean that no roman troops could be armed with a heavy throwing weapon.

Discussion is welcome.

[Valentinian Victor]

I’m curious as to when the spiculum fell out of favour. I have in Phil Barker’s book that by the start of the 5th century it had fallen out of use with lighter and longer ranged weapons being used (veruta, plumbatarum).

For those of you who may not be aware, "a spiculum is a late Roman spear that replaced the pilum at around 250AD as the infantryman's main throwing javelin. Scholars suppose that it could have resulted from the gradual combination of the pilum and two German spears, the angon and the bebra. As more and more Germans joined the Roman army their culture and traditions became a driving force for change. The spiculum is better than the old pilum for retention in the hand, used as a thrusting spear, but still maintaining some of the former weapons penetrative power when thrown." (taken from Wikipedia)

So, I was wondering if anyone had more information that could substantiate this as it would have an effect on late roman mods in the 5th C onwards. Essentially, it would mean that no roman troops could be armed with a heavy throwing weapon.

Discussion is welcome.

Vegetius states that the Spiculum was in use by the infantry when he wrote, but he also stated that the pilum was seldom used, not that it was never used, and there are several mentions in Ammanius during the reigns of Valentinian I and Valens of troops throwing 'pilis', the plural of pilum. There are a number of mentions in Ammanius of Spiculum so its a sure bet that the use of both spiculum and pilum was in vogue during the 4th century. There is apparently a couple of references to infantry using pilum in 5/6th century works, but this may be a case of classising (although there is the thought that the old border legiones in Egypt and the East may have retained outmoded equipment such as the pilum etc. If you look at Late Roman art from the 3rd century onwards you will see almost all the troops are armed with a spear (spiculum?) or the shorter veruta (javelin). From inferences in Vegetius and Ammanius its clear that the infantry had a heavy throwing spear that could also fend off cavalry, and they also had probably two javelins for distance defence. It's interesting that in Ammanius there is no reference I can find to troops throwing darts ('plumbata' or 'martiobarbuli' ).

So, my idea would be that by the 450's onwards the troops would be armed with a 6 foot long spear and a couple of javelins, the pilum probably only being used by select 'shock' troops, possibly in the first rank of each legione/auxilia unit, or by the border legiones. Your probably onto a safe bet if you model everyone as having a spear, just as is shown in the art works of the period. By the late 6th century the length of the spear appears to have increased to about 8 feet, and a bit later this increased still further to 12 feet.

[wulfgar610]

The concentration on weapons used came to be seen as an error in WRG. Rather the it became to be seen as to what the prevailing strategy of the troop type concerned was. Infantry had been the main arm of the earlier Roman army and the opponents infantry was viewing as the dangerous arm to combat.
The Legionaries had been built on an aggressive strategy of taking the fight to the opponent. This required troops of sufficient elan and great sword handling skill for fighting toe to toe with the enemy. This was not a style of combat for second rate troops. It was not a particularly good strategy for dealing with cavalry, and heavy throwing spears became outmoded as cavalry began to dominate the battlefield in the late era.
Later Roman infantry lost their elan and simply became second rate force to support the cavalry which became the main arm. Cavalry rising to the dominant position may have the result of larger stronger breeds of horse appearing at the time. The Huns brought a new style of powerful recurved bow suitable for horseback use to Europe. A couple of generations of fighting the Huns saw the Romans adopting the Hun style of warfare.
It becomes a question of what proportion of a population has a sufficiently aggressive attitude. Later Anglo Saxon England divided their freemen between the 1/5 that was seen as having the natural competence for warfare and 4/5's who did not.
So if your best recruits are going to the cavalry arm, don't expect the infantry arm to be especially good. By the late 5th Roman cavalry was being paid almost twice as much as the infantry.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Interesting Disscussion here, a description of the weapon is below, from wikipedia.

The main difference between the spiculum and the pilum was the length of the thin point. The spiculum tended to have a much shorter iron point. Thus, the spiculum was significantly shorter than its ancestor, perhaps 190 cm long. The spiculum had a medium iron shank attached to the head. Its exact design is not fully known as there are many variants. The spiculum fell out of favour with the Roman army some time after AD 400.

The spiculum didn't have the range of the lancea it was replaced by, and the lancea along with the plumbatae was much lighter. The lancea was also used to fight with like a hasta, and replaced the hasta soon after, as it was shorter, and thinner, lighter, and throwable.

[Deutschland]

i still use the speculum pretty often on my wife.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

So do I . . .

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

man that's wrong...

[juvenus]

I don't have a wife.....but, does a girlfriend count?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I wasn't referring to my wife . . .

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

To put this back on topic, the romans replaced the spiculum with plumbatae and lancea because it was, essentially, usless in the style of fighting Roman Troops were utilizing at that time. to quote the historical atlas of ancient rome: "This Portrays the late Roman army as a battlefield pushover, but the facts suggest otherwise. Valens legions may have been anihallated at adrianople, but they fought well and bravely. It was Aetius, a roman general, who masterminded the extrodinary defeat of attila the hun at the catalaunian plains. And how did the Eastern empire manage to hand on for another millenium? The truth is that change and flexiblity were the army's greatest weapons, not it's weaknesses. Commanders had no problem with 'foreign' troops, weapons, ort tactics provided they improved performance."
That's how the spiculum came to be, and how it came to be replaced.

[Valentinian Victor]

To put this back on topic, the romans replaced the spiculum with plumbatae and lancea because it was, essentially, usless in the style of fighting Roman Troops were utilizing at that time. to quote the historical atlas of ancient rome: "This Portrays the late Roman army as a battlefield pushover, but the facts suggest otherwise. Valens legions may have been anihallated at adrianople, but they fought well and bravely. It was Aetius, a roman general, who masterminded the extrodinary defeat of attila the hun at the catalaunian plains. And how did the Eastern empire manage to hand on for another millenium? The truth is that change and flexiblity were the army's greatest weapons, not it's weaknesses. Commanders had no problem with 'foreign' troops, weapons, ort tactics provided they improved performance."
That's how the spiculum came to be, and how it came to be replaced.

I'm afraid I cannot agree with the above. There is no evidence that the Spiculum fell out of favour, spears came to replace the lighter lancea and veruta because infantry needed a weapon that could fend off cavalry, and no one is seriously suggesting that martiobarbuli and lancea were able to do that!
And I think you over-egg the abilities of Aetius, especially the battle of Chalons, which was really a triumph of barbarians over barbarians, there being precious few 'Romans' at that particular battle. If you want to look at a 4th century General then look no further than Valentinian I, known to historians as the 'Last Great Warrior Emperor'.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I said nothing here about Aetius, and that was a quote from a book. I just quoted the entire paragraph.
Also The spiculum fell out of favor because it was heavy, and the troops didnt like heavy anymore because they were complacent.
The army changed weapons because they wanted something lighter, and unlike the pilum the lancea was skinnier, smaller, faster, lighter and did not bend, so you could double it as a hand to hand combat weapon.

[Valentinian Victor]

I said nothing here about Aetius, and that was a quote from a book. I just quoted the entire paragraph.
Also The spiculum fell out of favor because it was heavy, and the troops didnt like heavy anymore because they were complacent.
The army changed weapons because they wanted something lighter, and unlike the pilum the lancea was skinnier, smaller, faster, lighter and did not bend, so you could double it as a hand to hand combat weapon.

I think you need to look at your post, as you quite clearly mentioned Aetius.
I dont wish to appear rude, but might I suggest that you increase your knowledge about the Late Roman Empire, its army, weapons etc. It might spare you some embarrasment in the future.
Oh, and I would respectfully suggest that you dont quote stuff from Wiki, its not entirely reliable (an author friend of mine is quoted as being dead on Wiki, pity about that considering he is alive and well!).

[wulfgar610]

I said nothing here about Aetius, and that was a quote from a book. I just quoted the entire paragraph.
Also The spiculum fell out of favor because it was heavy, and the troops didnt like heavy anymore because they were complacent.
The army changed weapons because they wanted something lighter, and unlike the pilum the lancea was skinnier, smaller, faster, lighter and did not bend, so you could double it as a hand to hand combat weapon.

Well the Roman army almost fell out of bed in the West in first decade of the 5th century. The majority of the Italian field army deserted to Alaric after the murder of Stilicho. So I'd wonder how many Roman military traditions continued in West after that. However the West was beset by the very enemies that the spiculum would have been useful against, close order Germanic infantry. As for the East how much of its enemies fielded much heavy infantry by this period? So the spiculum verged on useless in the east by this time and the native Western Army as it had been had been known ceased to exist.

[Valentinian Victor]

Well the Roman army almost fell out of bed in the West in first decade of the 5th century. The majority of the Italian field army deserted to Alaric after the murder of Stilicho. So I'd wonder how many Roman military traditions continued in West after that. However the West was beset by the very enemies that the spiculum would have been useful against, close order Germanic infantry. As for the East how much of its enemies fielded much heavy infantry by this period? So the spiculum verged on useless in the east by this time and the native Western Army as it had been had been known ceased to exist.

The Spiculum was a heavy spear, roughly 6 feet to 6 and a half feet long. It could be thrust to fend off cavalry, but also thrown much like the pilum it appears to have replaced. Therefore it was the ideal weapon for use in both the Western and Eastern halves of the empire. Even against the Goths the Late Romans retained their Spiculum for so long that at the Battle of Adrianopolis they 'became broken through repeated blows'.

The 'Byzantines' increased the length of the spear to 8 feet and then to 12 feet as they needed a longer weapon to fend off the Sasanids and other mainly mounted armies.

[wulfgar610]

The Spiculum was a heavy spear, roughly 6 feet to 6 and a half feet long. It could be thrust to fend off cavalry, but also thrown much like the pilum it appears to have replaced. Therefore it was the ideal weapon for use in both the Western and Eastern halves of the empire. Even against the Goths the Late Romans retained their Spiculum for so long that at the Battle of Adrianopolis they 'became broken through repeated blows'.

The 'Byzantines' increased the length of the spear to 8 feet and then to 12 feet as they needed a longer weapon to fend off the Sasanids and other mainly mounted armies.

Well is a compromise weapon always ideal? The brilliant strategy of the earlier plum had been that it was rather useless as a thrusting spear. The legionnaire was forced into a position were his only option was to toss the thing and proceed to the style of combat he had been trained for. Cowering behind the spear was not a option for the early legion, the was only one road out and that was beating the hell of your enemy.
Not that I'm saying that a defensive strategy with spears is not a good one, but you have to figure out whether you plan to be the husband or the wife and then act accordingly. Aggressive swordsmanship against a close order infantry is a brilliant technique, but not one that can deal well with cavalry or light infantry.
However the Rhine Germans used similar spears, so there is no doubt that the style of weapon continued to be well known during the period.
It appears the Frankish leadership had adopted the strategy of the early Romans and it ended up working for them.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yeah, I'm getting heather's book. and as I said I quoted that whole paragraph. And it was out of the Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome.
BTW I'm sociopathic. I don't feel embarassment.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The romans did use the pila against cavalry in their repellere equites formation, angling the pilum at the horse's chest. The Spiculum was replaced by whatever the foederati used and the Roman government cut their funding to the military so they would have used the lancea instead of the spiculum, because it was cheaper and was stiff unlike the pilum and didnt bend.
Also, the Romans at chalons reportedly fought until their spears broke, and until their swords broke, amd until their fingers, helmets, and shields broke. and then they picked up the swords and spears and broken items of the fallen and fought with whatever was left.

[Valentinian Victor]

The romans did use the pila against cavalry in their repellere equites formation, angling the pilum at the horse's chest. The Spiculum was replaced by whatever the foederati used and the Roman government cut their funding to the military so they would have used the lancea instead of the spiculum, because it was cheaper and was stiff unlike the pilum and didnt bend.
Also, the Romans at chalons reportedly fought until their spears broke, and until their swords broke, amd until their fingers, helmets, and shields broke. and then they picked up the swords and spears and broken items of the fallen and fought with whatever was left.

I don't intend expending any more time or effort on this topic other than to suggest that people do make an effort to read rather more rather than rely just on one or two works, and preferably not to rely on the Osprey books or Wiki. Let me reitterate here, the Spiculum was not the Pilum, it was a approximately six foot long spear that had a nine inch long iron head. It was a weapon ideal for throwing and also for fending off cavalry. It served a useful dual purpose in that you could throw it at infantry and then charge in with the sword, or retain it to fend off cavarly. It did not bend like the pilum because it was not a pilum!

And just in case anyone asks, two readily ancient sources state that the pilum was still in use during the 4th/5th Centuries AD, Ammianus and Vegetius. Might I suggest people obtain copies of those works (dont download the internet copies as they are not either complete or properly translated).

[wulfgar610]

It was a weapon ideal for throwing and also for fending off cavalry.

Vot a 6 foot spear, that was still a bit on the flimsy side? I'd look at something 9 foot and maybe 12 foot is better.