[QUESTION] Romna spear infantry

[NiKuTa]

Hi. I'm not good in Roman history. But could anyone tell me what infantry spear units Roman use after triarii units was withdrawn?

[Sar1n]

In several cases, legionaries used their pila as spears against cavalry instead of throwing them. Some auxilia units were also armed with spears, but most of them were either armed like legionaries or filled other specialist roles like cavalry or archers.

[NiKuTa]

So Roman don't train a spear units after triarii ?

[Sar1n]

From Marian reforms through early imperial period, not many...if any at all. It was thought that pilum, used as spear, was enough.

[HuangCaesar]

Even before the Marian reforms, Triarrii no longer carried spears. The Marian reforms were mainly a social reform than an armour and tactical reform. The Pilum could still be used a spear as proven in the Battle of Alesia and the Battle of Phaspalus. The Auxilia(created in the 1st century AD) often were equipped with spears called the Hasta and were stationed on the flanks while the sword armed Legionaires held the center. The Colum of Marcus Aurelius(2nd century) shows Legionaires armed with spears though(I think)

[Anna_Gein]

Even before the Marian reforms, Triarrii no longer carried spears. The Marian reforms were mainly a social reform than an armour and tactical reform. The Pilum could still be used a spear as proven in the Battle of Alesia and the Battle of Phaspalus. The Auxilia(created in the 1st century AD) often were equipped with spears called the Hasta and were stationed on the flanks while the sword armed Legionaires held the center. The Colum of Marcus Aurelius(2nd century) shows Legionaires armed with spears though(I think)

Excellent recap.

Also people should remind that the need of a few units of spearmen to counter the enemy cavalry is a very "gamey" way to think. Most of Rome enemies did not had shock cavalry able to charge the enemy. As the Roman cavalry they would at best harass the infantry and attack fleeing men. Even the Parthians and the Scythians cataphracts charge could be stopped by swordsmen infantry as long as the second line was ready to immediately support the first line.

[RGA]

Excellent recap.

Also people should remind that the need of a few units of spearmen to counter the enemy cavalry is a very "gamey" way to think. Most of Rome enemies did not had shock cavalry able to charge the enemy. As the Roman cavalry they would at best harass the infantry and attack fleeing men. Even the Parthians and the Scythians cataphracts charge could be stopped by swordsmen infantry as long as the second line was ready to immediately support the first line.

Roman infantry had hard time against Carthaginian cavalry. Seleucid cataphracts destroyed the left wing of the Roman army at Magnesia. I agree that the need of spearmen to counter cavalry is a very gamey way of thinking, but it's not because cavalry was inefficient in ancient times. It's because the best way to counter cavalry is field own cavalry. Roman citizen cavalry was not that superb (they were, in contrast of popular belief, quite decent though), but Rome had tons of excellent auxilliary cavalry from all corners of its empire.

As others have already mentioned, Roman auxilliary infantry used spear extensively. It's not because spear is better than sword or something. Simple reason is: they retained their weapons when fighting for the empire. Later legions changed from sword to spear, but I read some theories that it had more to do with the barbariansation of the army and the growing Hellenophile of the upper class, rather than a pragmatic reason.

[HuangCaesar]

Allied forces(Socii, Foederettii) were hired often outside their borders or client states. Auxilia(a system created by Augustus) were proffesionalized standing units of mixed backgrounds who haven't gained citizenship often led by Roman citizens. (For example a unit of Gallic or Pannonian Auxilia were often not Gallic or Pannonian)They were levied mostly from provinces under Roman control.

[HuangCaesar]

Roman infantry had hard time against Carthaginian cavalry. Seleucid cataphracts destroyed the left wing of the Roman army at Magnesia. I agree that the need of spearmen to counter cavalry is a very gamey way of thinking, but it's not because cavalry was inefficient in ancient times. It's because the best way to counter cavalry is field own cavalry. Roman citizen cavalry was not that superb (they were, in contrast of popular belief, quite decent though), but Rome had tons of excellent auxilliary cavalry from all corners of its empire.

As others have already mentioned, Roman auxilliary infantry used spear extensively. It's not because spear is better than sword or something. Simple reason is: they retained their weapons when fighting for the empire. Later legions changed from sword to spear, but I read some theories that it had more to do with the barbariansation of the army and the growing Hellenophile of the upper class, rather than a pragmatic reason.

Carthagnian cavalry? Most of Hannibal's decisive blows were from the rear. Even the longest spears would not save them. So did the Selucids.(Rome had Greek allied force at Magnesia) Antochios saw the weakness of allied force and did sweep across the river attacking the Romans at their flanks and rear routing them. I personally think spear infanty is not capable of dealing with cavalry from the flanks even with their long weapons(Theban Sacred Band phlanx got destroyed by Alexander's cavalry) Roman citizen cavalry was very little in a consular army(only 25 percent) while most cavalry were Italian allies (75 percent). Due to the expensiveness of horses in Italy and the Italian allies ganing citizenship, Italian/Roman cavalry diminished by the Marian reforms. Adopting Spear units had nothing to do with native fighting custom. Auxiliaries were standardized forces wearing Roman provided equipmen(unlike Foderettii who wore native equipment and fought with clubs) If the Romans were so liberal about their Auxilia, we would seeing Thracian Auxilia armed with the Falx. The reason why Late Roman army used spears probally is because defensive theory and cost.

[Maklodes]

I agree that the need of spearmen to counter cavalry is a very gamey way of thinking, but it's not because cavalry was inefficient in ancient times. It's because the best way to counter cavalry is field own cavalry.

Personally, I'd say that fielding units of the same type isn't "countering." It's "matching."

The issue with facing cavalry with any sort of infantry is that, if the infantry is stronger, then the cavalry can usually run away, while if the cavalry is stronger, it can usually choose when and where to strike. (Also, of course, the cavalry can usually dismount, while the infantry can't mount their non-existent horses.)

If the enemy fields heavy cavalry (cataphracts, companions), then it might be countered with light cavalry (Numidian/Tarantine-style javelin cavalry, horse archers) or with heavy infantry (phalangites, legionaries). If the enemy fields light cavalry, then the only real counter is light infantry (foot archers, slingers) -- but, of course, if your light infantry corps is strong enough, the light cavalry can always just choose not to engage.

Of course, in many real battles, "countering" was not really feasible, because both sides had fairly similar armies, and neither general was going to send his soldiers to fight in the way that was least advantageous to them (a few exceptions like Carrhae where the Parthian light cavalry was an effective counter to Roman heavy infantry, or Pharsalus where Caesar's heavy infantry was a counter to Pompey's cavalry, notwithstanding). So in reality you often did have light infantry fighting light infantry in a skirmish at the beginning of the battle, then the heavy infantry fighting the heavy infantry, with both heavy cavalry corps trying to circle around the flanks to attack the heavy infantry at its weak points and running into each other, leading to the cavalry duel.

Just because many battles did, in fact, have similar units fighting against each other, though, doesn't mean that this is what either commander wanted. It was just the common equilibrium when one general wasn't able to brilliantly out-maneuver the other, and they didn't have drastically different armies.

[HuangCaesar]

Excellent recap.

Also people should remind that the need of a few units of spearmen to counter the enemy cavalry is a very "gamey" way to think. Most of Rome enemies did not had shock cavalry able to charge the enemy. As the Roman cavalry they would at best harass the infantry and attack fleeing men. Even the Parthians and the Scythians cataphracts charge could be stopped by swordsmen infantry as long as the second line was ready to immediately support the first line.

Indeed if you read Arrian's account of the Romans fighting the Alans in the 2nd century, Legionaires formed a defensive wedge called the Foukron raising their Pila in a phalnanx. The Byzantines were later use this as well. If the Alans try to pull a Cahrae on them and harass them the Romans at this time had legionaires as light infantry. Also huge numbers of Auxilia archers were used the (Sagatarii) to counter horse archers plus artillery(scorpio or carrioballista)

[hellheaven1987]

Hi. I'm not good in Roman history. But could anyone tell me what infantry spear units Roman use after triarii units was withdrawn?

Spear was main Roman weapon after 3rd Century; in fact late Roman military fought in a mixed order with first few rank fought in shield wall/phalanx formation while ranks behind equipped with missile weapons - for both infantry unit and cavalry unit.

[SD_Man]

Spear was main Roman weapon after 3rd Century; in fact late Roman military fought in a mixed order with first few rank fought in shield wall/phalanx formation while ranks behind equipped with missile weapons - for both infantry unit and cavalry unit.

Phalanx? That formation was long dead before 300 CE and the flat shields of the late romans meant that phalanx was impossible.

[hellheaven1987]

Phalanx? That formation was long dead before 300 CE and the flat shields of the late romans meant that phalanx was impossible.

And it come back again and again, get over it.

Legionaire of the 3rd century carried Hasta spear and the maybye a Pilum/spear hybrid along with the Gladius or SemiSpatha. They still fought in atrititional warfare of offensive maunvers and even testudo in the 2nd century. The shieldwall formations similar to the phalanx were not adopted till the mid 4th century like the Battle of Strasbourg where infanty locked their shields and used spears on mass.

There is no clear source explained how legionaries fought during 3rd Century Crisis, although by the time of Constantine the Great shieldwall formations seemed already adopted. However unlike Greek phalanx 4th Century Roman shieldwall was not designed for close combat purpose but to put a shieldwall in order to buy time for rear rank continuing pouring arrows on enemies.

The tactic seems only work because German did not have armor; suck for you Jerry.

[HuangCaesar]

And it come back again and again, get over it.



There is no clear source explained how legionaries fought during 3rd Century Crisis, although by the time of Constantine the Great shieldwall formations seemed already adopted. However unlike Greek phalanx 4th Century Roman shieldwall was not designed for close combat purpose but to put a shieldwall in order to buy time for rear rank continuing pouring arrows on enemies.

The tactic seems only work because German did not have armor; suck for you Jerry.

The normal style phalanx shieldwalls never gone out of use. I think its the Pike phalanx he is talking about. Romans tried to experiment with the pike Phalanx in the late 2nd century under Severus but never saw combat. The Normal shieldwall phalanx had been used by the Gauls since the Gallic Wars and I highly doubt the Roman Auxilia dropped them. Roman Legionaires mainly fought offensively with their shields loosed so their was room for the Gladius. But Arrian reports they locked into phalanx in the 2nd century with their Pilum(scutum and Lorica Segmentat Legionaires BTW) as spears when fighting Alan cavalry and Cataphracts. Actually 3rd century armies had been reported if you read on Aurelian as his Legionaires often rushed in offensive formation. Constantine used shieldwall? Eh, he was a very offensive commander prefer aggressive charges unlike the later Roman army who was very defensive. For example the Battle of Crysopolis where Constantine did a massive frontal charge. Shieldwalls I believe were only used defensively for the Roman army and broke the wall once they attacked. And the nature of small battles, avoiding causalties did not come into play till after the Civil War of Constantius and Magnetius.

[SD_Man]

The normal style phalanx shieldwalls never gone out of use. I think its the Pike phalanx he is talking about. Romans tried to experiment with the pike Phalanx in the late 2nd century under Severus but never saw combat. The Normal shieldwall phalanx had been used by the Gauls since the Gallic Wars and I highly doubt the Roman Auxilia dropped them. Roman Legionaires mainly fought offensively with their shields loosed so their was room for the Gladius. But Arrian reports they locked into phalanx in the 2nd century with their Pilum(scutum and Lorica Segmentat Legionaires BTW) as spears when fighting Alan cavalry and Cataphracts. Actually 3rd century armies had been reported if you read on Aurelian as his Legionaires often rushed in offensive formation. Constantine used shieldwall? Eh, he was a very offensive commander prefer aggressive charges unlike the later Roman army who was very defensive. For example the Battle of Crysopolis where Constantine did a massive frontal charge. Shieldwalls I believe were only used defensively for the Roman army and broke the wall once they attacked. And the nature of small battles, avoiding causalties did not come into play till after the Civil War of Constantius and Magnetius.

Nay I speak for all phalanx. Yes they might have fought like the phalanx, but if they didn't use curved-interlocking shields (aspis) and didn't use elongated spears (doru), than it is not a true phalanx; a shieldwall and a phalanx are not the same thing.

Remember, it may be like raisin bran, but its not raisin bran

[HuangCaesar]

Legionaire of the 3rd century carried Hasta spear and the maybye a Pilum/spear hybrid along with the Gladius or SemiSpatha. They still fought in atrititional warfare of offensive maunvers and even testudo in the 2nd century. The shieldwall formations similar to the phalanx were not adopted till the mid 4th century like the Battle of Strasbourg where infanty locked their shields and used spears on mass.

[daelin4]

Given the Roman military's evolution, spears were not a very important feature. I mean the original legionaries started out as hoplites, then gradually switched to swords. A spear would not work terribly well in a typical front-line fight when carried alongside a scutum, which no doubt made the triarii a last resort in their heyday, and phased out entirely by the time Augustus took over.

Another thing is that even if the Romans did need spear units, they could easily find them in auxiliaries and allied forces. Rome had a habit of just hiring out these niches than absorbing them into their own core of citizen legions.

[HuangCaesar]

Many Late Roman shields were flat. How did they lock? The same way 2nd century Legionaires formed Testudo or Anti-cavalry formation. By overlapping them.

[SD_Man]

Many Late Roman shields were flat. How did they lock? The same way 2nd century Legionaires formed Testudo or Anti-cavalry formation. By overlapping them.

The Legionaries cant be compared to the mock late roman infantry. What I mean by "locking shields" is overlapping side-by-side not just covering like in the testudo. For comparison, here is true Saxon shieldwall against testudo:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Notice how the Romans dont cover each other, only themselves, while the barbarians overlap one another.