Roman manipular legions...with spears?

[Damocles]

I thought it was pretty conclusively well documented, that by 272 BC, the Roman manipular legions had adopted the gladius and scutum. It was certainly the case during the Phyrric Wars which had just ended and probably came out of the Third Samnite War.

It's also well known that 'hastati' despite meaning spearman, is actually a misnomer.

This isn't groundbreaking scholarship, but just for the hell of it, here's a link which includes a selection of published scholarship: http://www.scribd.com/doc/194289975/...ary-298-105-BC

So why do we start the game with a bunch of spear units, and Triarii utilizing the hoplite formation. It makes no sense to fight the First Punic War with a bunch've hoplites.

Any explanation?

On an unrelated note - the autoresolve is crazy. It way benefits the AI. You're better off just charging ahead and fighting man to man than relying on autoresolve. You'll take many more casualties.

Beyond that...What's the logic in making Hastati, Principi and Triarii available at different times? You already have the AoR which limits how many kinds of troops can be in the army. Rome should have access to all from the beginning...And they might stop getting their arse kicked by Syracuse or Liguria.

Front-Line Legionary, hastatus (page 28 - READ IT)
In this reconstruction we show a hastatus, in fighting order, from the time of the Pyrrhic War. He is a citizen of few means: he wears an unadorned Montefortino helmet [...]. He is holding two pila, one heavy and one lightweight. An Iberian-pattern cut-and-thrust sword (a straight-bladed, sharp-pointed weapon from which the celebrated Roman gladius Hispaniensis would evolve) is carried in its scabbard high on the right hip. [...]

It is worth noting that the term hastati, spearman, should be taken to mean armed with throwing spears, namely pila, instead of thrusting ones. This is after all, the sense it bears out in our earliest surviving example of it, in Ennius' line 'hastati spargun hasti', meaning 'hastati who hurl hasti' [Annales fr. 284 Vahlen), and their name probably reflects a time when they alone used pila.

[Gaius Livius]

Its the freedom to do in a mod what the creator thinks he wants to mod and is his right to mod the way he wants the mod to be. That sounded like Socrates....... But you are right. Hoplite tactics were abandoned by the end of the 4th century BC.

[Damocles]

Its the freedom to do in a mod what the creator thinks he wants to mod and is his right to mod the way he wants the mod to be. That sounded like Socrates....... But you are right. Hoplite tactics were abandoned by the end of the 4th century BC.

Absent a compelling reason why Rome should be fighting the Punic War with a dramatically outclassed and Claudine Forks era army (the one where they were famously defeated in the Second Samnite War, before changing tactics and winning in the Third), it should be changed.

Rome is getting slammed by overpowered Gallic barbarians from the North (who are much the same in 272 BC as they are in 58 BC), Syracuse elite troops and Carthaginians. I even saw Epirus conquer the whole Italian peninsula. Seriously, that Gallic cavalry bodyguard unit Brihennic or such, is a monster. If it weren't for the AI's propensity to charge into mass ranks of spears, it'd be a world killer. It's what the Gauls have in the Caesar campaign, and they start with it in 272 BC.

I remember this being fixed in the original huge Rome: Total War mod. And I figured Divide must be at least up to that standard given all the time that's passed. It's just shocking that it hasn't been, given how many Roman buffs are around here.

If it's not going to be historically accurate, at least have it be good from a mechanic point of view. But mechanically, it's also a disaster. So I don't see a reason to keep with it.

[gary]

I agree with the first, no idea why you have speer hastatii and so on but its their mod.. second i also agree that with manipular you should be able to recruit trarii principis and hastatii from the beginning and should have gladius. I think it is not really about historical accuracy but just a game mechanic they like and have stuck with.

[LAKEDAIMON]

The Romans had abandoned the phalanx but they still used spear. Scipio Africanus gave the legions gladius, which was inspired from a similar spanish sword.
Moreover, it is also historical that at the start the Romans are outclassed because they were growing this time.Hellenic and barbaric stay the same becayse they stayed the same.

[Damocles]

The Romans had abandoned the phalanx but they still used spear. Scipio Africanus gave the legions gladius, which was inspired from a similar spanish sword.
Moreover, it is also historical that at the start the Romans are outclassed because they were growing this time.Hellenic and barbaric stay the same becayse they stayed the same.

Multiple sources have called the Second Punic War origin of the gladius into doubt. At best, it referred to a possible new design on the manipular short sword. But the gladius itself has been documented in Roman hands back to the 4th century BC (where it was used in some personal combat).

In any case, this is the exact kind of vague pronouncement of faux-authority that this forum is infamous for. I gave a link with actual scholarship and a more educated take on the debate than you could possess, unless you've gotten published on the subject. I'll summarize it as concisely as possible.

The manipular legions never used the spear. They had the cutting and thrusting sword with a Samnite shield, the interplay of which was famous in contrast to their battles against the Gauls and the Epirus phalanx.

They had a light pilum and a heavy pilum. The heavy pilum could be used as a spear to ward off cavalry. But typically, first the light and then the heavy pilum was thrown before engaging in close combat with the short sword and scutum. This was Rome's famous shock attack.

So you're wrong on two levels. You're historically wrong, and based your opinion on some quote by Livy, when its been well established since that the gladius goes back to at least the First Punic War. Given we're talking about centuries here though, just consider the M-16. We carried the M-16 in the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War nearly 50 years later. Perhaps people in a thousand years from now will think they're the same weapon. But any modern warfighter could tell you the difference between the first M-16 and the one being used now are incredible.

You're also wrong on the mechanic front. Having Rome start with an ~320 BC army in 272 BC, ensures that they will be dominated by the ferociously statted Barbarian, Syracusan and only slightly less so Carthaganian factions, each of with begin with a whole panoply of devastating units. Rome starts out looking like the Etruscan League.

[Ritter-Floh]

@Don_Diego: please correct me if something is wrong...

Early Hastati have primarily used the Hasta:
Hasta, a Latin word meaning spear, was the first and last main Roman weapon. Hastae is the plural form of hasta. A hasta was about 6.5 feet (2 m) long with an iron head and a shaft typically made of ash. The earliest Rome forces fought in a phalanx style like Greek warriors using spears, however, during the Republic a switch was made to using three lines.

The early Gladius was described by the ancient Romans as the “gladius hispaniensis”, in recognition of a similar type of Celtic design encountered by the Romans during their conquest of Hispania (modern-day Spain) during the Second Punic War (218—201BC). Before this, Roman soldiers would have used swords of Greek origin.

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 still think all early Roman units should have 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.

[Damocles]

@Don_Diego: please correct me if something is wrong...

Early Hastati have primarily used the Hasta:
Hasta, a Latin word meaning spear, was the first and last main Roman weapon. Hastae is the plural form of hasta. A hasta was about 6.5 feet (2 m) long with an iron head and a shaft typically made of ash. The earliest Rome forces fought in a phalanx style like Greek warriors using spears, however, during the Republic a switch was made to using three lines.

The early Gladius was described by the ancient Romans as the “gladius hispaniensis”, in recognition of a similar type of Celtic design encountered by the Romans during their conquest of Hispania (modern-day Spain) during the Second Punic War (218—201BC). Before this, Roman soldiers would have used swords of Greek origin.

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 still think all early Roman units should have 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.

I'll say it again. It's well known, and it's even mentioned in the link that I provided, that hastati was a misnomer. It means spearman, but they weren't actually spearmen. It's a holdover term from the pre-Claudine Forks era, back when Rome still fought on the mostly coastal plains as hoplites.

They had to change it up to scutum and short sword since the Samnite Wars took place in the mountains and rugged terrain. That's the leading theory, where actual published scholarship is concerned, regarding the transition to the manipular legion.

[Biggus Splenus]

@Don_Diego: please correct me if something is wrong...

Early Hastati have primarily used the Hasta:
Hasta, a Latin word meaning spear, was the first and last main Roman weapon. Hastae is the plural form of hasta. A hasta was about 6.5 feet (2 m) long with an iron head and a shaft typically made of ash. The earliest Rome forces fought in a phalanx style like Greek warriors using spears, however, during the Republic a switch was made to using three lines.

hasta does mean spear, but there are many names for spears, throwing or thrusting, that were indistinguishably used by Latin authors to generally describe a spear (once again, throwing or thrusting). My point is that it's impossible to make a conclusion on the use of their spears when given such a generic name for this class of pole-arm, without given further context. Many primary sources record the hastati throwing hasta, throwing a storm of steel, etc.

The early Gladius was described by the ancient Romans as the “gladius hispaniensis”, in recognition of a similar type of Celtic design encountered by the Romans during their conquest of Hispania (modern-day Spain) during the Second Punic War (218—201BC). Before this, Roman soldiers would have used swords of Greek origin.

gladius is a generic name for sword. The gladius hispaniensis was encountered before the 2nd Punic War. The early Roman swords were like Hellenic swords (xiphos, specifically), but not identical, and shouldn't be called Hellenic.

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.

Again, these early warriors were described with hasta, and hastae have previously been described as throwing weapons. It's not correct to assume that early Roman warriors of the "Servian Army" (the term you use) solely used thrusting spears, especially when considering that the native Italic fighting style was with javelins and scuta. Dionysios also says the Principes held their spears with 2 hands... so what sense can be made of this statement?

I still think all early Roman units should have hastae. Camilian troops were separated on social wealth and not experience

Sources? Both Livy and Polybios, describing the army of the early 4th C BCE and early 2nd C BCE respectively, say the heavy infantry (hastati, principes and triarii) were divided by age. The light infantry (leves or velites) and cavalry (equites) are the only mentioned being separated by wealth, as the poorest and the aristocrats respectively.

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.

No scholar, or author, has ever argued that triarii were still armed with clipei during the war with Pyrrhos, or that they retained this shield when the hastati and principes adopted the scutum. What gives you (or the designer of these units) the thought that they did, and that they'd still fight in a phalanx when the rest of the army (vast, vast majority) used manipular tactics?

[Dominicus Ultimus]

A very interesting and enlightening thread. I remember back in the day when I used to compare the differences in historical units and equipment between EB and RTR. *sigh* Good times, but I don't have as much energy for discussions as I used to so I'll quietly step back and continue reading from the shadows.

The early Roman swords were like Hellenic swords (xyston, specifically), but not identical, and shouldn't be called Hellenic.

I do believe you mean xiphos and not xyston, which I'm sure you know is a large thrusting spear. Just a minor correction. Love your camera mod and the realistic units mod by you and your comrades by the way

[Biggus Splenus]

I do believe you mean xiphos and not xyston, which I'm sure you know is a large thrusting spear. Just a minor correction. Love your camera mod and the realistic units mod by you and your comrades by the way

Kudos to you too I've been saying xyston for a while now and never realised but man you joined in 2007, and you've made 38 posts... very conservative

Thanks for your kind words, I believe DeI uses my Unit Names mod, however they never really credit me and my team, apart from on one thread (and I can't even find that thread any more)... maybe that's the thanks we get for our hours of hard work.

I've only come to DeI forums 3 times now I think, so I've never downloaded, played or even followed the mod, but I share because I like to Even if recognition isn't received.

[Damocles]

Kudos to you too I've been saying xyston for a while now and never realised

Thanks for your kind words, I believe DeI uses my Unit Names mod, however they never really credit me and my team, apart from on one thread... maybe that's the thanks we get for our hours of hard work.

I've only come to DeI forums 3 times now I think, so I've never downloaded, played or even followed the mod, but I share because I like to Even if recognition isn't received.

The DeI guys seem like decent folk. I'm sure they'll put the acknowledgements somewhere more prominent, if that's the case, and it's brought to their attention (possibly by this very thread).

[Damocles]

hasta does mean spear, but there are many names for spears, throwing or thrusting, that were indistinguishably used by Latin authors to generally describe a spear (once again, throwing or thrusting). My point is that it's impossible to make a conclusion on the use of their spears when given such a generic name for this class of pole-arm, without given further context. Many primary sources record the hastati throwing hasta, throwing a storm of steel, etc.


gladius is a generic name for sword. The gladius hispaniensis was encountered before the 2nd Punic War. The early Roman swords were like Hellenic swords (xyston, specifically), but not identical, and shouldn't be called Hellenic.


Again, these early warriors were described with hasta, and hastae have previously been described as throwing weapons. It's not correct to assume that early Roman warriors of the "Servian Army" (the term you use) solely used thrusting spears, especially when considering that the native Italic fighting style was with javelins and scuta. Dionysios also says the Principes held their spears with 2 hands... so what sense can be made of this statement?


Sources? Both Livy and Polybios, describing the army of the early 4th C BCE and early 2nd C BCE respectively, say the heavy infantry (hastati, principes and triarii) were divided by age. The light infantry (leves or velites) and cavalry (equites) are the only mentioned being separated by wealth, as the poorest and the aristocrats respectively.


No scholar, or author, has ever argued that triarii were still armed with clipei during the war with Pyrrhos, or that they retained this shield when the hastati and principes adopted the scutum. What gives you (or the designer of these units) the thought that they did, and that they'd still fight in a phalanx when the rest of the army (vast, vast majority) used manipular tactics?

Great contribution to the thread. Thank you for addressing the issues that Ritter raised, so concisely and informatively. (and I wrote this post before seeing your kind words).

I think version 0.95 or v 1 would be a perfect time to revisit these units. I am all for making the early units use swords and javelin. Maybe hastati with a looser formation too. So princiipes would be similarly armed too or keep them as spear men?

Ideally, I'd like to see hastati with sword/javelin in looser formation, but with a high charge. I can't really comment on what the exact deadliness/initiative/melee attack should be. I haven't arranged all the DeI units in a database like some people here (such as Meerkat, I believe) and thoroughly analyzed them.

But we can address how history compares them to their principal foes.

What we know is that the 3rd century BC hastati were superior close combatants to the Cisalpine Gauls, the Greeks and the Carthaginians. Indeed, Rome learned extremely well from their 4th century defeats, and one could say they came of age on the international scene in their war with Pyrrhus (the last great Greek military genius after Alexander the Great, and with Hannibal, in the top three of this era), who initially did not take them seriously at all...but then learned to respect them deeply.

We're told they developed excellent techniques at fighting the larger and stronger Gauls. The Celtic/Gallic swords were of evidently low quality that required stomping on to straighten every few swings. Meanwhile, the Romans would learn to catch their wild overhand swings and then gut them with a short sword. How should that translate into specific unit stats? I'm not sure.

We know that they fought by charging forward, throwing their pilum at the last moment, then 'with a wild war cry' launched into individual combats in a swirling melee, where their superior swordsmanship was expected to prevail. Indeed, we're told the 'war cry' was the most important part of this process, and at one time, to ensure victory, a Roman general had his various camp followers contribute to the war cry, out of fear that with his diminished numbers it wouldn't be as impressive to the enemy.

They were disciplined, but their discipline was in areas like marching, obedience, and building camps. Not in like, Phalanx-discipline, left foot/right foot uniformity. They were definitely far more obedient than Greeks. As far as I know, all the disciplined trait does in the game is protect them from the loss of their commander. Which I suppose makes sense, as Romans were far more about a system than any individual commander, which would rotate often.

So the hastati strike me as quite brutal fighters, and rather different from either our preconceptions of Augustan automaton like killing machines, or a Greek phalanx.

Principe should be elite versions of the hastati, that unlike the hastati, have the 'receive cavalry' formation. Definitely 'disciplined'.

Triarii would have receive cavalry, hollow square, encouraging, and expert charge defense. Only the triarii would be armed with fighting spears. Perhaps the principe should have the expert charge defense trait, cause it's not like the AI would ever use their formation.

In reality, the triarii had a fighting spear and a gladius. They carried a fighting spear, because they did not have the duty to stake the camp at night (the heavy pilum), and they did not fight in the front ranks or make the initial charge (light pilum). So these men stood back with their fighting spears and swords, and used either as the need required. Since RTW doesn't model that kind of nuance, just leaving them with spears would be an allowance for gameplay.

[Xipotec]

@Damocles you should consider one thing: History as we know it is fortune telling backwards.

You can post a nice little book someone wrote and we can probably post 2 or 3 other that contradict yours ... writing a book about something doesn't mean you’re right ... its only one opinion.

Now about your Question ... I think that the chosen armament fit in the context of the mod because Rome isn't bigger than Italy ... you have no territory in Spain ergo no contact to Iberian tribes and no knowledge of the Hispanic sword. You have to play 40 turns to the first reform, which is in my view a good timespan to conquer northern Italy and theoretically get to Spain. Because some belief ... that the romans came into contact with the gladius during the conquest of the north Italian Gaul’s.
Any way you can be right too ... the gladius was probably around for some time but you seem to forget that the "legion" at that time was not the uniform killing machine we see in the movies ... it was a mix of all they could lay their hands on ... some swordsman, some spearman ... a lot depended on money a spear is much cheaper than a sword. So common sense tells you that there will be more spears than swords in a maniple ... so a spear unit it is. Easy right?!

[TheOrangeProject]

@Damocles you should consider one thing: History as we know it is fortune telling backwards.

You can post a nice little book someone wrote and we can probably post 2 or 3 other that contradict yours ... writing a book about something doesn't mean you’re right ... its only one opinion.

Now about your Question ... I think that the chosen armament fit in the context of the mod because Rome isn't bigger than Italy ... you have no territory in Spain ergo no contact to Iberian tribes and no knowledge of the Hispanic sword. You have to play 40 turns to the first reform, which is in my view a good timespan to conquer northern Italy and theoretically get to Spain. Because some belief ... that the romans came into contact with the gladius during the conquest of the north Italian Gaul’s.
Any way you can be right too ... the gladius was probably around for some time but you seem to forget that the "legion" at that time was not the uniform killing machine we see in the movies ... it was a mix of all they could lay their hands on ... some swordsman, some spearman ... a lot depended on money a spear is much cheaper than a sword. So common sense tells you that there will be more spears than swords in a maniple ... so a spear unit it is. Easy right?!

Can't agree more.

Just because there is one book or link which provides evidence, doenst mean it is the truth. Especially not in those matters.

You also have to think of another thing. Humas, or generals/army in this matter, adapt to situations. Just because they used swords once in one particular battle doenst mean every "legion" used it at the other end of their territority.

[zonks40]

Can't agree more.

Just because there is one book or link which provides evidence, doenst mean it is the truth. Especially not in those matters.

You also have to think of another thing. Humas, or generals/army in this matter, adapt to situations. Just because they used swords once in one particular battle doenst mean every "legion" used it at the other end of their territority.

This is true with any internet debate, a vast majority of people know very little about the topic, however they are very good at using Google, and quoting other peoples opinions, and claiming it as fact.
I remember a Hoplite debate here some time back, and even the historians could not agree on a certain point, yet people here seemed to have all the facts, It becomes all about winning the debate and who can find a quote that will support their argument.

[Manji]

History as we know it is fortune telling backwards.

No, it isn't. Interpretations of historical facts are just that, biased interpretations, they are neither historical facts nor credible data.

You can post a nice little book someone wrote and we can probably post 2 or 3 other that contradict yours ... writing a book about something doesn't mean you’re right ... its only one opinion.

No it isn't, what you are saying is that you and I, totally anonymous guys, have the same credibility speaking of history as, say, Adrian Goldsworthy who wrote "The Complete Roman Army" amongst other books, was a research fellow at Cardiff Univ. and a doctorate of ancient military history. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, anyone can have an opinion but it's how you back up your opinion that matters and the facts that matter are those set down by credible sources accepted by the vast majority of academia. To take it on step closer to the discussion, show me a single instance where a credible source indicates the roman manipular legion post 2nd punic war used spears en masse like the mod purports us to use them.


As for the facts at hand, what we know comes mostly from Polybius and other similar sources written down around late 2nd century BC; the early roman military forces were, for lack of a better term, hoplites; the hoplon and long spear had been introduced to Italy by the greek colonists. During the Servian period these phalanx fighting romans started using swords albeit greek/italiot in design. According to most sources, including Polybius, around 223 BC only the Triarii used spears and even by then it was a shorter spear that could be used while using shields of roman/italian design. It was around 223 bC that while fighting gallic forces some hastati were issued triarii spears in order to better receive enemy charges (considering that hastatii were the first line) but the manipular nature of the legion would spell doom for spear combat eventually. By 201 bC spears were almost non-existent in the legion and only as oddities perhaps from a italian ally force/auxilia.

Note that i'm not taking sides, merely stating that blindly tagging everything as "opinion" is silly and frankly offensive to historians, archaeologists, researchers, etc. It's like comparing Dan Carlin, a history podcaster, to Adrian Goldsworthy, a teacher, researcher and writer; both have opinions, obviously, but you cannot discard education and experience in a field as simply "opinion".

As for the mod itself, I like how it is but I do feel like the roman faction has it "rough" compared to some barbarians, namely in terms of unit power, but hey, that's just how the mod creators decided to do it.

[Damocles]

@Damocles you should consider one thing: History as we know it is fortune telling backwards.

You can post a nice little book someone wrote and we can probably post 2 or 3 other that contradict yours ... writing a book about something doesn't mean you’re right ... its only one opinion.

Now about your Question ... I think that the chosen armament fit in the context of the mod because Rome isn't bigger than Italy ... you have no territory in Spain ergo no contact to Iberian tribes and no knowledge of the Hispanic sword. You have to play 40 turns to the first reform, which is in my view a good timespan to conquer northern Italy and theoretically get to Spain. Because some belief ... that the romans came into contact with the gladius during the conquest of the north Italian Gaul’s.
Any way you can be right too ... the gladius was probably around for some time but you seem to forget that the "legion" at that time was not the uniform killing machine we see in the movies ... it was a mix of all they could lay their hands on ... some swordsman, some spearman ... a lot depended on money a spear is much cheaper than a sword. So common sense tells you that there will be more spears than swords in a maniple ... so a spear unit it is. Easy right?!

I'm sorry but this statement makes little sense.

Even the known to be untrue statement of Livy attributing the gladius to the Second Punic War (and it's 99.99% certain he was referring to a style of gladius), said nothing about Rome conquering territory in Spain. It was from Celtiberian mercenaries fighting in Sicily.

There were also Celtiberian mercenaries fighting in Sicily during the First Punic War. But the short sword and scutum was used against Pyrrhos and the Samnites. It was also used as part of the corvus boarding action. I'll have to check to see if the corvus ships including a proper short sword wielding Roman legionary. I suspect they do, as that's also an iconic image.

You and others can defend it as fatuously as you like, but the reality is...It makes no sense historically, and is bad for gameplay. Really. Load up any other faction surrounding the Romans, like the Syracusans, Carthaganians, Gauls and Spartans and see how powerful their armies are. The Spartans get incredible light infantry at game start. They are sword, shield, can hide everywhere, and can throw javelins...The Spartans have like special forces Praetorians in 272 BC.

It makes no sense, and the Rome AI's constant crushing proves it.

They need to start with Triarii, Principi and Hastati, and they need to be properly armed, not Second Samnite War/Pre-Claudine Forks era hoplites. That, or the factions around them need to also be seriously scaled down. Because I've now seen even Epirus twice overrun Rome.

This is true with any internet debate, a vast majority of people know very little about the topic, however they are very good at using Google, and quoting other peoples opinions, and claiming it as fact.
I remember a Hoplite debate here some time back, and even the historians could not agree on a certain point, yet people here seemed to have all the facts, It becomes all about winning the debate and who can find a quote that will support their argument.

These aren't mind-blowing debates. These are fairly settled issues of general scholarship fit for a journeyman audience. There isn't any moral relativity involved.

People are being mislead by thinking the heavy pilum is a spear. The heavy pilum was spear-like, but it was meant to be either used as an ad-hoc stake to resist a cavalry charge or be thrown at the last second in battle. The light pilum was purely for throwing.

And it was fairly established as far back as the first iteration of the original Rome's realism mods that some of us remember. I know DeI isn't about 100% historical accuracy. But in the rare incidents where history and gameplay coincide...That seems to be a no-brainer.

[Dave0718]

You can solve the problem by going to PFM and first going to lua_scripts and then to the reforms.lua and for global roman reforms put to 0 turns. for player reforms put it to 0 turns and 0 fame/prestige. It's an extremely simple fix so you can play the way you want to play.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Very good stuff. I shall be using this stuff for my research because you guys are currently considering the pros and cons of whether hastati or whatever had spears. This will serve very useful indeed. Thanks again.