Roman manipular legions...with spears?

[Ritter-Floh]

Oxford, David Potter, publicated 2011

Soldiers of the fourth century were spearmen—at least as can be seen in the painting on the Esquiline Tomb where we find spearmen that resemble Samnite representations of warriors—and the new system was clearly based upon a reorganization of spear-wielding infantry in the Roman army (for typical Samnites, see Saulnier 1983). The gladius (sword), the characteristic hand-to-hand weapon of the legions in the period of Mediterranean conquest, would not be adopted until the second half of the third century.

(Saulnier, C. 1983. L'armée et a guerre chez les peoples Samnites)

i do not believe, the sword was a important main weapon for roman army in the early 3rd century. Unfortunately we can not travel back to this time ...

[Igor85]

I think Rome should be nerfed an other way than giving them the wrong weapons. Make the sword units more expensive, give them less armour at the beginning, give them economic disadvantages,... but most history books tell us, that spear units were already outdated at the time game starts. Sword units are Romes unique feature while most of the other factions still used spears. Steppe factions are also overpowered atm. I hope you don't want to remove their horses just to nerf them.

[dowdpride]

The problem with Rome is that when in battle their units are superior, but in auto resolve they are not. Their actual stats allow my Hastati to rack up over a hundred kills against the barbarian factions, and completely butcher the Greeks, however the auto resolve for some reason completely destroys them.

[Igor85]

Same thing appears not only for rome. Also my Carthagian elite army would be destroyed without any victory chances against crappy enemies in auto-battle. If I play the battle myself the losses are 200 on my side and a few thousand on their side. But auto-resolve,...

[ABH2]

Barbarian units have larger numbers, and autoresolve places heavy emphasis on that. It's actually a benefit for the smaller barbarian factions as the AI is more able to concentrate forces. There's very little difference economically between the AI factions no matter how large they are.

So, again, I don't think simply giving the 'Polybian' Roman units would really save the AI Rome.

[Gilad]

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.

Honestly, reading your post was very confusing. You were trying to say that spear usage was not a thing at the time, however you in turn only make references to dates 50+ years in advanced of the start date indicating that spear usage was common until 223 B.C. where it was primarily triarii usage only. Obviously you did not mean for this double-meaning, can you please clarify?

You might have been reading a little selectively. I was only brusque, if you can call it that, with those who were brusque to me. If someone calls me a liar, or claims something that isn't true, when the reverse is demonstratively apparent, then I will react a bit more bluntly. Since they're just misleading people.

In any case, I had only two things to share with the DeI team:

1) Sourced scholarship that states hastati meant 'spearman' but they weren't actually spearmen, and that the 'spear' in question was the pilum. That they were using blades against the Greek hoplite formations since the Third Samnite War. That this was a result of their transition from coastal hoplite formations pre-Claudine Forks, to the necessities of mountain warfare.

2) My observation that the Roman roster was significantly weaker than the surrounding factions. This observation was acknowledged by the DeI team. It was stated that some people found the game to be more fun with the Romans ahistorically weak. I simply disagreed and said it made playing an enemy of the Romans less rewarding.

My own personal opinion is that both historical accuracy and gameplay would be improved by letting the Romans fight the Punic Wars with the troops they actually had.

In all honesty, as someone who agrees with your points, the way you were responding to me was very aggressive and arrogant in tone. And even past this post you seemed to take things very poorly and get very condescending in one case.

Oxford, David Potter, publicated 2011

Soldiers of the fourth century were spearmen—at least as can be seen in the painting on the Esquiline Tomb where we find spearmen that resemble Samnite representations of warriors—and the new system was clearly based upon a reorganization of spear-wielding infantry in the Roman army (for typical Samnites, see Saulnier 1983). The gladius (sword), the characteristic hand-to-hand weapon of the legions in the period of Mediterranean conquest, would not be adopted until the second half of the third century.

(Saulnier, C. 1983. L'armée et a guerre chez les peoples Samnites)

i do not believe, the sword was a important main weapon for roman army in the early 3rd century. Unfortunately we can not travel back to this time ...

To go with Damocles's point which is apparently getting missed by a lot of people here. He's not debating the introduction of the gladius. He's debating the point at which the Romans started using greek influenced swords instead of spears as a predominate weapon in the maniple system. His source and points make a lot of sense in that regard.

Today's scholarship about niche subjects such as the Republican-era Legion or the Normans in Italy, is vastly more advanced than it was in the 60s, 70s or 80s. You're like one of those guys who still thinks Steve Runciman or John Julius Norwich is cutting edge.

Any history major in this thread would concur. Or anyone who keeps up to date with various periodicals. Outside a few subjects where someone managed to put a definitive work together (there's a famous one out there about the logistics of Alexander's baggage train) knows that our knowledge is always increasing.

I agree with this for the most part. If by History major you mean current college student, then I agree entirely. If by History Degree, I would disagree. I've noticed a group of people in this forum as well as people in real life who have acquired a history degree, but will take the works of people from 20+ years ago as gospel, however they will completely dismiss new archaeological findings and news from periodicals that challenge and in some cases invalidate some of those claims. A big one I've personally noticed in regards to Roman Historians is in regard to Livy and Polybius's works. In recent years some of their statements have been invalidated, however there are history majors who will cling to their works as the gospel they were regarded with several years ago.

[Damocles]

I agree with this for the most part. If by History major you mean current college student, then I agree entirely. If by History Degree, I would disagree. I've noticed a group of people in this forum as well as people in real life who have acquired a history degree, but will take the works of people from 20+ years ago as gospel, however they will completely dismiss new archaeological findings and news from periodicals that challenge and in some cases invalidate some of those claims. A big one I've personally noticed in regards to Roman Historians is in regard to Livy and Polybius's works. In recent years some of their statements have been invalidated, however there are history majors who will cling to their works as the gospel they were regarded with several years ago.

Rather than History degree, I would say anyone who makes a habit of reading academic periodicals on the subject. For example, I do most of my reading through JSTOR. Which is not hard to get access to, via a local library (if it's a good one) or university login. The comment was not designed to be condescending, but it was in initial response to someone who claimed that my favoring recent scholarship over older made me ignorant.

Your point on Livy is spot on.

[m_1512]

Gentlemen, I read through the thread and see that there are some instances which came close to insults. Please carry on the debate in a calm and composed manner without jumping to someone's knowledge or generation.

[Damocles]

This was initially a response to a PM, but it is relevant to our conversation here, re: Camillan vs Polybian units.

In my own opinion, the ideal 272 BC army would resemble much as it was handled in Rome: Total Realism (The first Rome, quite a few years ago).

1) The hastati are cheap (but effective), sword and pila units. Unlike the Polybian units, they should have a fire at will command. The 'throw pilum' command is always so buggy, and the AI doesn't use it nearly as well as it does the Gaul units automatic throwing spears when charging. That's what the hastati should use. The hastati threw those before charging into wild, individual combat with a fierce war cry. That what's sets them apart from later Polybian-era and Marian-era legionaires.

2) The principes and triarii could still be armed with spears. It's debatable. But they're more disciplined, have access to formations (NOT hoplite, but like hollow square or receiving cavalry) and are more expensive. I would personally be more inclined to treating the principes as an elite version of the hastati rather than as a cheap version of the triarii with the 'Disciplined' modifier, and the triarii should be given Discipline and Encourage modifier. What would set the principes apart from the hastati would be their access to the receive cavalry formation.

3) I'd remove the rorarii, so the AI doesn't recruit hordes of them and their inclusion isn't historical. (Noone really knows what they were, or what they did, but they didn't form part of the main battle line. It may have been some kind of catch-all term for reservists)

4) Then there are velites and equites, relatively unchanged.

If it were possible, I'd give the Romans a culture bonus providing an extra 2 slots for raising troops, similar to the Nomadic bonus. Rome was famous after all, for bouncing back after losses. In Rome 1, the provinces were densely packed, but in Rome 2, all of manpower-rich Italy is treated as one province.

[KAM 2150]

Throw pilum command is not buggy for the AI, since it is ONLY option to have both fire at will and throw on charge. There is no change in behaviour of Roman units and Galic units, since throw pilum button only gives you the possibility to pick the place you want to shower or to throw on charge.. If you give units fire at will, then they will never use it during charge, hence never use it at all for the AI.

[Damocles]

Throw pilum command is not buggy for the AI, since it is ONLY option to have both fire at will and throw on charge. There is no change in behaviour of Roman units and Galic units, since throw pilum button only gives you the possibility to pick the place you want to shower or to throw on charge.. If you give units fire at will, then they will never use it during charge, hence never use it at all for the AI.

In my experience, the Roman units use their pilums worse than the Gauls do. But if you're right, it could just be observer's bias. I do notice though that my Gauls throw very reliably, and my Romans do not. I can't recall the Romans ever throwing without the throw pilum command...Maybe once? But I usually have to spam it several times to get them to throw. And sometimes they just refuse to no matter what.

So I get the hastati being armed with a throwing spear and greek style sword. Any clues about the weapons for the principes? Same again? Also in gameplay terms how would we differentiate camillan and polybian units? Less armour or less effective swords? I also wonder, did the Samnites also develop these tactics? Should the early socii units retain spears or match the romans?

edit: sorry didn't notice last posts! Also I like the rorarii and they make realistic looking town garrisons. I do not agree with removing units even if they are weak levies as they make things interesting. Also we know more about the rorarii then the accensii and some other units (did antisignani actually exist..) but they create nice variation.

They probably were a kind of garrison unit, that would be called up to replace losses in the field. All we know for certain is that they didn't form part of the main battle line with the hastati, principi and triarii. Confusingly, they were mentioned alongside the triarii. But one solution for that is they could be even older men who had passed into the reserves.

If there were a way to keep them as cheap garrison troops, and not have the AI make stacks of them while ignoring hastati, I'd be all for it. For a gameplay perspective, I'd rather, as an enemy of Rome, be fighting hastati than rorarii, for the challenge/historical feeling.

I haven't seen the Samnite roster, but I suspect they're fine. They're not really in the main campaign.

And yes, I think you already saw the post, but the principi could go either way. I personally would treat them as elite hastati with the receive cavalry formation. That would be to me, the closest thing to distinguishing them, along with Disciplined. And the triarii with spears, hollow square, receive cavalry, and disciplined/encouraged. Treating principi as cheap spear-armed triarii feels less rewarding.

The Camillan hastati can also maintain their current looser formation. They did not fight like a well oiled machine, as you see with depictions of Caesar's legionaries. They charged in, threw their pila, then with a rousing war cry (it was said the war cry was the most important aspect), they engaged in individual combats, relying on superior swordsmanship and ferocity. Their stabbing sword/scutum combination proved extremely effective at countering both Gallic long swords and Greek hoplites.

So as you can see, the Camillan units are quite distinct from the Polybian/Marian ones, and will play differently.

[Don_Diego]

So I get the hastati being armed with a throwing spear and greek style sword. Any clues about the weapons for the principes? Same again? Also in gameplay terms how would we differentiate camillan and polybian units? Less armour or less effective swords? I also wonder, did the Samnites also develop these tactics? Should the early socii units retain spears or match the romans?

edit: sorry didn't notice last posts! Also I like the rorarii and they make realistic looking town garrisons. I do not agree with removing units even if they are weak levies as they make things interesting. Also we know more about the rorarii then the accensii and some other units (did antisignani actually exist..) but they create nice variation.

[Don_Diego]

Well the ai can be given a priority to hire better units over low quality ones already. Although always played as rome so not seen how ai handles it. It is easy to have rorarii set back as garrison only but for camillan I still like them. For Samnites I ment the socii Samnite hastati/principes but I guess the should mirror the roman counterparts to make formations work nicely. I quite like the idea of a more 'barbarian-like' early hastati with good attack but low defence. For triarii I think the hoplite formation is still important (or could have shield wall instead), otherwise they cannot stand up to prolonged battles with Greeks or Gauls.

[Damocles]

Well the ai can be given a priority to hire better units over low quality ones already. Although always played as rome so not seen how ai handles it. It is easy to have rorarii set back as garrison only but for camillan I still like them. For Samnites I ment the socii Samnite hastati/principes but I guess the should mirror the roman counterparts to make formations work nicely. I quite like the idea of a more 'barbarian-like' early hastati with good attack but low defence. For triarii I think the hoplite formation is still important (or could have shield wall instead), otherwise they cannot stand up to prolonged battles with Greeks or Gauls.

Well. All we know for sure is that they definitely abandoned the hoplite formation for any number of reasons. It doesn't make much sense to have a slow moving hoplite formation as your reserve, after all (Semi-related note: Greek-style armies didn't have much use for reserves). But we also know that this isn't real life, and triarii won't always be perfectly placed behind the lines where they can catch cavalry and use their 'encourage' to best effect, and be there to charge rapidly when the lines break. I'd rather make them much tougher in ways without those formations, but if they're that powerful as to gimp the triarii without them, then you would know best.

A player though, should use them as illustrated above, and use the hastati for the brunt of the fighting. As a side observation: RTW:2 units seem far denser and impenetrable than Rome or Medieval Total Wars or Shogun. In those games, sword-armed infantry could reliably punish slow pike units. In RTW:2, the javelin is by far the best tool. So it's lucky for the hastati they have pila. I understand the reason for this is how CA coded flank fighting.

I haven't seen the Samnites, but I guess you're referring to them as a Roman auxillary. I would treat them like more heavily armored hastati without pila. The Samnite gladiator type fought with scutum and short sword, and it was based off Rome's defeated enemy, though obviously exaggerated. I've never recruited auxiliary from the Italian peninsula, though, and I didn't pay close attention to the mercenaries. I don't think the Romans had much use for them by 272 BC, but R:TW has a tradition of including Samnite mercs.

[Menulo]

it also gives you only 60 turns untill the marian reforms..
and the gameplay is just boring with it, you have the choice of 3 spearmen, weak, medium and elite-ish. and since your empire isnt large enough to have some nice aux. troops thats bassicly 80% of your army.

the first 40 turns are just a chore you have to get trough te get the reform tbh. might as well remove it tbh, it doesnt add anything.

[Knoxxius]

I quite like the fact that you start with spear units, it provides a nice challenge and once the first reform hits you start steam rolling... Like you used to from day 1.

DO NOT get rid of the spears, please.

[Damocles]

Has the DeI team done any work on this? It should be simple enough.

I wanted to start an Epirus campaign, but there is simply no point to it when the Romans are so weak. Fighting armies of rorarii and spear-armed hastati are neither very challenging or amusing.

It becomes a race to take Italy before Syracuse, Carthage or the Gauls do.

[loukylouk]

Since the original issue was the fact Romans were using spears when they should have been adopting the sword, and on top of that many people feel that Rome starts out too easy since they began with all of Italy. What if we go back in time further and actually start when Rome was in possession of central Italy. That way there is a challenge for those who play as Rome, and the spears are justified due to the earlier date.

[Hetairos]

I hope this doesn't go out of control again but here my opinion:

I think we all agree in that ancient history is extremely blurry. So ancient history is (and was even back than!) most often than not a matter of interpretation. Original sources are almost inexistent and most sources we have were written hundreds of years after. Not to mention that history is written by the victor, especially during those ancient times of non-wikipedia citizens ^^ What I want to say is that propaganda must have been a major part of any ancient papyrus, oral storytelling and actual parades. This should be clear, so enough of this for now...

About the Hastati wearing spears, gladi, pilum, lorica hamata and being organized in maniples and cohorts:

Depending on the sources we have it is possible that in 272 BC the legions would have been the same as in 107 BC. Sources state that allied legions were deployed in cohorts. Sources state also that legions in spain were deployed in cohorts as well. It is also said (and archeologically proven) that legionnaires already knew the gladius hispaniensis, the lorica hamata and the pilum during the first punic war. It is however not very likely that the Roman army of 272 BC was the same like in 107 BC. Romans usually linked reforms to the one great reformer, however it is more likely that the army evolved over time and this very gradually.

Let's look at this. The early roman army is said to be a Greek-style phalanx army of hoplites. Apparently their Samnite counterparts had a much better tactical organization which the Romans eventually must have copied: The maniples. Most likely the first manipular organization must have been made of hoplites. Since the smaller tactical units, needed to act independently of each other and not fight in that massive phalanx battleline protection was crucial and reliability on teamwork within the phalanx battleline broke gradually. Hence it is very likely that the better shaped and protective scutum was gradually becoming the new shield to chose for a manipular organization. This might have been the first Hastati = Spear and Scutum. Now, when the Romans fought against the Carthaginians who wore the superior gladius hispaniensis, they must have had a hard time, hence the necessity to adapt the gladius. However it is most likely that the Romans did not abandon their spears at first place and it is most likely that the legions who did not fought in spain would have been using the italic gladius (shorter version) at first place. Hence, we have the next evolution of hastati = spear as primary weapon, italic gladius (sometimes looted gladius hispaniensis as secondary weapon and pilum). I can imagine that the versatility of this new army with spear, gladius and pilum would have been very effective for a long time. It is not likely though that the Romans adapted the chain-mail, since it was very expensive. Most likely only the richest first class citizens were able to equip them. It is most likely that the next struggle for Rome came in the 2nd Punic War fighting against the Carthaginians again. Apparently the Romans struggled and lost many of their initial battles. Since many of the high class citizens died (e.g. Cannae) the Roman Senate had to lower the prerequisites to enter the Roman army and initiated the first proletarisation. Since, low class citizens (proletarii) had no funds to get their equipment the state would assume the role to equip the army in a standardized way. Hence it is very likely that this is the first time when the roman army became a standardized army, e.g. the introduction of the gladius hispaniensis, replacing the italian shorter version AND the Hastae (spear) once and for all in all maniples. Furthermore it is very likely that with the appearance of gallic mercenaries with chain-mail and the conquest of the cisalpine (access to the finest ore = Ferrum Noricum) the Romans began to introduce the chain-mail as standardized equipment for all roman soldiers forming the feared republican army that might have lasted until 107 BC without any major changes anymore. We do also not know of any struggles during this time period against any foe, so change of equipment or tactics might have been abolished, the only struggle the romans had was replacing the fallen, hence a demographic problem which they solved with the 2. and finally the 3. proletarization of the roman army (Marian Reforms).

Hence it is not even strange that in 272 BC the Romans did wear no chain-mail and no gladius hispaniensis. I would even say that until the middle of the 2nd Punic War they still didn't had those equipments as standardized for their army, but the struggle of the 2nd Punic War to be the initiator of those standardized gradual reforms.

One might disagree, but I have also to say gameplay wise it is much more interesting to have gradual reforms. I would be disappointed if we would have gotten stripped of one reform for the sake of historic accuracy (which in this case is so controvers that there are more than one historic accuracy here).

Hope this helps

[loukylouk]

I hope this doesn't go out of control again but here my opinion:

I think we all agree in that ancient history is extremely blurry. So ancient history is (and was even back than!) most often than not a matter of interpretation. Original sources are almost inexistent and most sources we have were written hundreds of years after. Not to mention that history is written by the victor, especially during those ancient times of non-wikipedia citizens ^^ What I want to say is that propaganda must have been a major part of any ancient papyrus, oral storytelling and actual parades. This should be clear, so enough of this for now...

About the Hastati wearing spears, gladi, pilum, lorica hamata and being organized in maniples and cohorts:

Depending on the sources we have it is possible that in 272 BC the legions would have been the same as in 107 BC. Sources state that allied legions were deployed in cohorts. Sources state also that legions in spain were deployed in cohorts as well. It is also said (and archeologically proven) that legionnaires already knew the gladius hispaniensis, the lorica hamata and the pilum during the first punic war. It is however not very likely that the Roman army of 272 BC was the same like in 107 BC. Romans usually linked reforms to the one great reformer, however it is more likely that the army evolved over time and this very gradually.

Let's look at this. The early roman army is said to be a Greek-style phalanx army of hoplites. Apparently their Samnite counterparts had a much better tactical organization which the Romans eventually must have copied: The maniples. Most likely the first manipular organization must have been made of hoplites. Since the smaller tactical units, needed to act independently of each other and not fight in that massive phalanx battleline protection was crucial and reliability on teamwork within the phalanx battleline broke gradually. Hence it is very likely that the better shaped and protective scutum was gradually becoming the new shield to chose for a manipular organization. This might have been the first Hastati = Spear and Scutum. Now, when the Romans fought against the Carthaginians who wore the superior gladius hispaniensis, they must have had a hard time, hence the necessity to adapt the gladius. However it is most likely that the Romans did not abandon their spears at first place and it is most likely that the legions who did not fought in spain would have been using the italic gladius (shorter version) at first place. Hence, we have the next evolution of hastati = spear as primary weapon, italic gladius (sometimes looted gladius hispaniensis as secondary weapon and pilum). I can imagine that the versatility of this new army with spear, gladius and pilum would have been very effective for a long time. It is not likely though that the Romans adapted the chain-mail, since it was very expensive. Most likely only the richest first class citizens were able to equip them. It is most likely that the next struggle for Rome came in the 2nd Punic War fighting against the Carthaginians again. Apparently the Romans struggled and lost many of their initial battles. Since many of the high class citizens died (e.g. Cannae) the Roman Senate had to lower the prerequisites to enter the Roman army and initiated the first proletarisation. Since, low class citizens (proletarii) had no funds to get their equipment the state would assume the role to equip the army in a standardized way. Hence it is very likely that this is the first time when the roman army became a standardized army, e.g. the introduction of the gladius hispaniensis, replacing the italian shorter version AND the Hastae (spear) once and for all in all maniples. Furthermore it is very likely that with the appearance of gallic mercenaries with chain-mail and the conquest of the cisalpine (access to the finest ore = Ferrum Noricum) the Romans began to introduce the chain-mail as standardized equipment for all roman soldiers forming the feared republican army that might have lasted until 107 BC without any major changes anymore. We do also not know of any struggles during this time period against any foe, so change of equipment or tactics might have been abolished, the only struggle the romans had was replacing the fallen, hence a demographic problem which they solved with the 2. and finally the 3. proletarization of the roman army (Marian Reforms).

Hence it is not even strange that in 272 BC the Romans did wear no chain-mail and no gladius hispaniensis. I would even say that until the middle of the 2nd Punic War they still didn't had those equipments as standardized for their army, but the struggle of the 2nd Punic War to be the initiator of those standardized gradual reforms.

One might disagree, but I have also to say gameplay wise it is much more interesting to have gradual reforms. I would be disappointed if we would have gotten stripped of one reform for the sake of historic accuracy (which in this case is so controvers that there are more than one historic accuracy here).

Hope this helps

Well said Sir.