Roman manipular legions...with spears?

[Keyser]

Semantic and linguistic can give us clues as to what ancient peoples meant when they spoke of something, but let's not forget that words have different contextual meanings.

It's quite clear that hastati means etymologically "bearer of hasta" and the hasta is some kind of spear.
However that's pretty much the only thing we can know for sure based on linguistic.

Because, first, the name of the troop type could have been given at a time when hasta were still used and the name stuck even tough they shifted to sword.
(That's by the way the obvious reason)
Second, what is a "hasta" exactly ? A heavy spear, a throwing javelin ? A dual purpose spear (throwing/stabbing like the later "lancea" or the greek "longche" or the african "assagai") ? All of those at the same time ?
Clearly a "hasta" isn't a pilum, but maybe the term encompassed a variety of weapons and became more specific in later times or vice/versa ?

For exemple, the greek word "longche" used for Hannibal's skirmishers spears is a light spear (lighter and shorter than the dory) but it's not a true javelin either because it was apparently used in close quarter and by formed infantry too (one interesting theory regarding punic soldiery equipment at the time of the punic wars is that they used mostly oval shields and those kind of spears as well as swords, obviously, wich would make them rather similar to iberian/italic troops all in all).

But then roman heavy pilum were sometimes used to form a spearwall too.

So the distinction between spear and javelin while theorically easy (one is designed to be used in close quarter, the other is designed to be thrown) is not that obvious in practice (where spears could still be thrown even if lighter spears than the greek dory would be more balanced for that use and javelin could be used in hand-to-hand if needed even though the heaviest form of javelins would be better suited for that role).

So my point is just that, "hasta" could mean anything ranging from heavy infantry spears used solely for melee to throwing spears. The fact that the hastati could meant "soldiers armed with javelin or thowing spears" doesn't give us any indication about if it was already the implied signification when they were first named or about when that change could have been made.

The fact given in Damocles links about "hastati" possibly making reference to "spear throwers" rather than "spearmen" make the understanding of the change of equipment in the roman army even less clear than it already was imo.

[Damocles]

I really enjoy everyone's input on the manner, but we should acknowledge that Roman armament is not considered that great a mystery to most historians, before we risk getting sidetracked by a great debate again...when the focus should be in what way the change should be implemented.

Sticking purely to the facts that 90% of antiquity experts acknowledge:

1) Hastati referred to the 'hastae'. A common mistake is to consider that a 'thrusting spear'. It was a throwing spear. Originally, the hastati were a skirmisher like force (they only used the pilum), that eventually adopted the scutum and an Iberian-pattern sword as their main armament. The historians I've read who have bothered to address the subject in depth, considered a hastae as essentially a pilum.

2) This was half a century before Rome: Total War begins.

3) This was a process well completed by the Pyrrhic War. And as myself and others have mentioned, the nigh universal belief among historians, is that Rome's departure from Greek-style hoplite fighting was triggered by the fiascos of the Second Samnite War, with the Caudine Forks episode usually serving as the pivotal moment. This is called the 'Camillan Reforms'. Currently, Rome is represented as a Servian-era army. It skips the Camillan reforms entirely, and goes straight to Polybian.

4) Our ancient sources tell us in exquisite detail how the hastati fought. We also know that they used Iberian-pattern cut-and-thrust swords in the 4th century BC. The gladius hispaenisis, a specific style of Iberian cut-and-thrust sword, was adopted from Celtiberian mercenaries in Sicily, during either the First or Second Punic Wars.

5) They carried a light and a heavy pilum. The heavy pilum was thicker, and was used to stake the camp at night as well. It could potentially be used to ward off cavalry, (and certainly the triarii carried spears for just that purpose until the Second Punic War), but it was typically either thrown or left as a stake.

Without getting into my own personal opinions, you will have to search far and wide afield to find any historian that disagrees with those facts. People are acting as if there are two sets of reasonable, conflicting schools on the subject. There isn't.

As for my personal opinion...

The hastati in their current incarnation are simply an arbitrary example of poor scholarship and by far their worst sin - poor gameplay.

There are many inaccuracies of course, but some are distracting than others, and spear-armed hastati takes the cake. If I was concerned about 100% historical accuracy for its own sake, I'd bring up the ridiculous rorarii. The finest scholarship on them suggests that they were either older, poorer men who were something like retired velites, or some class of reserve that might join the ranks to replace losses. But they were not in any way shape or form part of the Roman battle line. The ascensi were merely camp servants. Here, they're slingers (and where exactly in Rome's social system would dedicated slingers fit in? The Romans used mercenary slingers.

There's also the fact that every TW game gives them an endless succession of unique auxiliary units...Where we know that in reality, outside a few niche roles (namely in cavalry), the Romans did their best to just recruit them into identical legions.

Marc Antony or Pompey or the Senate faction during the Civil War didn't raise Roman-Spartan auxiliary hoplites or pikemen to fight for them in in Greece, Anatolia or the Levant. They just formed regular legions with men recruited from there. Same with the Italics, Latins and other socii of the Italian peninsula. But every TW game seems intent on giving them a huge, unique roster that didn't remotely exist. It was the same with the Legio Alaudae...Do you think Caesar had a bunch of Gallic spearmen with him? No. He formed them into a Marian legion, and made use of Gallic cavalry. Rome churned out legions like a factory. They had a system. It was their great strength. They didn't succeed based on the strength of dozens of unique fantasy units.

But it doesn't really deform gameplay to allow silly, anachronistic/ahistorical stuff like that.

The hastati are bad history, bad gameplay, and make fighting either against or with the Romans a less entertaining experience.

[Keyser]

I really enjoy everyone's input on the manner, but we should acknowledge that Roman armament is not considered that great a mystery to most historians, before we risk getting sidetracked by a great debate again...when the focus should be in what way the change should be implemented.

Really ? As it happens, we aren't quite clear on what is a hasta.

1) Hastati referred to the 'hastae'. A common mistake is to consider that a 'thrusting spear'. It was a throwing spear. Originally, the hastati were a skirmisher like force (they only used the pilum), that eventually adopted the scutum and an Iberian-pattern sword as their main armament. The historians I've read who have bothered to address the subject in depth, considered a hastae as essentially a pilum.

So, if it was (only?) a throwing spear, how were the thrusting spears of triarii called ?
Or does that means the triarii used throwing spears too ?

If your point about hasta refering to throwing spears is true, that would make the term far more ambiguous and generic than usually thought, cause apparently it wasn't used only for throwing spears either.

You dismiss this by saying that the historian know that the hastati were the first of the roman troops to use javelins and swords. That's fine, but the semantic argument can't really help, in one way or the other, regarding how their equipment evolved.

3) This was a process well completed by the Pyrrhic War. And as myself and others have mentioned, the nigh universal belief among historians, is that Rome's departure from Greek-style hoplite fighting was triggered by the fiascos of the Second Samnite War, with the Caudine Forks episode usually serving as the pivotal moment. This is called the 'Camillan Reforms'. Currently, Rome is represented as a Servian-era army. It skips the Camillan reforms entirely, and goes straight to Polybian.

Not totally true a servian army would probably look even more hoplitic in style, with clipeus shields, at least for the upper classes.

Now, i understand your point about the chronology.

[Damocles]

Not totally true a servian army would probably look even more hoplitic in style, with clipeus shields, at least for the upper classes.

You're right of course. But given the hastati are light spear infantry (if they had javelins to throw it'd be even more accurate), and we have phalanx (!) triarii, it's pretty darn close.

This said. It's important while we're debating this and going back and forth, to acknowledge that starting on Turn 1 of the Grand Campaign, the Spartans have 'skiritai swordsman'. This is an elite, plentiful and cheap unit with short swords, shields, javelins, the unparalled ability to hide/stealth/stalk and with devastating Bodyguard-level fighting stats. Don't tell me this unit emerged from anything like scholarly rigor.

So in a sense, we're wasting a lot of ink about a fantasy setup. But if we can at least agree that having two cheap, weak, light infantry spear units (hastati and rorarii) and then a medium and heavy one (prinicipe and triarii) to fight the Punic War with is unflattering, then we can get the Roman roster to look better.

Currently, the starting Roman roster is a mess with no rhyme or reason to it...With most effort put into more fantasy auxiliary units.

[ABH2]

While I agree that swords were likely the primary weapon by the game's start date or sometime around that point, I don't agree with the certainty of the assertion that the gladius was in use already. Reading up on the subject makes it pretty clear there is still plenty of disagree over the arms used (more so with the dates).

We do know that in the 220's, the Romans were definitely using swords of some kind as their primary weapon for the Hastati and almost certainly the Principes. In 225 the Triarii joined a battle in the front ranks precisely because they had the hasta.

As for Livy's account of the 4th century fight, plenty of historians would consider it suspect. He was writing over two centuries after the fact, and the Romans would have been exposed to short swords by those point of different makes. Perhaps it really was of Spanish origin as Livy claims, or perhaps it didn't even happen at all and it's just a fun story. Livy may have been trying to provide his readers a lesson on the use of the short swords, and used a term familiar to them. The Xiphos, for instance, is about 60cm long and also suited to thrusting.

Why did the Greeks use the Xiphos, and what would have prevented the adoption of the gladius instantly upon discovery? For one, price. The Greeks didn't have access to abundant amounts of iron ore, and neither did the Romans. The access to those materials as well as the knowledge were crucial to producing a true gladius. Swords of similar design to the gladius have been found in Italy from the 4th century on, though relatively shorter than the gladius because iron ore still would have been more expensive. With access to the ore, the process to make the gladius is actually cheaper and simpler than that of the xiphos and other designs.

So, even if the Romans used a gladius style design by the very start of the Second Punic War, it probably wouldn't have been as high of quality as the stuff used by the Iberians at the same point in time.

[Damocles]

While I agree that swords were likely the primary weapon by the game's start date or sometime around that point, I don't agree with the certainty of the assertion that the gladius was in use already. Reading up on the subject makes it pretty clear there is still plenty of disagree over the arms used (more so with the dates).

True enough.

Factually, all we know is that the Romans were using Iberian cut-and-thrust swords from as far back as the 4th century. Then, during either the First or Second Punic War, they adopted the famous gladius as we all know it from Hollywood. My favorite author settled for a date somewhere in the middle, around ~255 BC.

As far as it relates to DeI...The only effect I can see this having is perhaps the Polybian era units having an edge in deadliness over the earlier Camillan units. But they were both using what is essentially a short sword, albeit one of higher quality than the other, whose evident positives (perhaps the fuller design?) ensured it became widely adopted and then standard for centuries thereafter.

EDIT: I think we should also all reflect on the fact that swordsmanship is an extremely dangerous skill, and the acquisition and transfer of knowledge in its use, still poorly misunderstood today, if we can judge by the obsessive vitriol of the competing schools of modern thought, trying to recreate even 15th century techniques. (Personally, I think all attempts in our modern era at recreating legitimate medieval swordsmanship is an elaborate form of LARPing, and will remain so, whatever these self-proclaimed experts believe they've gathered from training manuals, until we all return to relying exclusively on swords for protection and warfare.)

A society doesn't become sword-proficient over night.

The ancients, both the Romans and their enemies, assure us the Romans were excellent swordsmen. This didn't happen on a whim, cause they bumped into some Celtiberians. It had to go back centuries, (as indeed, to the 4th century reference to it being used in single combat). This is merely a point made to heap further scorn on the notion that the Romans waited until 217 BC to suddenly ditch their spears and universally adopt the sword.

[juanplay]

i would not call them fantasy units, EB and RS2 have similar units (less than DEI but that is because the rtw engine limits) and the did a thorough research to have them (especially eb). We can debate about the equipment they wore and their tactics but denying their existance is beyond logic and research.

[Damocles]

i would not call them fantasy units, EB and RS2 have similar units (less than DEI but that is because the rtw engine limits) and the did a thorough research to have them (especially eb). We can debate about the equipment they wore and their tactics but denying their existance is beyond logic and research.

The existence of some is less debatable than other.

Samnite/Etrusan heavy infantry auxilla is farcial. (All Italics and Latins were recruited into identical manipular legions). Various kinds of light infantry suited for rough terrain, skirmishers and cavalry are eminently appropriate, in virtually every guise and were a gigantic part of the Roman war machine.

[Keyser]

Regarding skiritai, i agree, i am not a fan of this unit, in my current epirus campaign i am restraining myself from using them after my conquest of Sparta...

But aren't they limited to a certain amount per stack ?
If that's the case (i didn't check) that makes their elite statut less problematic.

[Damocles]

Regarding skiritai, i agree, i am not a fan of this unit, in my current epirus campaign i am restraining myself from using them after my conquest of Sparta...

But aren't they limited to a certain amount per stack ?
If that's the case (i didn't check) that makes their elite statut less problematic.

I recruited about 5-6 of them, which was all I needed. They're quite cheap to upkeep too, despite being expensive as an initial outlay.

They're murderous. I stopped using them as well. It felt a little like cheating.

Anyhow. The only reason to mention them is the inherent irony in Sparta having the equivalent of the RTW:1 Late Imperial 'Special Forces' Praetorians, on turn 1, while we're arguing about the Camillan reforms.

[Keyser]

Well then it's a problem indeed.

Skiritai should be light infantry only (like the skirmisher unit already available). Their special status as the vanguard and left flank guard in battle might allow for some kind of "elite" unit, but then it should be severely limited in number (like one unit per stack at best), they were only one lochos of troops (600) in all and i doubt their population would allow the creation of a full army of them... Let alone an army of elite special forces.

Regarding DEI gameplay, i was pleasantly surprised by my first game in 0.9 as Epirus since the roman seems to assemble rather large stack and regroup them efficiently against me.
They are doomed in their invasion attempts by trying to cross to Appolonia by sea and are intercepted by my weak but rather large navy. Otherwise, for once in my Rome 2 games, Rome seems to be doing rather well, expanding in the north and sending real armies at me.

[Causeless]

Whether or not early hastati had spears or not depends on your interpretation of historical data... it can be seen either way.

In R2TR, we're giving early hastati swords.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

I thought the Clipei was an Aspis? Oh i am so stupid!

[Biggus Splenus]

I thought the Clipei was an Aspis? Oh i am so stupid!

Aspis is another generic term I'm pretty sure it simply means 'shield' in Hellenic. Argive aspis, or hoplon, are correct terms.

Clipei is plural, should have said clipeus... grammar nazi but yes, they are the same thing, a hoplon and clipeus.

[Keyser]

Clipeus is the latin name for an italic shield design similar to the greek aspis in both appearance and usage, it is of etruscan origin (and certainly a copy of greek hoplitic shields).

[Don_Diego]

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?

[Biggus Splenus]

They can thank the wisdom of the R2TR members later....

Was looking through this thread:

@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?!

Denial at its finest

You post no sources of evidence, no quotes, and you deny modern work on the subject. All you've done is post your own, I could say ridiculous, thoughts? Jeeeeeez.... for DeI's sake, I hope you're not a part of their team, or a representative of any kind.

Damocles seems to be the best educated in Ancient history out of everyone that's visited this thread to argue against him, and I must say its amusing to read their attempts. Kudos to you sir

[Don_Diego]

Yes also thanks to a very interesting discussion, great to have players here that really take history seriously and are concerned about all these details that the vanilla did not address. Playing TW games without these kind of details and mods would make them all have a very short life-span for me.

[Don_Diego]

Well I know m's forum map is a work in progress and a full list of acknowledgements are to be added. With all the rush to re-do everything for 0.9 other things are still needing work and polishing. But yes it is important we get that right. I made a full list of aknowledgements for my overhaul part. I will see about helping out with a full list for the mod

[Biggus Splenus]

Thank you Diego