Spear vs Sword

[Justin Swanton]

The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost.

There is, of course, a theory held by some that the Romans would stay out of spear range and bombard the hoplites with missiles until they had broken them up a bit, then charge in, rather than charge in at the first opportunity.

That would be the velites, most likely chucking javelins at their Greek counterparts who stood before the main hoplite line. One skirmishing preliminaries are finished and the skirmishers withdraw I would image the Roman hastati would waste no time getting into sword length of the hoplites. There would be no point their staying at spear length since they can't do any damage to the hoplites from that distance.

I think Paul is right to bring us back to the fact that, unlike the guys in the Lindybeige video, these men would fight in formations who will offer mutual support.  Sweep aside the front rankers spear and step beyond the point, you find yourself shieldless facing the spear of the second ranker.

Or rather, kill the hoplite in the front rank whilst retaining your shield and then attack the next man - and you are already within his spear guard to begin with. Once he is down the phalanx will start to panic and run for it. The idea is that the hastatus can keep within the guard of the two front ranks whilst third rank cannot effectively use its spear over the heads of the two ranks in front.

It is also right to emphasise training and experience.  How experienced are the two sides?  Have either fought the other troop type before?  Have they been trained to tackle the situation they are in or are they relying on generic moves?  Or have they not been trained as such but their dad/uncle showed them how it was done when he was called up?

Didn't Romans have plenty of experience fighting hoplite-equipped armies in Italy (like the Etruscans) and weren't early Republican armies outfitted as hoplites to begin with?

[Erpingham]

The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost.

There is, of course, a theory held by some that the Romans would stay out of spear range and bombard the hoplites with missiles until they had broken them up a bit, then charge in, rather than charge in at the first opportunity.

That would be the velites, most likely chucking javelins at their Greek counterparts who stood before the main hoplite line. One skirmishing preliminaries are finished and the skirmishers withdraw I would image the Roman hastati would waste no time getting into sword length of the hoplites. There would be no point their staying at spear length since they can't do any damage to the hoplites from that distance.

Honestly, Justin, there is a theory, that legionaries - not just velites - spent a lot of their time standing off and throwing pila at the enemy.  I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it.  Quesada-Sanz too perhaps.  I recall it from the WMWW debate.  It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions.  Perhaps someone could provide some links?

I think Paul is right to bring us back to the fact that, unlike the guys in the Lindybeige video, these men would fight in formations who will offer mutual support.  Sweep aside the front rankers spear and step beyond the point, you find yourself shieldless facing the spear of the second ranker.

Or rather, kill the hoplite in the front rank whilst retaining your shield and then attack the next man - and you are already within his spear guard to begin with. Once he is down the phalanx will start to panic and run for it. The idea is that the hastatus can keep within the guard of the two front ranks whilst third rank cannot effectively use its spear over the heads of the two ranks in front.

Certainly, if the Roman can dodge or brush aside two ranks of spears he is in there.  But can he? Isn't this the question?

It is also right to emphasise training and experience.  How experienced are the two sides?  Have either fought the other troop type before?  Have they been trained to tackle the situation they are in or are they relying on generic moves?  Or have they not been trained as such but their dad/uncle showed them how it was done when he was called up?

Didn't Romans have plenty of experience fighting hoplite-equipped armies in Italy (like the Etruscans) and weren't early Republican armies outfitted as hoplites to begin with?

When do our hastati date from?  I'm assuming we are talking the guys with Scutum, pilum and sword, which is post the Roman hoplite period.  Others can say how many hoplites the Romans fought later but it still falls to how prepared our individuals are to face them, unless you believe that the Roman army had an anti-hoplite drill every hastatus was trained in?

[Justin Swanton]

I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it.  Quesada-Sanz too perhaps.  I recall it from the WMWW debate.  It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions.  Perhaps someone could provide some links?

That would be interesting.

Or rather, kill the hoplite in the front rank whilst retaining your shield and then attack the next man - and you are already within his spear guard to begin with. Once he is down the phalanx will start to panic and run for it. The idea is that the hastatus can keep within the guard of the two front ranks whilst third rank cannot effectively use its spear over the heads of the two ranks in front.

Certainly, if the Roman can dodge or brush aside two ranks of spears he is in there.  But can he? Isn't this the question?

Hoplites didn't seem to have much trouble getting to shield contact if othismos is a thing to be believed, and even Homer mentions "shields clashing against shields" often enough to conclude it was a fairly common occurrence. If hoplites, why not legionaries?

When do our hastati date from?  I'm assuming we are talking the guys with Scutum, pilum and sword, which is post the Roman hoplite period.  Others can say how many hoplites the Romans fought later but it still falls to how prepared our individuals are to face them, unless you believe that the Roman army had an anti-hoplite drill every hastatus was trained in?

My point is that the Roman army had plenty of experience in fighting against/as hoplites, and evolved a system that was designed to overcome the hoplite phalanx and did so, successfully enough to become the default fighting method in Italy. A hastatus didn't require special drill - his armament, formation and fighting methods made him organically superior to a hoplite phalanx even if he was encountering one for the first time.

Well, that's my provisional hypothesis (gotta make sure I can recoil.  )

[PMBardunias]

If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.

Not what you suggested in your first post. What changed your mind?

Nothing. If the swordsman can close the distance... In the video the swordsmen sometimes succeed in doing exactly that and win the contest. If however the swordsmen can't get past the spearman's guard they are at a disadvantage since spearman can poke them but they can't poke spearman.

I agree Justin.  That is my problem with the video in fact.  If we look at a hoplomachus, he was "light" compared to his opponent, and was supposed to dance back away and keep his opponent at spear range just like a Retiarius would.  One on one with a spear vs sword, you have to be nimble enough to control the distance. Those swords should never have been allowed to close the way they did.  The problem of course is that the spea rmen in the video have no idea how to use spears.

[PMBardunias]

The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since

a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.

If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and  resume the swordfight.

My money is on the Romans. Every time.

Depends on how easy they can get under the spears.  I have seen people try it, and it is not easy. But if they do, they win.

Fighting space is not an advantage here. Romans would not move back and forth out of range often. Once they are under the spears, they have to stick to the hoplites to be safe. Going back through spear range as they break off and coming back through it would be suicidal. They would surely be ding this at a 3 foot frontage, at 6 foot, I don't see them getting past so many spears.  I do not think they will be recoiling unless to do what they did to the Sarissaphoroi and tear the line apart. This is what the Persians tried by hitting the greek line only in places at Plataia and failed, though it was sound strategy and may have worked in the past unrecorded.

A typical hoplite spear has its centre of balance - and hence its grip - between 1/3 and 1/4 from the rear end. The spear is about 9 feet long on average. This means that at least six feet of spear will project in front of the hoplite. The second rank, which will have to be close to the the first rank to be able to freely wield their spears over the shoulders of the front-rank men, will have about four feet of spear or more projecting past the front rankers. When fighting, the legionary doesn't need to recoil more than a couple of feet to avoid a blow from the hoplite in front of him, which means that he is generally within the guard of the spears of the two front ranks of hoplites.

I doubt the earlier Republican Romans had the professionalism to hit a phalanx line only at certain places in order to dislocate it. Did the Persians deliberately try that at Plataea? Infantry or cavalry?

it is not that simple.  First, I can choke up on my spear and stab you. The point of balance is not as solid a thing as many believe.  In fact, I hold my spear just behind the point of balance, making it a little front heavy. This allows almost instant recovery of the spear is knocked aside. By simply drawing the hand back, the front end of the spear comes back on line automatically. Also, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally.  With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue.  I don't want to over stress this though, because generally men fight who is in front of them. The second rank can also take a step back and just stab you as well. All in all, you cannot stand anywhere within spear reach in front of hoplites and be safe.

As to the Persians at Plataia, it is hard to tell. Herodotus seems to denigrate them for attacking in small groups rather than a proper line.  But if you are fighting an enemy in a tight linear formation, attacking at any point means that the whole line must stop and watch the fight or break up into sections.  Hoplite lines did break into individual taxa all the time. this is why I prefer Thucydides' term parataxeis to phalanx, since it implies modularity.  But within a taxa, stopping the formation at one point probably stopped the whole thing.  So, the Persians may have held up the line for quite some time by hitting it is waves at different places.  Roman maniples could have done the same.

[RichT]

I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it.  Quesada-Sanz too perhaps.  I recall it from the WMWW debate.  It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions.  Perhaps someone could provide some links?

A Zhmodikov, 'Roman republican heavy infantrymen in battle (IV - II centuries BC)', Historia 49 (2000) pp. 67-79

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436566

Criticisms - he is too reliant on early Livy (formulaic and unreliable battle accounts), and too ready to take examples of Roman officers killed by missiles as evidence that both sides were fighting only with missiles.

[Justin Swanton]

it is not that simple.  First, I can choke up on my spear and stab you. The point of balance is not as solid a thing as many believe.  In fact, I hold my spear just behind the point of balance, making it a little front heavy. This allows almost instant recovery of the spear is knocked aside. By simply drawing the hand back, the front end of the spear comes back on line automatically.

I don't quite follow this. If you hold the spear behind the point of balance you will have even more spear projecting in front of you and hence even more of an inner guard area for the legionary to shelter in. The point is that once the legionary charges to shield contact the spears of hoplite ranks 1 and 2 are out of commission.

Also, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally.  With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue.

6' frontage? 

I don't want to over stress this though, because generally men fight who is in front of them. The second rank can also take a step back and just stab you as well. All in all, you cannot stand anywhere within spear reach in front of hoplites and be safe.

They would need to stand about 4-5' behind the first rank for their spears to be able to target the Romans just beyond. How easily can a hoplite use his spear against a Roman at that distance without hitting the man in front or the man in front's shield? Has anyone tried it? Plus the fact that most hoplite injuries are caused by shoving the spear through the armour of the man in front at the right moment, rather than trying to probe weak points. Can a second ranker 4' back do that?

As to the Persians at Plataia, it is hard to tell. Herodotus seems to denigrate them for attacking in small groups rather than a proper line.  But if you are fighting an enemy in a tight linear formation, attacking at any point means that the whole line must stop and watch the fight or break up into sections.  Hoplite lines did break into individual taxa all the time. this is why I prefer Thucydides' term parataxeis to phalanx, since it implies modularity.  But within a taxa, stopping the formation at one point probably stopped the whole thing.  So, the Persians may have held up the line for quite some time by hitting it is waves at different places.  Roman maniples could have done the same.

Interesting.

[PMBardunias]

 

I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it.  Quesada-Sanz too perhaps.  I recall it from the WMWW debate.  It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions.  Perhaps someone could provide some links?

Archaic hoplites, like those on the Chigi olope, did this as well, as do later Saxons. There is a period of spear throwing prior to contact.  Classical hoplites rid themselves of their second, throwing spear, and charge through missile range with one big spear that cannot be thrown due to its balance.

Hoplites didn't seem to have much trouble getting to shield contact if othismos is a thing to be believed, and even Homer mentions "shields clashing against shields" often enough to conclude it was a fairly common occurrence. If hoplites, why not legionaries?

This is a point I made above, but there are caveats.  We do not know how hard it is to get within the spears.  Just because it happens does not mean it was predictably easy.  Also, the spear plays a role in closing to shield range.  The fact that spears are all around you blocking enemy spears makes this MUCH easier.  It is hard to convey the feeling of the moment when your allies spears all come down around you to the ready position.

My point is that the Roman army had plenty of experience in fighting against/as hoplites, and evolved a system that was designed to overcome the hoplite phalanx and did so, successfully enough to become the default fighting method in Italy. A hastatus didn't require special drill - his armament, formation and fighting methods made him organically superior to a hoplite phalanx even if he was encountering one for the first time. Well, that's my provisional hypothesis (gotta make sure I can recoil.  )

It was the Samnites who first fought the romans in what would become the "roman fashion" while the Romans were themselves hoplites.  Gauls as well broke the Roman phalanx, but maybe they just panicked.  But in each case we do not know if they did so frontally, or, more likely, they broke them through flanking as the Romans later would sarissaphoroi.  One thing that does say perhaps it was the latter is that when facing Gauls after Telamon, the Romans armed their hastatii with the hasta from the Triarii to make them an old style spear phalanx. Whether we believe that gaullish swords were crap that bent or that a spear phalanx is not easily broken by swordsmen is another debate.

[PMBardunias]

I don't quite follow this. If you hold the spear behind the point of balance you will have even more spear projecting in front of you and hence even more of an inner guard area for the legionary to shelter in. The point is that once the legionary charges to shield contact the spears of hoplite ranks 1 and 2 are out of commission. .

If I am holding my 8-9' dory at the balance point, there is some 6' of spear in front of my hand.  Buy I can simply move my hand forward and only have 4' in front of my hand if I want.  This is not a barbell, the spear is light enough that I can use it when holding it beyond the balance point either forward or back.

Also, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally.  With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue.

6' frontage? 

According to Polybios Romans fought in a spacing that would for a hoplite be opened order, where each roman has 6' of lateral space to stand in.  I do not believe they actually fought in this spacing, I think they doubled to 3' spacing, but many do.

They would need to stand about 4-5' behind the first rank for their spears to be able to target the Romans just beyond. How easily can a hoplite use his spear against a Roman at that distance without hitting the man in front or the man in front's shield? Has anyone tried it? Plus the fact that most hoplite injuries are caused by shoving the spear through the armour of the man in front at the right moment, rather than trying to probe weak points. Can a second ranker 4' back do that?

See above, they would not have to stand very far back. But as long at they do not draw the point of the spear back farther than the man in front of them, they cannot hit him. 

I am not sure where you got the idea that hoplites shoved spears through armor.  Hoplites picked away at unarmored, portions of their foes.  Stabbing through armor of course happened, but it is not easy, or no one would wear armor, and even if successful, most of the time you end up disarming yourself as your spear gets stuck in your foe.

[RichT]

The point about spear (or pike) v. sword is that as Polybius argues, the first may be better than the second in the right circumstances, but the second may be better than the first in more circumstances.

For Greeks with their cultural attachment to pitched battle between matched forces, or Macedonians buying into the same tradition, or fighting cavalry and missile armies in the east, spear, pike and phalanx would be best. Romans may have decided that the type of opponents they faced, the terrain they fought on, and the types of engagement they fought, made missiles, open order and swords more useful. This doesn't mean that swords are 'better than' spears, nor does it answer 'who would win in a fight between...' questions (which I think are never good or interesting questions anyway, because of all the variables).

[Erpingham]

Without going the full WMWW route, this discussion is interesting (and accessible online)

https://www.academia.edu/727113/_Not_so_different_individual_fighting_techniques_and_small_unit_tactics_of_Roman_and_Iberian_armies_

I have been unable to find the Sabin paper online unfortunately.

[Andreas Johansson]

The point about spear (or pike) v. sword is that as Polybius argues, the first may be better than the second in the right circumstances, but the second may be better than the first in more circumstances.

The "right" circumstances might be the commoner ones, though, given that spearmen are a commoner troop type that swordsmen across history.

(Or maybe they aren't but it's typically more important to have spears to fend of cavalry than to be optimized against other foot. Are spears less common in places like Mesoamerica?)

I was thinking, what HI swordsmen do we have besides Romans? Spaniards and Gauls with similar javelin-and-sword combos I guess. Army lists for various Chinese and Indian armies have troops called swordsmen but I know little about them.

[Justin Swanton]

My point is that the Roman army had plenty of experience in fighting against/as hoplites, and evolved a system that was designed to overcome the hoplite phalanx and did so, successfully enough to become the default fighting method in Italy. A hastatus didn't require special drill - his armament, formation and fighting methods made him organically superior to a hoplite phalanx even if he was encountering one for the first time. Well, that's my provisional hypothesis (gotta make sure I can recoil.  )

It was the Samnites who first fought the romans in what would become the "roman fashion" while the Romans were themselves hoplites.  Gauls as well broke the Roman phalanx, but maybe they just panicked.  But in each case we do not know if they did so frontally, or, more likely, they broke them through flanking as the Romans later would sarissaphoroi.  One thing that does say perhaps it was the latter is that when facing Gauls after Telamon, the Romans armed their hastatii with the hasta from the Triarii to make them an old style spear phalanx. Whether we believe that gaullish swords were crap that bent or that a spear phalanx is not easily broken by swordsmen is another debate.

Very good. The point remains however that in the state of near-continuous warfare that was Italy in early and mid-Republican times, the swordsman came to dominate the battlefield over the spearman. The Romans were always good at adopting the equipment and fighting techniques of their adversaries if these proved superior.

[Justin Swanton]

Also, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally.  With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue.

6' frontage? 

According to Polybios Romans fought in a spacing that would for a hoplite be opened order, where each roman has 6' of lateral space to stand in.  I do not believe they actually fought in this spacing, I think they doubled to 3' spacing, but many do.

OK, Polybios. We had a bunfight discussion about that here somewhere. At grave risk of going off topic here is my take on that passage. I can create a separate thread if anyone wants to pursue it further.


It is commonly assumed that Polybius's legionaries each occupied a width of 6 feet since he affirms that one legionary faced two phalangites in battle and each phalangite occupied a space of 3 feet. This however arises from a misunderstanding of Histories 18:29 which is commonly rendered as follows:

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear

And then a little later:

The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx

So three feet plus three feet equals six feet. The phrase 'three feet of space' is interpreted as three feet of width, which means that for Polybius a close-order phalanx corresponds to the intermediate order of the tacticians, clearly a contradition.

But what exactly is Polybius saying? The phrase 'space of three feet' translates the Greek:  ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ – en trisi posi – literally 'in three feet'. What do the three feet refer to? The answer lies in the passage that follows this phrase. After establishing the three feet distance, Polybius goes on to do some maths. A sarissa is 14 cubits (21 feet) long – a cubit being about 1½ feet. Of the 14 cubits, only 10 project in front of the phalangite's grip. This allows one to calculate how many ranks would have their sarissa project past the front rank. The answer is 5 ranks, with sarissa of the 5th rank projecting 2 cubits past the front rank men.

But something is missing from the equation: the distance between each rank. Without that factor it is impossible to calculate how many ranks can bring their sarissas to bear beyond the front of the phalanx. Polybius gives that distance. Where? When he states that a phalangite in close order occupied three feet (or 2 cubits), that is, three feet of depth. With that figure the maths is easy: 10 cubits minus 2 cubits (4th rank) minus 2 cubits (3rd rank) minus 2 cubits (2nd rank) minus 2 cubits (front rank) = 2 cubits of sarissa projecting ahead.

Polybius indicates the width occupied by the phalangite file when he mentions that the phalanx is in 'close order'. Each file of a close order phalanx occupies a frontage of one cubit, or 1½ feet, as described by the tacticians. Hence a Roman soldier occupying a space three feet wide will face two phalangites in close order and ten sarissa-points along with them.

Does Polybius affirm that Roman soldiers occupied a frontage six feet wide? Here is a standard translation of the relevant passage:

Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. - Histories 18:30

The phrase 'a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet.' translates the Greek: ἵστανται μὲν οὖν ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων καὶ  Ῥωμαῖοι   istantai men oun en trisi posi meta ton hoplon kai Romaioi. Word for word: ' they stand so then in three feet with arms also the Romans'. Or in better English: ' So the Romans also occupy three feet when in arms.'  The 'also' refers back to the three feet of depth occupied by the phalangites, hence the meaning is that Romans ranks, like phalangite ranks, are three feet apart.

'it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear' translates the Greek: προφανὲς ὅτι χάλασμα καὶ διάστασιν ἀλλήλων ἔχειν δεήσει τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐλάχιστον τρεῖς πόδας κατ᾽ ἐπιστάτην καὶ κατὰ παραστάτην,   prophanes hoti chalasma kai diastasin allelon echein deesei tous andras elachiston treis podas kat' epistaten kai kata parastaten.

Literally: 'Clear that looseness [i.e. not to be too tightly packed] and standing-apartness from each other need to have the men at least three feet in respect of those behind and those on the side.'

In better English: 'Clearly the men need to be loosely arrayed and have space between each other – at least three feet to the men behind and the men on either side.
One measures the three feet from which point to which point? There can be only two points that apply in all cases: from the midpoint of one file to the midpoint of an adjacent file, or from the midpoint of a rank to the midpoint of the rank behind it. This means in fact that each man occupies a space measuring three by three feet.

[PMBardunias]

In better English: 'Clearly the men need to be loosely arrayed and have space between each other – at least three feet to the men behind and the men on either side.
One measures the three feet from which point to which point? There can be only two points that apply in all cases: from the midpoint of one file to the midpoint of an adjacent file, or from the midpoint of a rank to the midpoint of the rank behind it. This means in fact that each man occupies a space measuring three by three feet.

As I noted, I too believe this, but I did not know if you did or if you were imagining romans in 6'. Measuring from the center point or from the spear makes no difference, the men are still included within the three feet, it is not a man and three feet. This is, I believe the standard way we discuss frontages. Hoplites by the way, cannot form at 1.5 feet, that is the specific formation Phillip came up with for sarissa modelled after his take on passages in the Illiad we are told.  You have to lead with the weapon hand like a fencer to stand at 1.5 feet.  All of this said, there are many who believe based on the afore mentioned Polybius in part that hoplites stood at 6' (which is a three foot aspis and three more feet). The logic is that Romans used swords and needed by their reading 6', so hoplites used machaira and needed 6'. This is crazy from my experience.  Hoplites could form rim to rim, about 3 feet or 90cm, overlapped on the deep shoulder section of the aspis, 72cm, or at maximum overlap, about 60cm.  Past that you can't really fight if your spear is in the rear hand. Those who say you can are wrong.