Weaponry on the Certosa Situla

[Tim]

May we please have another WMWoW thread? Pretty please? Usual rules, once each participant has stated their position for the 10,000th time we freeze the thread no matter where are.

[aligern]

Thanks for that ;-)). most of our writing was actually by Mark Grindlay.  A pity PMDS was not at the time a Society member, though we did invite him.  It was quite a stimulating debate, but I fear it missed something by having been set as a theory  without sufficient information gathering and analysis before trial conclusions were drawn.   I wonder if there are three  basic styles  of operating with javelins:

1) Paired javelins, one to throw and one to thrust. Sometines this was a combination of javelins with a heavier spear such as early Anglo  Saxons

2) Many javelins such as Moors or maybe Spanish Caetrati where there may be no intention of meleeing until the eneny are on the turn.


3) javelins preparatory to using a primary sword  such as Romans or Gauls ( though its an interesting question as to  how many in a Gallic army actually had those expensive swords.

If the Certosa Situla does indeed show warriors with single spears then it is highly inconvenient for tge vew that it shows a melding of a Greek style of using thrusting spears and an Italian style with a scutum  shield and javelins..

Roy

[Erpingham]

For Tim .  I think it was an interesting discussion, if sometimes ill-tempered.  Paul really made bigger and more sweeping statements than the evidence he collected could carry and hadn't really parameterised properly.  So sometimes Gauls were in, because they touched the Mediterranean, sometimes they were too far North and belonged to a different tradition, which intruded on the Mediterranean.   Was the lonkhe really the equivalent of a pilum or is it more in Javelin/light spear category and did this matter to WMWW (sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't)?  Illyrians, IIRC became an issue at one point.  When the Carthaginians ditched the phalanx and adopted the proposed WMWW was another sticking point.  There was lots, lots more - it produced the largest monthly totals of Ancmed posts.  So, rather than an all embracing repeat, picking out parts of the debate and re-examining them might be worth it (as Roy is already doing)  - it should give us ammunition for a long time ahead

[Duncan Head]

Paul really made bigger and more sweeping statements than the evidence he collected could carry and hadn't really parameterised properly.  So sometimes Gauls were in, because they touched the Mediterranean, sometimes they were too far North and belonged to a different tradition, which intruded on the Mediterranean.

I think, in retrospect, that sort of inconsistency was because Paul was in the course of working through the theory, not presenting one fully-developed comprehensive proposal. His ideas were sometimes more roughly handled than they deserved, but on the other hand he might have done better to present some of them more as questions than statements.

[Erpingham]

Paul really made bigger and more sweeping statements than the evidence he collected could carry and hadn't really parameterised properly.  So sometimes Gauls were in, because they touched the Mediterranean, sometimes they were too far North and belonged to a different tradition, which intruded on the Mediterranean.

I think, in retrospect, that sort of inconsistency was because Paul was in the course of working through the theory, not presenting one fully-developed comprehensive proposal. His ideas were sometimes more roughly handled than they deserved, but on the other hand he might have done better to present some of them more as questions than statements.

Entirely agree Duncan.  Though he didn't help his cause at times being being more assertive and less questioning than he should have been, which was bound to cause counter arguments. 

[Jim Webster]

Looking at the basics I think we got too caught up in details of armament

The 'WWOW' with the emphasis on javelin and sword or javelin and spear (because swords are expensive) was pointed out as having evolved differently to the East

But when you stop and look at it, the early Greek Hoplite with two spears may effectively have been a proponent of the WWOW.
After all there are scholars who question whether the hoplite phalanx 'proper' had evolved by the Persian War

From a wargamers point of view, we run into a problem of defining the 'same troop type' as Auxilia, Blade, or Warband, depending on geography and race.

[Erpingham]

The geographical emphasis perhaps didn't help.  Perhaps seeing a European Mediterranean tradition, which would also encompass the two-spear hoplite, would have been better.  There was also perhaps too little on how the styles contrasted in action, how they interacted and how much switching between "codes" there was.  "These guys all had two spears, so they fought the same" was a bit too technologically determinist. 

Let us imagine for a moment our early Greek settlers fetching up in Italy with their two-spear hoplites and maybe integral archers in a proto phalanx.  They end up against some various local, who have body shields and a heavier javelin (proto-pilum).  Traditionally, the phalanx is close order heavy and the locals are "heavy" skirmishers (LMI to WRG fans).  Is that really how it was?  Are they effectively the same? 

[Jim Webster]

The geographical emphasis perhaps didn't help.  Perhaps seeing a European Mediterranean tradition, which would also encompass the two-spear hoplite, would have been better.  There was also perhaps too little on how the styles contrasted in action, how they interacted and how much switching between "codes" there was.  "These guys all had two spears, so they fought the same" was a bit too technologically determinist. 

Let us imagine for a moment our early Greek settlers fetching up in Italy with their two-spear hoplites and maybe integral archers in a proto phalanx.  They end up against some various local, who have body shields and a heavier javelin (proto-pilum).  Traditionally, the phalanx is close order heavy and the locals are "heavy" skirmishers (LMI to WRG fans).  Is that really how it was?  Are they effectively the same?

My guess is that they were much the same.
I picked up a copy of https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Roman-Warfare-Regal-Period/dp/1781592543  which I feel is well worth the £5 for a hardback

[Imperial Dave]

even better value as the Kindle version Jim

[Jim Webster]

even better value as the Kindle version Jim

I was talking about buying it rather than hiring it 

To be fair there aren't a lot of maps or illustrations so Kindle would work

[Imperial Dave]

duly bought 

[Jim Webster]

duly bought 

[Imperial Dave]

duly bought 

would have been rude not to......

[Jim Webster]

The geographical emphasis perhaps didn't help.  Perhaps seeing a European Mediterranean tradition, which would also encompass the two-spear hoplite, would have been better.  There was also perhaps too little on how the styles contrasted in action, how they interacted and how much switching between "codes" there was.  "These guys all had two spears, so they fought the same" was a bit too technologically determinist. 

Let us imagine for a moment our early Greek settlers fetching up in Italy with their two-spear hoplites and maybe integral archers in a proto phalanx.  They end up against some various local, who have body shields and a heavier javelin (proto-pilum).  Traditionally, the phalanx is close order heavy and the locals are "heavy" skirmishers (LMI to WRG fans).  Is that really how it was?  Are they effectively the same?

I did a screen shot of Ante bella punica:Western Mediterranean Military Development 350-264 BC By Alastair Richard Lumsden

[Erpingham]

Quesada Sanz's "cloud theory" of course was one of the key pieces of the WMWW evidence base.  I recall one of the spinoffs was a discussion of Roman warfare and whether the Romans were "chuck and charge" or "pilum skirmishers" .