Hannibal's Veterans Armed as Triarii

[Aetius]

Under the Polybian Roman system of Legions Rome's veterans, the Triarii, were armed with a scutum, gladius and hasta. These were Rome's best soldiers and the most experienced. They fought as a phalanx and considered a defensive line. I think Hannibal's Veterans were armed in this way and did not fight with a pila followed up by the gladius as per Patrick Waterson's excellent article. I think this would have put them at a disadvantage as they were not used to fighting this way. They would have adopted Roman armour, shields and gladius but fought as Triarii with their spears. This is how they were trained and Rome's best also fought this way. Just my thoughts on the article...
John

[Erpingham]

I suspect preferences may depend on what you think they were armed with before being re-armed.  If you think they had a thureos and logche, as some do, then re-arming them with long spears may make less sense.  I await expert input from Duncan and other knowledgeable persons with interest.

[Aetius]

Yes I agree, someone more knowledgeable. I was thinking of the Polybian Legion while the sources wrote during the time of the cohort Legion if that makes a difference...
John

[Duncan Head]

Well, the African veterans armed with thrusting spears was what I went for in AMPW, and I have come across no real new evidence since that would make me change my mind. Still, there is no direct evidence, so many things remain possible.

[Aetius]

Thank you...
John

[Mark G]

One question though.
If they were rearmed from captured Roman kit after the early victories ... would there be enough dead triarii kit ?

[Duncan Head]

Doesn't have to be triarii kit. All three Roman "heavy" types use the same shields, the mailshirts would be worn by both principes and triarii by and large (being based on wealth) and they could keep their own spears. Re-arming with Roman gladii is probably a red herring because the Romans are not supposed to have adopted the Spanish sword till after the Second Punic War, so Romans probably had a mix of Greek-style swords and Italo-Celtic La Tene types; the Carthaginians are more likely to have carried a genuine gladius hispaniensis than the Romans at this point.

[Mark G]

Asked and answered

[DBS]

Perhaps also worth considering the degree to which the Libyans and Spanish who departed Spain under Hannibal were still likely to have been using the same kit by the time of Cannae anyway, regardless of battlefield loot.  There is specific reference to Hannibal getting replacement clothing off the Celtic tribes during the march to Italy.

Shields are designed to take damage, and replacements are not likely to be easily knocked up within the camp whilst marching hither and thither, only perhaps whilst in winter quarters; chances are that quite a few in the Carthaginian army were sporting Celtic and Italic replacements from an early stage in the campaign.

I have never been convinced by the arguments that a professional warrior would struggle to transition from an aspis style to a scutum or thureos style, and equally between a thrusting spear and a pilum or javelin (after all, the latter is precisely what we are supposed to believe the triarii did after years of service in the hastati and principes...)  I strongly suspect that Polybius' description of the visual distinctions between troop types at Cannae is a literary trope, and that the Spaniards, for example, may not have been sporting too many nice white tunics with crimson borders.  And of course, by Zama, the "veterans" are likely a pretty heterogenous mix of nationalities that have served and somehow survived a decade and a half under Hannibal in Italy - Libyans, Spaniards, Celts, Bruttians, etc, etc, yet possibly displaying a degree of visual homogeneity if they have mostly adopted body armour and scutum.

[Mark G]

So if we exclude pila, and we assume similarity in other equipment, does that just leave smaller combat movement units?

[Jim Webster]

So if we exclude pila, and we assume similarity in other equipment, does that just leave smaller combat movement units?

When you look at some of the Veterans, if you assume Italians and Spanish were numbered among them, it would mean the Veterans were used to a more flexible style of warfare.

I suspect we're venturing into the "Western Mediterranean Way of War" area again. It could be that 'line relief' (whatever it was and how it was done) might be more 'Italian' than 'Roman'.
[It has struck me that given the amount of training some legions got, 'line relief' couldn't be that complicated, or alternatively, some Romans couldn't do it either]

I've always felt that treating Hannibal's Veterans as legionaries made sense. I also wondered, when looking at Mago's campaign in Liguria, whether the generality of Spanish and Ligurian infantry recruited for his campaign were effectively legionaries, just far less well armoured.

Indeed when you consider that Seleucid and Ptolemaic forces adopted 'Roman Infantry' after brief experience (Antiochus IV had Roman Infantry at Daphne in 166BC which is 23 years after the battle of Magnesia. so if they were just formed for the parade it gives us a maximum period) 
By the start of the Second Punic war, the Carthaginians had been opposed to Roman legions for 46 years, (264BC to 218BC).

[DBS]

When you look at some of the Veterans, if you assume Italians and Spanish were numbered among them, it would mean the Veterans were used to a more flexible style of warfare.

And even the Libyans had served in Spain vs assorted local opponents before trekking over the Alps, so may also have been reasonably effective at fighting in flexible manner.  As I say, these are effectively professional troops, not city state militia who know how to do just one thing.  A good comparison might be Alexander's phalangites - yes, best known for fighting in close formation in pitched battles, but with attested effective performance in lighter roles as well whilst on campaign.

I would not even rule out pila - the concept of a heavy throwing spear was not unique to the Romans (Iberians and other Italians had similar weapons) and any competent warrior could doubtless use one effectively if he or his general thought it advantageous to do so.  The question might be whether Hannibal or not reckoned that, despite his three huge victories in the first three years in Italy, the pila outperformed the weapons his lads carried?

[Duncan Head]

I still think that the incident in Plutarch, Marcellus 12, where some Punic infantry use thrusting-spears at a date after the Cannae "re-equipment in Roman armour", is best explained by the Africans retaining their original weapons.

[DBS]

I suspect they did, point is that the pilum was not necessarily a battle winning wonder weapon (as some rules tend to favour) if Mr Barca felt no great compulsion to adopt it. Is that the same incident when there is the faint suggestion that Marcellus' troops have long spears, or is my memory playing tricks...?

[Duncan Head]

Yes, long spears that were specifically for shipboard fighting - reminiscent of Ajax's 22-cubit xyston mega naumachon in Iliad XV....