Having been re-reading Josephus' Jewish War, I was taken by his description of the Ronman cavalry at Bk3.5.5. They are described as having kontos, thureos, and three large darts or javelins in a quiver. I have gone back to the Greek and definitely kontos and thureos, despite the imprecision of both the Loeb and Penguin translations. They are again described as having kontoi at Bk3.7.24 when dismounted for a siege assault. It is perhaps noteworthy that Josephus describes the thureos as hanging at the side of the saddle - simply how observed when they were on the march, or too much to manage with the kontos when mounted?
Made me stop and pause given we usually think of Roman cavalry with very big pointy sticks as a tad later, and even then in limited numbers. Also, because Josephus, rightly or wrongly, seems to be talking about this as a uniform set of kit in Vespasian's force, not the odd specialist ala or two. I suppose there is the possibility that there is regional influence from allied xystophoroi, or even that these cavalry are the former Herodian alae transferred when Archelaus forfeited his kingdom? Or Josephus is just not reliable on detail...?
It is generally considered, I think, that Josephus is using "kontos" loosely for the standard Roman cavalry spear. After all, anyone who can use "xyston" to mean the pilum...
That was my initial thought but two things made me pause: he talks about them having darts/javelins in a quiver, so seemingly a different weapon optimised as a missile; and at III.7.24 there seems to be an implication that the dismounted cavalry are placed opposite the breach as their "kontoi" have a longer reach.
Hey ho, just has planted a seed of doubt in my received wisdom... :)
Of course the dismounted cavalry in the breach are in full armour, which has led to the suggestion that they are allied cataphracts, not Roman cavalry.
I don't see the javelins in a quiver as an issue; we always thought that the auxiliary cavalry had a spear plus a bunch of javelins (which is why Arrian's training manual has them throwing lots of missiles); it doesn't to my mind have any bearing on how long the spear is.
Lighter spears in the quiver for chucking at the enemy, and a more substantial one for stabbing them - doesn't mean the latter has to be a similar size to, say, a Parthian kontos.
Absolutely, get all that. Does make me wonder what would be the first attested use of kontos for a weapon before Josephus? If we assume that he is being a bit loose with his terminology, still means that it is a technical term upon which he is seizing to use or misuse. Of course, I recognise that the vagaries of ancient literary survival may render the question a tad moot.
I'm in agreement with Duncan and Nik. Standard cavalry spear, as opposed to throwing javelins, is my interpretation.
However, I won't have a bad word spoken about Josephus - he's one of the best primary sources we have and a dastardly good story teller. I have built Hasmonean and Herodian Jewish armies around him.
Quote from: stevenneate on October 21, 2023, 11:05:14 AMI'm in agreement with Duncan and Nik. Standard cavalry spear, as opposed to throwing javelins, is my interpretation.
However, I won't have a bad word spoken about Josephus - he's one of the best primary sources we have and a dastardly good story teller. I have built Hasmonean and Herodian Jewish armies around him.
Given he owed his life to his ability to improvise stories, had he not been as good he'd probably have been just another crucified rebel 8)
I would simply observe that on three occasions in just Book III, he describes the thrusting spears of the Roman cavalry, and on all three occasions chooses to use kontoi, so it would seem to be a deliberate choice, not simply selecting approximate synonyms for spear out of literary good taste. For spear in general, he uses doru, xyston - as noted by Duncan - for pilum, and longche for javelin. So he does seem to have a fixed vocabulary which he uses consistently for different types of pointy stick. The question is therefore whether his technical vocabulary matches our technical vocabulary...? :)
Not trying to die in a ditch on this, just one of those occasions when I wonder if we risk being hasty in assuming a genuine primary source is muddled. There should not be too many anachronisms in Josephus, unlike, say, Livy or Dio. And as I say, also makes me wonder when kontos first came to be applied to cavalry spears, regardless of whether Josephus is using the term "correctly".
Doesn't Arrian in Array against the Alans call the pilum a kontos? Suggests technical precision of translation may have been less of an issue with Greek writers than we might like. I'm used to medieval inventories where an clerk may consistently describe things but not in the same terms as someone else, so I have some sympathy :)
Absolutely, I am simply making the point that every single time Josephus refers to a Roman cavalry thrusting spear, he calls it a bargepole. Which suggests that he has a specific distinction in mind from "ordinary" dorata. Whether that distinction of kontos is the same to him as the distinction of kontos is to us, namely a long, usually two-handed, lance, one cannot say. But he is consistent. A medieval clerk has the excuse of not being a soldier, which does not apply really to Josephus, though one might question whether he was quite as competent as he portrays himself.
Quote from: DBS link=msg=94655
.....which does not apply really to Josephus, though one might question whether he was quite as competent as he portrays himself.
/quote]
Josephus was extremely competent because he told us so and 100% of the surviving sources agree. Oh... I see what you mean!
Kontos isn't compatible with the thuros one would think, nor with known Roman auxiliary cavalry equipment of the time. So maybe the "large pole" translation is correct and they were all carrying banners with "Vespasian is here!" flags?
In their book "The Roman Cavalry" Dixon and Southern express the view that due to the saddlery of the time nobody had sussed out a way of staying on the horse, controlling it, hold a large shield and wield a very long spear all at the same time.
I suppose two questions arise:
1) What is the earliest known reference to a Roman Ala with "Kont." or similar in its title?
2) How "primary" is our source in the sense of the number of copies (and potential clerking errors) it has been through before it reached us?
Quote from: DBS on October 21, 2023, 06:24:02 PMAbsolutely, I am simply making the point that every single time Josephus refers to a Roman cavalry thrusting spear, he calls it a bargepole. Which suggests that he has a specific distinction in mind from "ordinary" dorata. Whether that distinction of kontos is the same to him as the distinction of kontos is to us, namely a long, usually two-handed, lance, one cannot say. But he is consistent. A medieval clerk has the excuse of not being a soldier, which does not apply really to Josephus, though one might question whether he was quite as competent as he portrays himself.
Does he use
doru of non-Roman cavalry thrusting spears?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 22, 2023, 09:06:24 AMDoes he use doru of non-Roman cavalry thrusting spears?
That thought had occurred to me, so I spent yesterday afternoon combing the Jewish War, and unfortunately the only times he talks about cavalry armament are with regards to the Romans; he mentions their thrusting spears three times, and every time uses kontoi, and several times mentions the darts which he says they also use (his statement of three in a quiver) but which he says are large and no smaller than dorata, but on these occasions he is clearly talking about thrown weapons where the cavalry are pelting hapless Jewish troops with missiles. Which nobody contests was a known tactic.
With regards to the shield being incompatible with the kontos, I did point out that he specifically describes it as hanging at the side/rear of the saddle. Which may just mean a sensible place to hang it on the march, but might also mean a sensible place to put it out of the way if needing both hands free.
I do not think that one can blame medieval copyists, since there are three occasions that I can find when he mentions a Roman cavalry spear, and each time it is a kontos. That is consistency, so I think rules out copyist error or literary affectation. To my mind it suggests that by the Flavian period, the cavalry spear was being called a kontos in at least some circles. The question is whether it just means a hefty hasta of notable length for a single handed weapon (in contrast, say, to Xenophon or Polybius' much earlier descriptions of Greek, Roman and Persian cavalry spears) or means something more akin to our modern conception of a kontos?
As I say, I cannot work out if any surviving author before Josephus is attested as using kontos for a weapon.
I am not a Josephus fanboy, and he is clearly a hugely self-serving, nasty little quisling and apologist. But none of these faults are served by inaccuracies regarding Roman weapons, and he is a primary source and genuine eye witness. Which simply makes me pause for thought.
Quote from: DBS on October 22, 2023, 09:58:15 AMseveral times mentions the darts which he says they also use (his statement of three in a quiver) but which he says are large and no smaller than dorata, but on these occasions he is clearly talking about thrown weapons where the cavalry are pelting hapless Jewish troops with missiles.
I think this is another indication that he doesn't use words in their classical meanings. A
doru was 8-9ft long in hoplite times. While you could throw one at a pinch (14th century men-at-arms occassionally threw their lances, so why not?), it would be hard to manage three in a quiver and , for regular use, I'd expect something more handy, capable of a bit of range and accuracy.
Possibly, but I think there is a reference in another source (cannot for the life of me think which) which describes Roman cavalry darts as being short, but as "stout/stiff as a spear". So the problem here is knowing in which dimension he was comparing the darts to dorata - length or girth?
My basic point is that either doru is no longer fit for purpose, to his mind at least, to describe an 8 foot long spear, which is what received wisdom might have a cavalryman carrying, so another term is needed, or else a "bargepole" is demanded, in his mind at least, for another reason. Which would seem to be length or a two-handed grip. It just seems odd that Josephus seems to be an early user of kontos for a shafted weapon as opposed to something with which to go punting.
As an early user, one assumes some sort of relationship between form/appearance for the term to migrate from boating utility to weapon.
By the way, have checked on Arrian vs the Alans. There is no good evidence that he uses kontos to mean pilum. He talks about the Roman front few ranks having the kontos, and the rear ranks having the longche. The only reference to weapons being thrown is to the longche. There has been a tendency to assume the kontos must equal pilum because a) that is what Romans carry, and b) the belief that he talks about them having long thin shanks, but the primary supposed reference to said shanks is a fourth generation emendation of a damaged manuscript and actually rather dodgy...
Now, since his kontoi are definitely being used with shields, that seems to rule out a two handed weapon. So perhaps a longer than normal single-handed thrusting spear?
Given the quite extensive evidence there is available for Roman equipment at the time of Josephus and Arian, their accounts must be taken as part of that whole body of evidence and not given any undue primacy without due reason. I feel at present the discussion is doing just that. Easy to do I know, as to summarise the body of other evidence could be quite a job :P
With all due respect, the only arguments offered against are a) received wisdom that we are certain that we know how earlyish Principate cavalry were armed, all of them, all of the time; and b) that Arrian and Josephus must be using Greek words wrongly because otherwise they seem to differ from said received wisdom about cavalry and legionaries.
All I am saying is that perhaps two primary sources, both with military service and personal experience, should not be simply dismissed. I am not suggesting that Josephus, for example, is an accurate source for, say, cavalry serving on the Rhine or in Britain, and recruited in those northern regions from Germans and Gauls. However, just maybe, the cavalry equipment is not as uniform across the empire as is assumed, especially with troops recruited in the east or converted from former Herodian alae of Hellenistic tradition.
Nor am I saying that Josephus' kontos is necessarily two-handed; but he uses that term for a reason, and probably the troops carrying his kontos used that term if they were recruited in Syria. They must have had a reason to use that term, and to my mind, that suggests a longer than normal spear.
To just dismiss two primary sources because they do not agree with the established groupthink is not good practice. After all, all Gothic experts universally said Ostrogotha was a fictitious eponym invented by Jordanes, until a contemporary fragment from Dexippus naming him was discovered a few years ago.
Fine, draw stumps there.
But it is also very dangerous to declare expertise irrelevant unless it is personally convincing to every reader individually.
And not everything which went into the decision process for this subject has been captured here.
Quote from: Mark G on October 22, 2023, 05:38:03 PMBut it is also very dangerous to declare expertise irrelevant unless it is personally convincing to every reader individually.
And not everything which went into the decision process for this subject has been captured here.
I am not dismissing any expertise. Just pointing out that there are assumptions made that because we know this auxiliary cavalryman had this armament, then every auxiliary cavalryman had the same armament. If one digs into the academic discussion of Arrian, for example, the oft-quoted statement that "kontos equals pilum" becomes very dodgy. We just do not know - all of his kontoi are thrust by the Roman infantry, and their thrown weapons are longchai. We do not know if his longche is the pilum or the lancea. The whole point of his little piece is the correct way to fight Alans, so it does not follow that bog standard legionary equipment should be assumed. No one quibbles over the idea that Trajan might have issued extra armour to some troops up against the Dacians as a special local measure.
Any expert opinion that dismisses two primary sources, veterans of the campaigns they describe, is fit to be questioned. Perhaps Arrian or Josephus are wrong or misleading, but we cannot assert that with certainty.
Quote from: DBS on October 22, 2023, 05:46:06 PMNo one quibbles over the idea that Trajan might have issued extra armour to some troops up against the Dacians as a special local measure.
Apologies for a bit of a derail, but as extra armour (manicae and I think greaves) have been found elsewhere (Carlisle for example) there certainly is quibbling that it was related just to the Dacian Wars ;D
Speidel - Hadrian's lancers (https://www.persee.fr/doc/antaf_0066-4871_2006_num_42_1_1412)
An interesting article by Michael Speidel, including the use of the shield with kontos when defending against missiles...
David - have you thought of putting this thread together as an article for Slingshot? It's interesting, novel and poses questions.
The Herodian cavalry cohorts and Vespasian's units have some traceability.
This is good stuff and it' outcomes shouldn't be buried away on the Forum!
Duncan Campbell in his commentary on Arrian (Deploying a Roman Army P158-159) seems fairly strong in his view that neither Arrian nor Josephus were referring to the Kontos but to a more general purpose spear.
In the Speidel article there is reference to Roman cavalry swinging their shields on to their backs. This implies that the shields must have had some sort of belt or strap to enable this. I thought they didn't have this but re-watching the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n9nb-TTAqw) of Hadrian's cavalry at Chesters more carefully it appears that most riders have a thin strap over their shoulder going to the shield as well as the usual sword baldric.
Quote from: dwkay57 on October 27, 2023, 05:29:37 PMIn the Speidel article there is reference to Roman cavalry swinging their shields on to their backs. This implies that the shields must have had some sort of belt or strap to enable this but apart from a drawing in an Osprey book I haven't seen any reconstructions that showed this. Are there any thoughts or evidence as to how they did this?
It is possible that Josephus describes exactly such an arrangement when he talks about the shield used by his kontos wielding cavalry as hanging at an angle at their side/rear.
It is therefore possible that we have a situation where the two authors whom received wisdom believes are misusing the term kontos just so happen to also be talking about a shield suspended on a strap used with such weapon...
It is why I have been so obstinate on the subject. I am
not 100% convinced that Arrian and Josephus are describing kontoi-as-we-know-them, but I
am 100% convinced that we should not dismiss the idea just because we think all Roman cavalry of the early principate conform to a single model. Both Arrian and Josephus are describing cavalry deployed, and partly at least recruited, in an area of deep Hellenistic and Iranian tradition.
And I come back to my basic argument - one author writing in Greek might choose to use the term kontos in an idiosyncratic manner, but when two do so, I begin to wonder. Why call a spear a bargepole when all spears are similar to poles? It does seem to indicate a greater than normal length. Whether one handed or two handed. As I have said, I think the argument that Arrian uses kontoi for some of the legionary weapons vs the Alans, legionaries always carry pila, therefore he must be clueless about kontoi, is deeply flawed because he is describing a weapon used by the first few ranks against charging horses, and is describing the tactics precisely because the Alans are a bit of an outlier for normal Roman experience vs opponents. There is nothing which demands or even suggests that his infantry kontoi are pila.
Quote from: DBS on October 27, 2023, 05:54:01 PMIt is therefore possible that we have a situation where the two authors whom received wisdom believes are misusing the term kontos
Forgive me David, but I think you have to have a clear view of what the word kontos meant in the early centuries AD before you can say either author "misused" the term. Used it differently to how we are used to thinking of it maybe, which fits better with your statement about "kontoi-as-we-know-them". If I were a classicist, I'd be looking at online dictionaries on Perseus to look at the range of uses there (Ah, Dr Taylor, we could do with you here), but I'm not, so I'll leave it to those who can read Greek to give it a go.
As to shields at sides, there appears to be a whole class of cavalry tombstones which show cavalry horses with shields hung near horizontal on their sides which may be of relevance to the discussion (see examples here (https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:17858/datastreams/CONTENT/content) ), or perhaps not.
Quote from: dwkay57 on October 27, 2023, 05:29:37 PMIn the Speidel article there is reference to Roman cavalry swinging their shields on to their backs. This implies that the shields must have had some sort of belt or strap to enable this.
Hanging the shield on the saddle, as Josephus describes, seems to have been fairly standard. You can see it on the tombstone of Longinus Biarta (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tombstone_of_Longinus_Biarta,_a_calvalryman_who_died_on_active_service,_the_cavalry_regiment_was_probably_raised_by_Emperor_Sulpicius_Galba_in_68_A.D.,_it_was_stationed_near_Cologne,_Romisch-Germanisches_Museum,_Cologne_%288115651602%29.jpg), for instance. This implies some sort of strap, probably hanging from the saddle-horns. Biarta's shield is carried more or less horizontally, which suggests the strap was long enough to go over both horns.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 27, 2023, 06:19:27 PMForgive me David, but I think you have to have a clear view of what the word kontos meant in the early centuries AD before you can say either author "misused" the term. Used it differently to how we are used to thinking of it maybe, which fits better with your statement about "kontoi-as-we-know-them". If I were a classicist, I'd be looking at online dictionaries on Perseus to look at the range of uses there (Ah, Dr Taylor, we could do with you here), but I'm not, so I'll leave it to those who can read Greek to give it a go.
That is precisely my point. It is others who say that Arrian and Josephus must be misusing the term, or at least not using the term as we now think of kontos.
My basic reasoning is that no one, as far as I know, disputes the idea that kontos originally meant a long boating pole - barge pole or punting pole - that at some point became used as a term for a long spear. It was the very question I posed early up thread as to whether anyone knew of the term being used for a weapon before Josephus, allowing of course for the vagaries of literary survival.
But if ancients start referring to some spears as bargepoles, given all the other terms already in use for spears, that to my mind suggests that they are focusing on a specific aspect - length.
Now, that may not mean that all kontoi as termed by the ancients were two-handed, I have said that all along. But it does seem to me that Josephus is talking about something longer than the "normal" spear. Also, it seems highly likely that Josephus calls the weapon a kontos because the cavalrymen themselves called it a kontos. And Josephus describes the cavalry being dismounted at a siege for a role that seems to imply there kontoi are useful because of their reach.
Why not call it a doru? Something seems to be different.
Liddell Scott et al via Perseus are not helpful - I had already tried that ages ago - as the only attestation given for kontos as "a pike" (quite...) is Lucian, who of course postdates both Josephus and Arrian.
As you say, Perseus doesn't give enough examples to pin down when kontos started to mean specifically a long cavalry spear. However, some scattered references are:
- Strabo XVII.1.54 (late C1 BC) uses kontos for Nubian infantry spears.
- Asklepiodotos, also C1 BC, does not list kontophoroi among his cavalry troop types; nor does Ailian in his corresponding passage, but Arrian (early 2d century) adds kontophoroi to the list.
- Plutarch uses kontos for Armenian cataphract spears in his Life of Lucullus and for Parthian spears in his Life of Crassus, and he's a near-contemporary of Josephus (about ten years younger).
From this I am beginning to think that kontos only acquired a specialist meaning of "long two-handed cavalry lance" in the mid-first century and we should not necessarily expect Josephus to adhere to this specialised usage. Does he even mean "something long"? Maybe, but the "conventional" Roman cavalry spear is shown as being long enough to reach an infantryman using an overhand thrust, which implies something longer than a javelin in any case.
Quote from: AnthonyAs to shields at sides, there appears to be a whole class of cavalry tombstones which show cavalry horses with shields hung near horizontal on their sides which may be of relevance to the discussion (see examples here (https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:17858/datastreams/CONTENT/content) ), or perhaps not.
Ah, we crossed posts there, and you found more examples than I did.
Has Ala I Ulpia Contariorum been mentioned yet? Don't recall it.
First attested in diplomas dated 112 CE - which would mean the soldiers being discharged at that point had been recruited about 87 CE.
The "contariorum" suggest that at some point the Romans decided that this unit needed to be called after its weapon - contus (don't think there are any suggestions it is for anything else). I believe this is the first use of the term.
The unit could have been raised or be in existence when the soldiers discharged in 112 CE were recruited and honoured by Trajan (hence "Ulpia") or it could have been raised by Trajan from new with some existing soldiers forming part (or indeed all) of it.
Not sure it moves anything forward, but it is a bit more grist to the mill.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 27, 2023, 07:02:26 PMDoes he even mean "something long"?
I still come back to why people started calling some spears "bargepoles". Kontos in its original meaning had been around at least since Herodotus. A bargepole or a punting pole has one or two primary characteristics. It is usually long, and often quite stout, form following function, as it is required to act as a vector for quite considerable force.
One usually uses two hands with such poles. Certainly when I have had to use a boathook (same principle), one always used two hands whenever possible for control and power.
I do not think it necessarily means that kontoi were always two-handed, but I think there is likely a length and/or girth element to the use of the term. Otherwise, why suddenly start using it for any old spear - they are all poles...
Also, I think Speidel is on to something with his analysis of Arrian. Two hands might not be mentioned, but his cavalry, whilst closing with the enemy, are suddenly discarding use of the shield. That is counter intuitive to put it mildly, and as he argues, surely the only rational explanation is that they need both hands for something at the moment of impact with their kontoi.
Taking Nik's point about Trajan's ala - possible recruitment in 87 AD is only twenty years after Josephus is assigning the kontos to cavalry :)
Also, I think I am right that Ala I Ulpia Contariorum is primarily attested in Pannonia and Dacia. As I argued earlier, I wonder if there is the possibility that there is some regional variation in Roman cavalry equipment. Josephus and Arrian are in the east, Trajan's lads are quite a bit further west. Maybe their armament is an innovation there, but not in the east? After all, they are seemingly coming up against the westernmost Sarmatians, which may demand a response in terms of a longer weapon compared to other western barbarians.
Quote from: DBS on October 27, 2023, 08:37:00 PMTaking Nik's point about Trajan's ala - possible recruitment in 87 AD is only twenty years after Josephus is assigning the kontos to cavalry :)
Perhaps more usefully it is in the reign of Domitian (who had raised Legio I Minerva a bit earlier FWIW) during his difficult Dacian War which involved heavy reinforcement of the Danube frontier.
If I was being really mischievous, I would note that Trajan had of course served as a tribune in Syria under his father during Vespasian's reign, and would therefore have been very well placed to observe local units and their tactics... ;)
The Greek dictionaries having failed us, I had a quick look at the word contus. Tacitus apparently uses it of the long, two-handed spear of Sarmatian cavalry. Histories 1.79 is the reference if anyone wishes to check. As contus is a word borrowed from Greek, this would suggest it was established well before Tacitus' time in the east, though accepting this may not have been its sole meaning, as discussed above.
The very fact that the term is being by Latin from Greek for a weapon suggests that it refers to something distinctive, sui generis.