Terminology of Spears

[Duncan Head]

And their lances* too were useless in two ways

*dorata kata duo tropous, which seems to indicate two spear-type weapons with thongs

I don't follow you, sorry. Surely "kata duo tropous" is the "in two ways" in which they were useless? I don't see where you get two weapons, nor any thongs.

[Duncan Head]

Isn't there a reference to Roman cavalry changing to Greek equipment and improving their performance. Perhaps in Polybius?

Though whenever exactly this change took place, it is Hellenistic; so the Greek-style spears must be those used after the appearance of the stout Macedonian xyston, and thus their relevance to Xenophon's earlier advice is uncertain. Possibly the pre-reform "useless" Roman spears mirror the problem that he had with the kamax?

What I probably should have linked to is the passage in Hellenike where the Greek cavalry dorata all break when they hit the Persians.

[Patrick Waterson]

And their lances* too were useless in two ways

*dorata kata duo tropous, which seems to indicate two spear-type weapons with thongs

I don't follow you, sorry. Surely "kata duo tropous" is the "in two ways" in which they were useless? I don't see where you get two weapons, nor any thongs.

I expect you are correct.  Do however see the Perseus lexicon entry http://tinyurl.com/cuy4n2p on tropos.

Says something about statistical methods, nicht war?

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

Interesting - I'd never have expected that!

[Patrick Waterson]

Just noticed this post (which says much for my powers of observation ).

If Josephus uses xyston to mean pilum, doesn't that suggest that when he uses another word, he might mean something else?

While it is clear that the Jews are fighting Romans, it is not clear that they are fighting pilum-using legionaries rather than hasta-bearing auxiliaries, who are by this point subject to the same stern discipline; nor is it clear that aikhme in this instance means anything more than "spearpoint", as in the translation you quote. As with Plutarch's aikhmai, there is no indication that Josephus' are thrown.

And the "apparent" use of xyston by Dionysios' source is not apparent to me, I'm afraid.

OK, three points, requiring three explanations.

1) Consistency.  One should perhaps remember that Josephus had his extensive work translated from Hebrew into Greek, and we do not know if he used the same translator throughout.  Therefore while one would hope for consistency one cannot entirely rely on it.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Appian both seem fairly eclectic in their usage, the former using 'saunion' for 'pilum' in his account of 5th-4th century BC Roman actions and the latter employing 'dorata' for 'pila' in Gallike 1, making one wonder about his 'dorata' in the Iberike.

2) The Romans being attacked in Josephus BJ V.11.5 are not specifically identified as either legionaries or auxilia, but the context is this:

Then did the Jews become still more and more in number by the coming of those that were within the city to their assistance; and as they were very bold upon the good success they had had, their violent assaults were almost irresistible; nay, they proceeded as far as the fortifications of the enemies' camp, and fought with their guards. Now there stood a body of soldiers in array before that camp, which succeeded one another by turns in their armor; and as to those, the law of the Romans was terrible, that he who left his post there, let the occasion be whatsoever it might be, he was to die for it; so that body of soldiers, preferring rather to die in fighting courageously, than as a punishment for their cowardice, stood firm ...

This looks to me like legionaries in action rather than auxilia.

Regarding aikhmais, the strict meaning is 'points', which could admittedly be of swords or other weapons, while hastae are not mentioned at all (had they been mentioned one suspects they would have been 'dorata').  The question is whether Josephus literally means 'points' or whether he is using it like Plutarch in Marcellus 12 to indicate a particular type of weapon.  In each case, as correctly observed, the weapons are not noted as being thrown, albeit in both cases the rapidly-developing circumstances would seem to be against a volley being effective or even possible.  However in Josephus they are unambiguously Roman equipment, and I submit we keep open the likelihood that they are in Plutarch, too.

3) Dionysius in chapter XX refers to the principes being armed with 'a cavalry spear used two-handed', which is a manifest impossibility given that they also needed to manage a scutum.  We are therefore left wondering what Dionysius is trying to tell us, and hence what the description actually fits.  The description fits a xyston or a kontos.  Josephus' usage of 'xyston' for the Roman pilum gives us the clue that Dionysius' source did the same.  Dionysius, however, seems to have felt the need to go further and explain what a xyston was instead of simply using the word - and seems to have fallen afoul of a lexicon, as happens to the best of us; he came up with the traditional Macedonian weapon rather than the then current Roman one.  We can perhaps rank this one with the mistranslation of Hannibal's logkhephoroi in Polybius as 'pikemen' by a 20th century translator.

The moral seems to be that consistency among classical authors would have made our lives SO much easier!

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

A thorough reply, but I remain unconvinced that the aikhmai  in Josephus are anything more precise than "the points of their weapons".

As for the aikhmai of Plutarch, reading him literally he is describing the weapons of non-Romans that are held in the hand to strike. To transform these into pila - Roman throwing-weapons - is a considerable feat, but not a convincing one especially when there seems to be no indication of "rapidly-developing circumstances" that would prevent their being thrown; Marcellus' attack is perhaps unexpected but is not even described as particularly swift. 

On Dionysios I'll reply later when I've checked something.

[Patrick Waterson]

The bit in Dionysius I had in mind was IX.10.5 where he has the Romans sharpen their 'xiphe kai logkhas' (swords and javelin-equivalents) and Livy's parallel account of the same action (II.46.3) has the Romans using 'pila' and coming to swordstrokes ('ad gladios').

Note that contra my previous statement he is using 'logkhe' here not 'saunia', however he also has Romans and/or their Italian opponents using saunia and logkhas in combination, e.g. in VIII.84.1-2 and IX.19.2 - this is, intriguingly, in between mentions of them using 'hussois', the standard Greek pilum word.  I suspect inconsistency on account of eclectic sources rather than rearmament.

Josephus may have been meaning 'points', and unless his Hebrew original turns up I doubt we shall find any further clues as to exactly what he intended.  However this does not necessarily preclude him from meaning the actual weapons, and I for one would tend to doubt that Roman infantry (or even Hannibal's Carthaginian infantry) were using Herodotean Persian infantry-type spears or near equivalents.  Do we have any known match-ups between Romans and infantry thus armed, and if so do we have any reason to suppose that Roman infantry would do significantly better against them with naval spears rather than with the usual pila-cum-gladius combination (and technique)?

The essential point about this seems to be that weapon terminology is not always as friendly as it looks - it is much more helpful when the source includes a description of the weapon, e.g. Appian in his Gallike 1 or Polybius in Book VI.

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

Dionysius in chapter XX refers to the principes being armed with 'a cavalry spear used two-handed', which is a manifest impossibility given that they also needed to manage a scutum.  We are therefore left wondering what Dionysius is trying to tell us, and hence what the description actually fits.  The description fits a xyston or a kontos.  Josephus' usage of 'xyston' for the Roman pilum gives us the clue that Dionysius' source did the same.  Dionysius, however, seems to have felt the need to go further and explain what a xyston was instead of simply using the word - and seems to have fallen afoul of a lexicon, as happens to the best of us; he came up with the traditional Macedonian weapon rather than the then current Roman one.

I don't find the pilum->xyston->cavalry-spear process convincing here – partly because I am uncomfortable with the degree of extrapolation involved, and partly for chronological reasons.

Dionysios is writing in the 1st century BC. He is thought – going chiefly on what Garoufalias says, in his biography of Pyrrhos – to have used, for the Pyrrhic section of his history, good contemporary sources including Hieronymos of Kardia and Pyrrhos' courtier Proxenos. But as far as I can see, the use of neither xyston nor kontos to mean "pilum" is actually attested before the second half of the first century AD, with Josephus: the fact that Josephus uses xyston to mean pilum is not a strong indication that Dionysios a century earlier, let alone his sources more than three centuries earlier, would have done the same. The contemporary historians of Pyrrhos' wars are the first Greeks who had the need to find a word to use for the Roman pilum, and I think it unlikely that they would have used either xyston or kontos – xyston because in the early 3rd century it was still something of a technical term for cavalry spears, and kontos because I am not sure that it was yet in general use to mean a weapon at all.

Glossing a hypothetical xyston as "a cavalry spear used in both hands" is unlikely, because the xyston was not used two-handed. The Macedonian cavalry spear for which the word xyston becomes a quasi-technical term is shown being used both overarm and underarm, but always held in one hand. Nor am I aware of any uses in other contexts where xyston is used for a two-handed weapon; even the Homeric xyston mega naumachon of Il. XV.677 is not explicitly said to be used in both hands, though at a length of 22 cubits it surely must be. So even if Proxenos (or whoever) had used xyston to mean pilum, even though it was still a technical term meaning cavalry spear at the time,. Dionysios would not have had reason to gloss it as "cavalry spear used in both hands".

The word kontos was, of course, used for cavalry spears held in both hands, as used by Parthians, Sarmatians and others. But was it used in that sense as early as Dionysios? I think not. It's worth noting that Asklepiodotos in the 1st century BC lists cavalry lancers as doratophoroi and xystophoroi, while Arrian in the 2nd century AD adds kontophoroi to these two: the use of kontos to mean a cavalry lance, as opposed to a barge-pole, is a relatively late one, possibly only coming in in the first century AD (which, according  to one theory, is when the Sarmatians introduced the two-handed lance style to Europe in the first place). So even if Proxenos (or whoever) had used kontos to mean pilum, I am not convinced that Dionysios would yet have understood it to mean "cavalry lance".

The interesting thing is that Dionysios uses almost the same phrase once before. Compare:

"Those who fight in close combat with cavalry spears grasped by the middle with both hands (tois 'ippikois dorasin ek dialabes amphoterais tais chersi)... are called principes by the Romans" (XX.11.2)

with

"he (the Italian cavalryman Oblakos) bore down on the king himself, grasping his spear in both hands (dialabon amphoterais tais chersi to doru).." (XIX.12.3)

Clearly he (and his contemporary sources?) think Italian cavalry spears of the period can be "grasped with both hands". Maybe the only problem is that we are missing a "like" – the principes fight with spears just like those that the cavalry grasp in both hands?

[Jim Webster]

Not wanting to go off at a tangent here but when you say

"The word kontos was, of course, used for cavalry spears held in both hands, as used by Parthians, Sarmatians and others. But was it used in that sense as early as Dionysios? I think not. It's worth noting that Asklepiodotos in the 1st century BC lists cavalry lancers as doratophoroi and xystophoroi, while Arrian in the 2nd century AD adds kontophoroi to these two: the use of kontos to mean a cavalry lance, as opposed to a barge-pole, is a relatively late one, possibly only coming in in the first century AD (which, according  to one theory, is when the Sarmatians introduced the two-handed lance style to Europe in the first place). So even if Proxenos (or whoever) had used kontos to mean pilum, I am not convinced that Dionysios would yet have understood it to mean "cavalry lance"."

Whilst the Sarmatians might have quite literally introduced the two handed lance style into Europe. Europeans, including their historians, would surely have been aware of the two handed style from somewhat earlier, at the very latest when Romans were defeated Carrhae.
Now obviously one problem from our point of view is that Plutarch wrote in a 'post Sarmatian' Europe (for want of a better phrase) but did any earlier accounts mention the weapon we now call the Kontos?

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

As I see things, we are left with the following possibilities for interpreting this particular statement by Dionysius.

Possibility 1: His wording is a correct description and the principes had a short-lived flirtation with cavalry spears centrally grasped two-handed.

Possibility 2: His understanding is incorrect and the principes used the same weapon combination (and shield) as is previous and susequent eras.

'Xyston' carries the basic meaning of 'slender', being used for a slender lance and a slender architectural column. Josephus uses it for the pilum, a slender (compared to most spear-type weaponry) design.  While I take the point about lack of contemporary usage in known sources relating to Pyrrhus' era, I would point out that most contemporary sources relating to Pyrrhus' era are not known (i.e. have not survived), so we are not in a position to state positively that no such usage existed (or for that matter that such usage did exist).  What we can point to is that in a publication that has survived from the first century and was translated into Greek (Josephus' Jewish War), the pilum is rendered as 'xyston'.  While this is a 'subsequent' rather than a precedent, it is nevertheless a guide.

On the subject of Romans and spear-type weapons, I was intrigued by this attempt by Robert Vermaat to work out what the Romans were using in Arrian's Acies contra Alanos (Ektaxis kata Alanoon): http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/arrian.htm.  I would be interested in members' thoughts (especially Duncan's).

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

Possibility 2: His understanding is incorrect and the principes used the same weapon combination (and shield) as is previous and susequent eras.

"Previous"? What good evidence do we have that the principes already used the pilum before the time of Pyrrhos?

I remain inclined, as thirty years ago, to what we must call "Possibility 3": there may be an error in Dionysios somewhere, perhaps in the two-handed usage; but in the early 270s only the hastati carried the pilum, the principes retaining the old hasta longa until some date later in the century.

While I take the point about lack of contemporary usage in known sources relating to Pyrrhus' era, I would point out that most contemporary sources relating to Pyrrhus' era are not known (i.e. have not survived), so we are not in a position to state positively that no such usage existed (or for that matter that such usage did exist).

It may also be worth stressing that your argument requires the xyston=pilum usage to be known by (invented by?) Hieronymos or Proxenos in the third century BC, but then unknown to Dionysios in the first, to be rediscovered by Josephus (well, Josephus' translator) a century later. I'm afraid I find this another implausibility.

(By the way, I'm disappearing on holiday on Thursday, so I'm unlikely to be making any further contributions to any thread for a couple of weeks.)

[Patrick Waterson]

Evidence for use of 'hussois' prior to Pyrrhus is found (inter alia) in Dionysius XIV.9.2 ad Plutarch, Camillus, 40.4.  The absence of mention of the hasta longa is perhaps indicative.

Dionysius (post-Allia, c.389 BC):

Better arms (hopla) than the barbarians possess have been fashioned for us — breastplates (thorakes), helmets (krane), greaves (knemides), mighty shields (krataioi thureoi), with which we keep our entire bodies protected, two-edged swords (xiphe te amphistoma), and, instead of the spear (loghkes), the javelin (hussos), a missile that cannot be dodged (aphukton belos) — some of them being protective armour, such as not to yield readily to blows, and others offensive, of a sort to pierce through any defence. But our foes have their heads bare, bare their breasts and flanks, bare their thighs and legs down to their feet, and have no other defence except shields; as weapons of offence they have spears (logkhai) and very long slashing (kopides) blades (makhairai kopides hupermekeis).

Plutarch (ditto):

Knowing that the prowess of the Barbarians lay chiefly in their swords (makhairas), which they plied in true barbaric fashion, and with no skill at all, in mere slashing blows at head and shoulders, [4] he had helmets (krane) forged for most of his men which were all iron (holosidera) and smooth of surface, that the enemy's swords (makhairas) might slip off from them or be shattered by them. He also had the long shields (thureois) of his men rimmed round with bronze, since their wood could not of itself ward off the enemy's blows. The soldiers themselves he trained to use their long javelins (hussois makros) like spears,—to thrust them under the enemy's swords (xiphesi) and catch the downward strokes upon them.


OK, one might argue that this does not specify that principes are included in the CO's address, but I see no reason for him to address only half the antepilani.  Plutarch is (I think) evidence for 'hussois' in a role where one would expect the hasta longa were this still part of the outfit.

Dionysius' grasp of military terminology would not, in my view, depend upon what was available per se, but rather on his level of assimilation of what was available.  My own experience of the meanings of classical military terms perhaps follows a not dissimilar learning curve. 

Patrick

P.S. - Enjoy the summer - I am sure this discussion will keep!

[aligern]

Yes, Come Come to the framea we will take you!
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

We shall angon until you get back ...