SoA Forums

The Greeks had a word for almost everything, and they had plenty of designations for weapons of the spear family, both thrown and thrust.

Aikhme brache ('short point') – a hurling or dual-use weapon about 6' in length.  Used by Herodotus to describe the armament of many contingents in Xerxes' army in 480 BC and by Plutarch (possibly meaning the pilum) to describe that of Hannibal's troops at Nola in 215 BC.

Akontion – general Greek word for javelin, usually equating to the type we are familiar with from sporting events.  Used by skirmishing infantry and some cavalry.

Doru – the generic Greek word for 'spear', usually indicating a heavy infantry spear c.9' long, but occasionally used more generally (cf. Appian Gallica 1.4 where he uses it for the pilum).

Doration - a later usage for infantry spears, assumed to be smaller than the classic doru.

Grosphos – a javelin-type missile used by Roman velites, whom Polybius refers to as grosphomachoi, as described thus: "A wooden haft of about two cubits, and about a finger's breadth in thickness; its head is a span long, hammered fine, and sharpened to such an extent that it becomes bent the first time it strikes, and cannot be used by the enemy to hurl back."

Hussos – specifically, the Roman pilum.  Polybius uses it when referring to the combination of light and heavy pila; other authors seem less exact.

Kontos – a long, heavy cavalry lance, assumed to be weightier than the xyston (below).  Possibly also used to designate the legionary pilum in Arrian's Order of Battle Against the Alans, as most Roman infantry were equipped with it.  Has the basic meaning of 'pole'.  Latin contus.

Logkhe/longkhe – a long javelin used for distant shooting by skirmishers and some peltast-type troops; occasionally also a melee weapon.

Palton – a throwing spear used by horsemen, derived from a hunting-spear.  Dimensions unknown, but more than one carried.  Xenophon uses it to designate Persian cavalry weapons. [Note: not to be confused with pelta, a type of light shield used by peltasts.]

Sarissa – the Macedonian pike, perhaps originally made of two shafts of cornel-wood joined by a central sleeve but nowadays generally considered to have had a single-piece shaft, c.21' long and counterweighted.  Used by infantry and some cavalry (sarissaphoroi).

Saunion – a heavy javelin for close-range shooting.  An approximate equivalent of the Roman pilum, and occasionally used to indicate same (parallel accounts of an early Roman battle have Romans preparing by sharpening their 'saunia' in Dionysius and their 'pila' in Livy).

Xyston – a long (13'+) slender lance used by cavalry in preference to the heavier kontos or sarissa.  Also used by Josephus (and apparently by one of Dionysius of Halicarnassus' sources in Book XX) to mean the Roman pilum.  'Xyston' has the basic meaning of 'slender'.


The Romans also had a number of spear words, some of which had, or were, Greek equivalents.

Contus – a heavy lance used by cavalry, especially Parthians and Sassanid (Sasanian) Persians.  Cf. Greek kontos.

Cuspis – a narrow-pointed shafted cavalry weapon, used principally in melee.  Possibly a form of light lance.

Gaesum – a short, heavy all-iron javelin for close-range work.  Carried, along with a hasta, by Livy's leves (light troops) in 340 BC.

Hasta – a medium-length spear that could be hurled but which was usually thrust.  Used by cavalry and infantry.  Also a general term for spear-like weapons, similar to Greek doru.

Ictus - generic word for 'dart' or 'missile'.  Rarely if ever used to designate a specific type of weapon.

Lancea – a lighter spear than the hasta, intended primarily for hurling (cf. Greek logkhe)

Pilum – the characteristic Roman heavy infantry throwing weapon.  This came in two flavours: heavy and light.

Soliferrum – approximate equivalent of the gaesum (qv).

Spiculum - a heavy throwing weapon similar in configuration and role to the pilum.

It should be mentioned that usage among sources, and hence definite identification of spear types in use, is not always consistent or certain.  The above is a guide rather than a definitive outline.

Patrick

Lat contis and lanca should be respectively contus and lancea, I believe.

So would I, but it is surprising how often one sees the forms I used, and not just as different cases.

See them in actual Latin texts, or in secondary contexts?

I'm no linguist but in keeping with the theme here are some Viking words for spears which I found when trying to resolve a question in another part of this forum a few days ago.

darraðr - a javelin (cf dart)
fleinn - variously translated as light javelin or pike! - the jury seems out on this one
gaflak - a javelin
geirr - generic spear word, used in compounds e.g atgeir - a cut and thrust weapon, often, though incorrectly, translated as halberd
spjót - generic spear word, used in compounds e.g. Krókaspjót - a barbed spear and Höggspjót - a 'hewing spear' , a cut and thrust weapon again sometimes incorrectly translated as halberd

A statistical analysis on the vocabulary of the Icelandic sagas on the Hurstwic site shows that spjót is by far the most common spear name used.

http://www.hurstwic.org/library/arms_in_sagas/weapon_use_summary.htm

I've not added palstafr, which is translated as heavy throwing spear in The Kings Mirror, but I can't find further examples of its use to get some clarity.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 15, 2012, 10:23:34 AM
See them in actual Latin texts, or in secondary contexts?

Thinking about it, probably mainly secondary contexts.  I have adjusted 'lanca' to 'lancea' and 'contis' to 'contus' as we might as well start new readers on the authorised version.

Thanks, Andreas, for pointing that out.

Patrick

This is a picky point, but we really should put dates on the words and quote context. That's because words change over time and as Patrick points out, by author.  This is quite a complex subject and we risk being in error if we assume that words have unitary meanings. Patrick gets there with the Carthaginian longche , exactly what weapon is this?   What is a a saunion,  what is that other Spanish thing?  When Rhabanus maurus mentions a contusion as a cavalry weapon what does he mean?  Is Rhabanus just copying Vegetius who did have a real meaning in mind?

This subject is a minefield!

Roy

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2012, 10:55:47 AMAikhmes bracheis ('short point') – a hurling or dual-use weapon about 6' in length.  Used by Herodotus to describe the armament of many contingents in Xerxes' army in 480 BC and by Plutarch (possibly meaning the pilum) to describe that of Hannibal's troops at Nola in 215 BC.

aikhme, not -es, in the nominative. Herodotos uses both "short" (VII.61, of the Persians) and "small", aikhme smikre (VII.78, the Moschoi) of Achaemenid aichmai.

A "hurling or dual-use weapon" is dubious, since Persian spears are normally illustrated in the hand: "thrusting or dual-use" might be safer.

Interpretation of Marc. 12 to mean pila is very individual, since whatever the weapon was, using it seems to have put the Carthaginians at a disadvantage. And this passage just uses aikhme, not aikhme brakhe as implied.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 15, 2012, 11:31:25 AM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 15, 2012, 10:23:34 AM
See them in actual Latin texts, or in secondary contexts?

Thinking about it, probably mainly secondary contexts.  I have adjusted 'lanca' to 'lancea' and 'contis' to 'contus' as we might as well start new readers on the authorised version.

Thanks, Andreas, for pointing that out.

You're welcome. You might also want to change "contis" in the entry for Gk kontos.  :)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2012, 10:55:47 AMDora/doru – the generic Greek word for 'spear', usually indicating a heavy infantry spear c.9' long, but occasionally used more generally (cf. Appian Gallica 1.4 where he uses it for the pilum).

Not "dora". The singular is doru or dory, depending which way you prefer to represent upsilon at the end of a word. The plural is dorata.

For an example of more general usage, see Asklepiodotos, who says that the hoplitai use "dorata of the longest kind, which the Macedonians call sarissai". By the 6th century AD, Prokopios is using doru for the Byzantine and Gothic cavalry "lance".

It may also be worth adding to the list doration, pl. doratia, a diminutive - "small spear" - which Prokopios uses at least once for infantry spears.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2012, 10:55:47 AMGrosphos – an indeterminate javelin-type missile used by Roman velites, whom Polybius refers to as grosphomachoi.

I'm not sure why you use "indeterminate" here. Polybios VI.22 gives quite a specific description of the grosphos, which matches up well with Roman finds from Numantia and elsewhere.

And here it is:

The spear of the velites [grosphon belos] has a wooden haft of about two cubits, and about a finger's breadth in thickness; its head is a span long, hammered fine, and sharpened to such an extent that it becomes bent the first time it strikes, and cannot be used by the enemy to hurl back; otherwise the weapon would be available for both sides alike.

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 16, 2012, 04:27:00 PM
Not "dora". The singular is doru or dory, depending which way you prefer to represent upsilon at the end of a word. The plural is dorata.

Adjusted.  :)

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 16, 2012, 01:34:57 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2012, 10:55:47 AMAikhmes bracheis ('short point') – a hurling or dual-use weapon about 6' in length.  Used by Herodotus to describe the armament of many contingents in Xerxes' army in 480 BC and by Plutarch (possibly meaning the pilum) to describe that of Hannibal's troops at Nola in 215 BC.

aikhme, not -es, in the nominative. Herodotos uses both "short" (VII.61, of the Persians) and "small", aikhme smikre (VII.78, the Moschoi) of Achaemenid aichmai.

A "hurling or dual-use weapon" is dubious, since Persian spears are normally illustrated in the hand: "thrusting or dual-use" might be safer.

Interpretation of Marc. 12 to mean pila is very individual, since whatever the weapon was, using it seems to have put the Carthaginians at a disadvantage. And this passage just uses aikhme, not aikhme brakhe as implied.

I shall stick with 'hurling or dual-use' for now on the basis of the tactics used by the Neo-Babylonians in the Cyropaedia, but am open to evidence on this point.

Plutarch's Life of Marcellus use of aikhme is interestingly parallelled in Josephus (Jewish War book 5 chapter 11 section 5 selon Whiston):

suneplekonto gar Ioudaioi tois prostokhousi kai tais aikhmais aphulaktos empiptontes

[for the Jews fought now hand to hand with all that came in their way, and, without any caution, fell against their enemies' aikhmais]

The Jews are fighting against Romans, and it is amply clear from the following that they are Romans:

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

Perseus link here: http://tinyurl.com/cu9uh4r (http://tinyurl.com/cu9uh4r)  See 483 for the above line and 484 for use of 'aikhmais'.

Bearing in mind Josephus' use of 'xyston' for the pilum and the apparent same use by Dionysius' source for his Book XX, I should not be at all surprised to find Josephus and Plutarch's source in Marcellus 12 using 'aikhme' for 'pilum'.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 16, 2012, 06:13:43 PMPlutarch's Life of Marcellus use of aikhme is interestingly parallelled in Josephus (Jewish War book 5 chapter 11 section 5 selon Whiston):

suneplekonto gar Ioudaioi tois prostokhousi kai tais aikhmais aphulaktos empiptontes

[for the Jews fought now hand to hand with all that came in their way, and, without any caution, fell against their enemies' aikhmais]

The Jews are fighting against Romans, and it is amply clear from the following that they are Romans:

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

Perseus link here: http://tinyurl.com/cu9uh4r (http://tinyurl.com/cu9uh4r)  See 483 for the above line and 484 for use of 'aikhmais'.

Bearing in mind Josephus' use of 'xyston' for the pilum and the apparent same use by Dionysius' source for his Book XX, I should not be at all surprised to find Josephus and Plutarch's source in Marcellus 12 using 'aikhme' for 'pilum'.

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.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 16, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
And here it is:

The spear of the velites [grosphon belos] has a wooden haft of about two cubits, and about a finger's breadth in thickness; its head is a span long, hammered fine, and sharpened to such an extent that it becomes bent the first time it strikes, and cannot be used by the enemy to hurl back; otherwise the weapon would be available for both sides alike.

Indeed; looks quite determinate to me. Length, construction, use to throw - what more do we need?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2012, 10:55:47 AM
Kontos – a long, heavy cavalry lance, often with a point at each end.  Latin contus.

Originally - as cited in LSJ as early as Homer - the word just meant a pole, or "punting-pole" (elsewhere I've seen "bargepole"). Not sure about the "point at each end" - that seems to me more characteristic of the Macedonian xyston.

As with so many other spear-words, kontos gets used loosely for other sorts of spear; by Arrian in his Array against the Alans for the spear carried by the first four legionary ranks - possibly but not certainly pila from their "thin iron shanks"; and by Strabo for the spears of the Kushites of Meroe.

Quote
Logkhe – a long javelin used for distant shooting by peltasts and skirmishers; occasionally also a melee weapon.

I'm not sure that the longkhe is ever described as being used by troops explicitly called peltasts, is it? By "peltast-equivalents", certainly; by Iranian light cavalry in Successor armies; by the rear ranks of Arrian's legionaries, and many others.

It might be worth saying that the word is used as the Greek equivalent of the Latin lancea (as by Arrian) - they look as if they're related.

Quote
Palta – a throwing spear used by horsemen, derived from a hunting-spear.  Dimensions unknown.  Xenophon uses it to designate Persian cavalry weapons. [Note: not to be confused with pelta, a type of light shield used by peltasts.]

Palton, surely - palta is the plural.  Where do you get "derived from a hunting-spear"?

Quote
Sarissa – the Macedonian pike, originally made of two shafts of cornel-wood joined by a central sleeve, c.21' long and counterweighted.  Used by infantry and some cavalry (sarissaphoroi).

"Originally made of two shafts joined by a sleeve" is modern speculation, originally by Andronikos c.1970 based on occasional finds of such tubes with finds of sarisa-fittings. It is not mentioned in any ancient source; Theophrastus (History of Plants 3.12.2) says that the tallest male cornel trees are "about twelve cubits, the length of the longest sarissa", which means that the wood was available in Macedonian forests for one-piece sarisai; and both Connolly's (2000) and Sekunda's (2001) articles reject the joining-tube. I regret ever mentioning it in AMPW now. Mention it as a possibility, perhaps, but I don't think it should be put forward unconditionally, and I'd personally recommend being sceptical.

Thanks for the input, Duncan:  I have refined the following ...

Kontos - eliminated the questionable 'point at each end'.

Logkhe - inserted additional form 'longkhe' and added 'Latin lancea' and adjusted degree of definiteness in peltastic association.

Palta - adjusted to palton.  Did not think when lifting this from Cyropaedia, which is incidentally the source for hunting-spear origin.

Sarissa - two-piece sleeved sarissa relegated to the realm of 'perhaps'.  Wonder what the metal sleeves actually were.

Grosphos - adjusted for Polybius' description.

Aikhme brache - singularised (finally).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2012, 10:55:47 AMContus – a heavy lance used by cavalry, especially Parthians and Sassanid (Sasanian) Persians.  Possibly used to mean 'pilum' in Arrian's Acies Contra Alanos, as most Roman infantry in that treatise are equipped with it.  Cf. Greek kontos.

The problem here is that - despite the Acies... form often used for the title - Arian was writing in Greek, hence using kontos, not contus.

Shifted that observation to 'kontos' but forgot to remove it from 'contus'.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 17, 2012, 09:50:25 AM
Thanks for the input, Duncan:

You're welcome. There will be more  :)

QuoteSarissa - two-piece sleeved sarissa relegated to the realm of 'perhaps'.  Wonder what the metal sleeves actually were.

I don't know. One suggestion I've seen is a protective sleeve below the head, like langets on later polearms. Or maybe they had nothing to do with the sarissa-parts they were found with; or maybe just some examples were made in two pieces depending on whether enough good timber was available.

Possible additions:

To the Greek list, gaison (simply as the equivalent of Lat. gaesum); kamax; a(n)ggon (because Agathias' Greek is the source that first comes to mind)

To the Latin; verutum, martiobarbulus/mattiobarbulus/plumbata, framea, bebra; perhaps hasta longa and hasta velitaris? iaculum?

Could the sleeve associated with the sarissa enable it to be broken down for different duties?. If a soldier was expected to do guard duties in the palace that having an eight or nine foot option might make a lot of sense.
One of these ferrules was on show at the recent exhibition at the Ashmolean. It did look as though it fitted in the middle of a long spear as it was thick and heavy and you just would neither need nor want that sort of weight at the tip of a 5 metre spear. Besides which, if protection against cuts were desired the solution that the Swiss used of two thin metal strips along the shaft  would be much more practical, lighter and protecting a longer part of the wooden shaft.

Roy

Quote from: aligern on July 17, 2012, 12:50:29 PM
Could the sleeve associated with the sarissa enable it to be broken down for different duties?. If a soldier was expected to do guard duties in the palace that having an eight or nine foot option might make a lot of sense.
One of these ferrules was on show at the recent exhibition at the Ashmolean. It did look as though it fitted in the middle of a long spear as it was thick and heavy and you just would neither need nor want that sort of weight at the tip of a 5 metre spear. Besides which, if protection against cuts were desired the solution that the Swiss used of two thin metal strips along the shaft  would be much more practical, lighter and protecting a longer part of the wooden shaft.

Only if the spear was made of two pieces in the first place, which I no longer think is especially likely. And since there are suggestions that Alexander's men, at least, may have been armed with both a sarisa and a separate shorter spear, there would be no need to break the long weapon down. Finally, I remain uncertain as to how practical it would be to take such a spear apart and put it back together again,  and have it stay together, at least without the aid of a blacksmith. The tube is not very long to make a stable join - and no screw-joints.

In the same exhibition and with the ferrule was a large,weighty butt spike. It looked as though it would fit with the same sort of diameter of spear as the ferrule.
If the sleeve did not join two sections then maybe it did something for tha balance of the spear in combination with the head and the butt. Perhaps it allowed the soldier to hold the spear further back and thus to have more weight and thus length projecting from the front. That might be a way of presenting more spear points levelled to the front?
Roy

Quote from: aligern on July 17, 2012, 03:04:21 PM
In the same exhibition and with the ferrule was a large,weighty butt spike. It looked as though it would fit with the same sort of diameter of spear as the ferrule.
If the sleeve did not join two sections then maybe it did something for tha balance of the spear in combination with the head and the butt. Perhaps it allowed the soldier to hold the spear further back and thus to have more weight and thus length projecting from the front. That might be a way of presenting more spear points levelled to the front?

Sekunda argues, and I think Connolly at least in part agreed, that the sarissa tapered from a heavy buttspike to a small, conventional-sized, spearhead - the "Macedonian sarissai with their small teeth" of Grattus' Cynegetica (quoting from memory). This differs from the Andronikos/Markle version with a big buttspike and a big head, which would have a shaft of constant thick diameter throughout. If this tapering version is correct, then only the portion near the butt end would be of a diameter to fit the tube. (This approach involves re-labelling what Andronikos thought was a big sarissa-head as something else - perhaps another buttspike.) But the taper and the heavier butt would put the centre of gravity far enough back that you wouldn't need the tube to help.

The taper and the butt spike would give a position for rank one, but what about rank two? The ferrule would provide an adjustment of balance point for them?

Roy

Two more Greek spear-words:

gaison, equivalent of the Latin gaesum, used for non-Greek throwing-spears. Athenaios (273f) says that the Romans adopted the gaison from the Iberians, suggesting he used the word to mean either the pilum or the soliferreum.

kamax, originally a vine-prop or pole. Aischylos and other 5th-century dramatists use kamax for the spears of legendary Greek heroes. Xenophon (On Horsemanship 12.12) advises against using doratos kamakinou, a doru like a kamax, because it is weak and awkward to use. It is not clear whether he simply means don't use a hoplite doru on horseback, or whether as some artistic depictions suggest there was a specific long, slender cavalry spear.

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

Yes, well remembered, Roy: Polybius VI.25.

And their lances* too were useless in two ways: first because they were thin, and prevented their taking a good aim; and before they could get the head [epidoratida] fixed in the enemy, the lances were so shaken by the mere motion of the horse that they generally broke. Secondly, because, having no spike [sauroter] at the butt end of their lance, they only had one stroke, namely that with the spear-head [epidoratida]; and if the lance broke, what was left in their hands was entirely useless.

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

The whole passage goes:

The armour [kathoplisma = full range of equipment] of the cavalry is very like that in Greece. In old times they did not wear the lorica [thorax = body armour], but fought in their tunics [perizomasin = underclothing*]; the result of which was that they were prompt and nimble at dismounting and mounting again with despatch, but were in great danger at close quarters from the unprotected state of their bodies. And their lances too were useless in two ways: first because they were thin, and prevented their taking a good aim; and before they could get the head fixed in the enemy, the lances were so shaken by the mere motion of the horse that they generally broke. Secondly, because, having no spike at the butt end of their lance, they only had one stroke, namely that with the spear-head; and if the lance broke, what was left in their hands was entirely useless. Again they used to have shields [thureon] of bull's hide, just like those round cakes with a knob in the middle which are used at sacrifices, which were useless at close quarters because they were flexible rather than firm; and, when their leather shrunk and rotted from the rain, unserviceable as they were before, they then became entirely so. Wherefore, as experience showed them the uselessness of these, they lost no time in changing to the Greek fashion of arms [hoplon]: the advantages of which were, first, that men were able to deliver the first stroke of their lance-head with a good aim and effect, because the shaft from the nature of its construction was steady and not quivering; and, secondly, that they were able, by reversing the lance, to use the spike at the butt end for a steady and effective blow. And the same may be said about the Greek shields thureon]: for, whether used to ward off a blow or to thrust against the enemy, they neither give nor bend.

*the Latin 'campestria', a 'leather apron worn about the loins', also worn by wrestlers.  We may note the reference to Greek cavalry shields, albeit Polybius gives no indication of whether these are pre- or post-Tarentine.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 18, 2012, 09:51:32 AMAnd 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.

Quote from: aligern on July 17, 2012, 11:29:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 18, 2012, 10:02:00 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 18, 2012, 09:51:32 AMAnd 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 (http://tinyurl.com/cuy4n2p) on tropos.

Says something about statistical methods, nicht war?

Patrick

Interesting - I'd never have expected that!

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

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 16, 2012, 10:25:59 PM

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

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.

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

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 19, 2012, 06:38:47 PMDionysius 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?

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

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 (http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/arrian.htm).  I would be interested in members' thoughts (especially Duncan's).

Patrick

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AMPossibility 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.

QuoteWhile 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.)

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!

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

We shall angon until you get back ...  :)