Roman cavalry in Josephus

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[DBS]

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.

[DBS]

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?

[nikgaukroger]

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 

[DBS]

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.

[Mark G]

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.

[DBS]

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.

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

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 

[DBS]

Speidel - Hadrian's lancers

An interesting article by Michael Speidel, including the use of the shield with kontos when defending against missiles...

[stevenneate]

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!

[dwkay57]

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.

[DBS]

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 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.

[Erpingham]

It 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 ), or perhaps not.

[Duncan Head]

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.

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, 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.

[DBS]

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. 

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.