Hastati - New Unit Description

[Kongamato]

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/hast.jpg

Hastati
Hastati are the youngest men in Roman military service. They attack with spears, and are expected to fight only until the battle passes to the next line of a Legion.

The Hastati are actually the first line in an Republican Legion, and generally march on the left of a Legion's battle columns. This allows them to wheel into the forward position when forming a battle line. They are supposed to bring the enemy line to a standstill, then hold until the second line of the Legion - fresh troops - arrive to carry on the fight with renewed vigour.

Each man carries two pila - one light and one heavy - and a gladius. The light spear is always thrown first, then the heavier one at close range. The iron points of the spears are cunningly fashioned to bend on penetration and be a hindrance even when they cause no wounds. Hastati themselves wear mail, a brone helmet and carry a large shield.

[Kraxis]

Yup, now we need the Principes and we have the main forces of the Republic. But I wonder what the difference will be between the Hastati and the Principes. And more interestingly, can we train a legion? A unit of each of the three? Somehow I wouldn't like for them to be individually trained. It would be rather boring to run around with Principes only.

[Spino]

CA simply has to have an option for units in RTW to be comprised of different unit types otherwise the feel and behavior of pre-Marian legions will be lost. It would be positively silly to have the Princepes, Hastatii and Triarii fighting in separate units.

If the 'multi-class' unit is indeed a reality then modders and mod players have a great deal to look forward to...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Shahed]

Hmm this could be the most interesting unit type yet.
Thx for link Konga.

"Multi-class" unit that would be the ultimate
I wish they'd do it.

[Sir Chauncy]

This could be me being a bit picky, but I was under the impression that the 'bendy spear head' thing was tried with no success. As it proved too hard to get something to hold a point or edge and bend on impact. I thought that was why they invested the metal pin / wooden pin system,so that the wooden pin would break and render the Pila useless. I could be wrong though, would someone care to explain this to me?

edit - stoopid typos

[Sir Robin]

If I recall correctly the bendable point was replaced by the more effective version later. It was still used I think but could still be turned on its throwers.

Come on principes...

[Hurin_Rules]

When did the legions give up relying on the spear and switch to the gladius? Here is says the hastati throw both their spears and are armed with a gladius, but I thought that didn't occur till near the end of the Republican period (late 2nd/1st century BCE). Anyone know when the hastati were issued the gladius?

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Aug. 27 2003,17:04)]It would be rather boring to run around with Principes only.
Just dont buy Principes only http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

No matter what level of training and equipment there were always Hastati and Principes in a Legion from this era. Now we dont know the difference between them in RTW..maybe a bit higher morale/attack for Principes.

But back then there could be such a difference between legions that some were full of what RTW would call Principes and some so "badly" trained or newly raised in an emergency, that they would all be Hastati..or worse

CBR

[shingenmitch2]

Hmmm... seems the unit description changed from the first post... and for the better.

It said that they would fight with spears... (Wha? sounded like the Triarii :-o )

Looks like the info was corrected to explain the light and heavy pila, but once again they refer to them as spears... erm... javelin is the word they want...

I wonder tho about the Pic... doesn't look like a chain cuirass... looks like a muscled corslet and a Helenistic helmet -- i.e. instead of a foot soldier it looks like a Roman General.

[Kraxis]

CBR, you do get my point. It is just that players will always find the units that work the best and use them. And assuch a I fear the Principes will be the best, removing the need for Hastatis.
It would be un-fun if Hastatis were developed at a lower tech and outclassed by Principes, like Chivalric Knights compared to Feudal Knights. Such a thing would have me jumping up and down, I think.

I would like for a Legion unit, comprised of the three units lasting three times longer than a normal unit. And that would be the only way to get them, besides perhaps Hastati as a standalone too. That would make it feel so much more Roman to be... ehh... Roman. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Velites should be standalone, not because that is how it was, it wasn't, but if they were included in the Legion unit it would either be too powerful or take too long to be viable. Besides velites seldomly played a decisive matter in battles (besides disruption), so people will still feel it is correct.

[CBR]

Yes would be nice if they had different abilities but AFAIK in the era we are playing in there were no real difference between the 2 types.

But the problem is already there in MTW. When you first have the tech you dont buy any of the cheaper units. In reality some units were based on social standings.

We just know more about the legion and how it worked so it feels like a bigger problem.

But maybe we will see some difference in speed/maneuver..

CBR

[Kraxis]

It might also be because there were no Chivalric units or Feudal units. They were what they had at hand. More or less anything. Thus it is not unfair to create a linear progression of units to reflect technology advances.

The Roman units on the other hand had a specific way of doing it for a very long time (several times). Since Hastati were younger they were believed to be stronger and more fit, thus less need for armour as well as they were inexperienced and it would be a waste to put the best armour on men that had a higher likelyhood of fleeing.

[Oaty]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Kraxis @ Aug. 27 2003,17:04)
It would be rather boring to run around with Principes only.

Just dont buy Principes only

An easier way of handling this is give them a time morale penalty since they were used as an initial shock troop and was expected to be relieved shortly after melee

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Aug. 27 2003,12:59)]When did the legions give up relying on the spear and switch to the gladius? Here is says the hastati throw both their spears and are armed with a gladius, but I thought that didn't occur till near the end of the Republican period (late 2nd/1st century BCE). Anyone know when the hastati were issued the gladius?
The Gladius Hispanicus (Spanish Sword) wasn't used much until Scipio captured the arsenals at Nova Carthage in Spain in the last decade of the 3rd century BC (I forget exactly which year - 207??)

Before that Roman swords were presumably of various derivative greek types - there is info out there about it if you care to look.

the legion itself slowly evolved from an entirely spear-armed phalanx in about 500 BC - the Hastati adopting the pila perhaps about 400BC under Camillius, the Principes adopting it just after Phyrus's invasion so about 275BC (according to Livy) - the dates are all aproximate tho.

Triarii finally abandoned teh thrusting spear with Marius's reformsabout 105BC.

Presumably swordsmanship became more important as the number of pila-armed troops grew.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Aug. 28 2003,02:04)]
Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Aug. 27 2003,12:59)]When did the legions give up relying on the spear and switch to the gladius? Here is says the hastati throw both their spears and are armed with a gladius, but I thought that didn't occur till near the end of the Republican period (late 2nd/1st century BCE). Anyone know when the hastati were issued the gladius?
The Gladius Hispanicus (Spanish Sword) wasn't used much until Scipio captured the arsenals at Nova Carthage in Spain in the last decade of the 3rd century BC (I forget exactly which year - 207??)

Before that Roman swords were presumably of various derivative greek types - there is info out there about it if you care to look.

the legion itself slowly evolved from an entirely spear-armed phalanx in about 500 BC - the Hastati adopting the pila perhaps about 400BC under Camillius, the Principes adopting it just after Phyrus's invasion so about 275BC (according to Livy) - the dates are all aproximate tho.

Triarii finally abandoned teh thrusting spear with Marius's reformsabout 105BC.

Presumably swordsmanship became more important as the number of pila-armed troops grew.
Yeah, the hispanic 'gladius' was probably introduced by P. Scipio Africanus c.209.

As for the change of the Roman legionary from spear to sword, it was a gradual process as you say, and the first step in that process is debated as the period is so obscure. It is generally accepted that the Roman army defeated so decisively at the Allia in 390 BC by the Gauls was probably based on the classic Greek hoplite model. Once the shield wall was overwhelmed by a massed Celtic rush then the spear troops would have been at a disadvantage against the more mobile Gallic swordsmen. Hence, it is posited that the Romans sought to adapt with swordsmen of their own, initially with the first line, the principes, being armed with pilae, sword and possibly scutum (to replace the old round clipeus). Eventually, the hastati were also armed in this fashion and took the place of the principes as the front line troops. Hence the reason that these changes were attributed to Camillus, because of his prominence at that period

However, it is contended that the changes could have developed during the Samnite wars later in the 4thC, starting in 343 and eventually ending c.290. The Romans could possibly have adapted to more flexible tactics, weapons, and formations [with the adoption of the manipulus of 120 men] in order to fight an enemy entrenched in the Italian Apennine hill country.

The dates are so obscure as to be unknowable from the written sources, though maybe further archaeological finds will throw some light on this problem. The best that can really be said is that the changes occurred during the period c.390 to c.290....not very satisfactory really

[Nelson]

The game needs a way to encourage players to field legitimate legions. Perhaps a combat or morale bonus of some sort could be given to every 3 unit combination of hastati, principes and triarii. The exact ratios of these troops could be debated but somehow folks should get nudged to have them all as often as possible for at least part of the game. There should also be a pre-battle formation that puts Roman units into their correct lines.

I doubt that whole legions will be raised all at once so something ought to cause players to WANT to do it properly.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Aug. 28 2003,01:48)]Since Hastati were younger they were believed to be stronger and more fit, thus less need for armour as well as they were inexperienced and it would be a waste to put the best armour on men that had a higher likelyhood of fleeing.
They had to buy their own equipment and the only difference was age. There might be some difference as the older Principes perhaps had more money but they all had to meet the same level of income/property.

The Hastati might be considered more agile as they were in the late teens or early twenties but we will see.

CBR

[DBS]

Quote[/b] ]Hence, it is posited that the Romans sought to adapt with swordsmen of their own, initially with the first line, the principes, being armed with pilae, sword and possibly scutum (to replace the old round clipeus). Eventually, the hastati were also armed in this fashion and took the place of the principes as the front line troops. Hence the reason that these changes were attributed to Camillus, because of his prominence at that period


That is one theory - another is that the Hastati were the first to have pila, maybe even differentiated for the first time from the Principes on account of their new weapon. There is a tendency to assume that the Hasta in Hastati means they must originally have had spears as opposed to pila, but the lexicographers are not so certain - originally Hasta seems to have been used equally for thrown javelins as for thrusting spears, only later becoming restricted to meaning the Hasta Longa used for thrusting.

But as Red Peasant so rightly says, we just cannot be sure.

As for the swords, then clearly the Hastati and Principes were swordsmen long before the gladius hispaniensis was adopted. It simply represents a particularly good example of the shortish cut and thrust weapon that the Romans chose to standardise on. Also, bear in mind that the Celts of the 4th and 3rd centuries would have been using swords closer in length to the gladius than the longer swords popularly associated with them - the long swords were more a feature of later centuries, around the Caesarian period.

Lastly, my take on the picture is that he is wearing a bronze pectoral, albeit of a slightly odd shape. Along with the Hellenistic helmet, he actually looks spot on for the heyday of the Hastati - Pyrhhic War to Numantia. The Montefortino helmet was probably a bit more popular than some of the more elaborate Hellenistic types, and of course those Hastati who could afford mail would have worn it. But reasonable depiction nevertheless. A lot better than "Egyptian Archers" or "Woad Warriors".......