Roman Weaponry

I have often heard that the Roman army assimilated, some might say “stole,” much of the technically superior weaponry that were used against them in battle. Some examples that I were given to me were the Pila and the Roman Catapult. Is there any truth to this?

[Praetorian]

Well, yes. It's known that the Roman stole allot of technology from the Greek, who were really ahead of their time.

I found this on a really informative website:
In the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., the Romans adopted a long-pointed, double-edged Iberian weapon which they called the 'Spanish sword'. This basic design, with various modifications continued through to the 2nd century A.D.
Ordinary infantrymen and cavalrymen wore their swords on the right side, but centurions wore them on the left.
Cavalry used a longer, narrower, sword that followed Celtic types. This was eventually adopted by infantry as well and - now worn on the left - replaced the 'Spanish sword'.

[Mr Baine]

Got the URL for that site troubadour27?

http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/index.htm

I believe in a sense the phrase, The Romans adopted, could be translated as The Romans Stole. I suppose my point in bringing up this question is to get a feel for what made the Roman Army great, tactics, technology, or their adoption of tactics and technologies that worked in the field.

[bighairyman]

hey, that's how the romans got to be the most powerful nation in europe in ancient times. the reason they last so long that they learn from their enemies and friends(then backstabbed them, i.e. the greeks).

Excellent point BHM. So, that is definitely one vote for Methodology (or Modus Operand in the case of backstabbing). I suppose the formula is: Learn, adopt, and then conquer. So what can we say is truly Roman?

[bhutavarna]

every culture 'borrow' from other culture those that are most useful. that's the way it is. that's survivalism. no point arguing about who stole what.

[Cannibal]

It seems like a case of learning from mistakes, and then putting those lessons to good use in the future. For a more modern example the U.S. military later made good use of some of the examples set by the German army that they faced in WWII, in terms of both equipment and organization.

I believe the Romans took what was used against them and tried to improve upon it. Combining two different things intelligently often results in a third item which is superior to its forebears. I don't think it was so much weaponry, but the shrewd tactical use of it that took the Roman empire to its conquering heights.

[lancer63]

Same thing happened with the roman helmet we all know. First versions were adaptations from the greek style and later they 'borrowed' the gallic design and improved it.
Much the case of the modern 'Fritz' helmet the US army uses today.

[|OCS|Virus]

the romans have always stolen technology spacificly from the Etruscins, were they learned from them, then they took them over MUWAHAHAHA the legionare however I think is the product of romans.

[Sir Chauncy]

I happen to agree with bhutavarna, no culture that survises is going to sit idly by when some one uses something against you successfully. That would be daft. Every culture has either adapted to and modified new technology or has been ground into the sands of history. It seems daft to accuse the Romans of stealing when everyone else though time has done exactly the same thing.

[|OCS|Virus]

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

Excellent responces So, we've decided that adoption and improvement were part of the glory that was Rome and those who say that Rome stole techonolgy are just ignoring the facts of what it takes to be a sucusessful conqurer.

[Auxilia]

First of all, a great discussion folks

The gladius (Spanish), pilum (possibly Etruscan) and helmet (Gallic) have all been pointed out.

The process continued to the end of the Empire; cataphract cavalry were copied from the Sassanid Persians, and the later Roman infantryman was equipped very similarly to the barbarian forces against which they were fighting (no body armour, large round/oval shields and so on). Had the army not been hamstrung by manpower problems and internal strife, it might have performed far better for far longer.

[oblivious maximus]

Yes,i believe stole is a harsh word.I would use a more proper borrowed.The weaponry was still available to whom it was taken from.Keep in mind the the weapons usually were not the same before they improved them.More has been given from them then taken.


The Greeks got many of their ideas from other areas around the mediterranean.
China only survived the steppe nomads because it adapted weaponry and fighting style from them.

Interesting,the Romans could take your very own weapon and show you how to use it.

[Marshal Murat]

Roman Weapons
They began as phlanaxes, just like the Greeks, but when Rome started out, they had to fight the Barbarians on thier borders outside rome. The phlanaxs was used on flat ground, which there is none. So they adopted the looser formation, with calvary. Borrowing the Greek sort of sword, and armed with shields they formed legions. I think the pilum was a Roman ingenuity at work. They changed tactics during Marius reforms, and adopted the rectangle shield. Then the rest is mostly history.....
They began to lose the rectangle, as the army was increasingly auxilary units. The only thing that I don't like is taht they didn't adopt the falx. That would be so cool.

[Hakonarson]

And mail from the Gauls, Cohortes and Scuta from the Oscans (I believe the Hernicici are first recorded as using cohortes in battle), and multi-class army and centuries from the Etruscans - not surprising realy since Rome as ruled by Etruscan kings for a couple of hundred years

BTW Romes first enemies were NOT barbarians - Etruscans and lowland Italians did speak Greek.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Auxilia]

Quote[/b] (Marshal Murat @ Aug. 28 2003,19:18)]The only thing that I don't like is taht they didn't adopt the falx. That would be so cool.
There is some VERY sketchy evidence that there was a unit of falx-men in the late Roman Army. They are one of the units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum (essentially a register of units with their shield designs). They were known as the Falchovarii and were based in the East.

As for why they never adopted the falx on a broad scale, I suppose it would have worked against the grain of the Roman soldier as part of a unit; such a weapon is designed for use by an invidual, who needs plenty of room...

Also, the Romans encountered the falx at a time when their army was arguably at its best in terms of manpower, training, equipment and leadership (eg Trajan). Much of their borrowing of equipment came from groups who were consistently winning battles (Iberians, Celts, Italians etc) against them, something the Dacians did only once if I recall.

[bighairyman]

the late roman was not even roman at all. at the last hundred year of the empire, half of the soldiers in the northern legions were barbarians even the some centriouns were too.

simply put, in the late roman army, it was almost all mercanries. so it won't surprise me that they may have use the falx on a small scale.

and in the late roman army, it wasn't actually infanty based any more. sure that's more than have soldiers in the legion is infanty, but the cavalry was more important. if you check the compostion of the roman armies(early, middle, late?) u will find that there is much more cavalry in a legion.


note: these are all based on the legions in the north in places like france and germanina.

[Gregoshi]

Hello there Auxilia and welcome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Auxilia]

Thanks - it's my pleasure