Should the Hastati and Gaesatae not be depicted wielding spears instead of swords as their name suggests (Hasta-Latin for Spear, Gaesum-Celtic for spear)?
Printable View
Should the Hastati and Gaesatae not be depicted wielding spears instead of swords as their name suggests (Hasta-Latin for Spear, Gaesum-Celtic for spear)?
Not really. Not sure about the Gaestate, but at least for hastati, despite their name, they have been using sword an javelin at least by 300-ish BC. Not sure whether they had actually used spears before or not.
Camilian Hastati have spears I think...
While Gaesatae I think the name is referred to the throwing ones...
They had quite a social status no? So most likely they used swords...
You're thinking of Camillian principes. Camillian hastati are swordsmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
I do indeed think Gaesatae are named after their throwing spear, since their unit description says so.
"They fight with longswords, but are named for their incredible skill with javelins" (from the description).
The Hastati i do not know
Camilian Princeps have spears(tho anti inf-spears) hastati have swords.
wikipedia sais the hastas were replaced during the polybian reforms but the picture of Imperial legionaries on the site did not really make the article more believeable.
afaik Gaesatae reffers(not translates) to them beeing "spears for hire" spears used as general term for weapons like with celtogermanic infantry : Foreign Spears(tho they actually have spears, if they could afford it they'd have swords but would be called Foreign Spears nontheless.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=303380 here; this will answer your first question :)
About the Gaesatae, well, i dunno. But i guess spear and javelin can be easily used the same way
A slightly more detailed version of the post anubis88 liked to:
To be frank, it's not possible to be sure what hastati of the late Camillan period used as a primary weapon, but the the balance of the evidence (such as it is) favors a sword.
In the Servian army, the third class (precursors of the hastati) were armed with a spear, which is where the word "hastati" probably originated. In the Polybian period, the hastati used a sword as their primary weapon, so the issue is when this change occurred.
Three pieces of evidence in the ancient sources tend to indicate that in the first fifty years of the EB time period, the hastati used a sword as their primary weapon. First, Plutarch (Life of Pyrrhus, 21.6) describes Roman troops at Asculum engaging Macedonian spearmen with swords. Second, Dionysios of Halikarnassos (20.11, dealing with the Pyrrhic War) explicitly states that principes were spearmen, indicating that the hastati were Plutarch's swordsmen. Finally, Polybios 2.33 describes a battle with the gauls in 223 BC (which we contend belongs to the Camillan period) at which the triarii passed the foremost ranks of the hastati their spears. This was evidently intended to prevent the gauls from engaging the hastati in close combat until their initial onslaught had dissipated, and also indicates that the hastati were swordsmen.
This admittedly sparse evidence allows other interpretations, but we contend that the simplest is that late Camillan hastati used a sword as their primary weapon.
Although it is a bit strange from one point of view - the richer a Roman citizen was, the more he could spend on his panoply.
Hastati were presumably poorer than Principes. But a sword is a more expensive weapon than a spear. For that reason, it would seem to make more sense if the Camillan Principes were the swordsmen, rather than the Hastati.
However, tradition may have influenced the choice. The older (and richer) a Roman citizen was, the less accommodating he may have become to military reform. In the Servian period, the older and richer citizens were spear-armed hoplites. Maybe it was easier to persuade a young Hastati to give up his spear and retrain as a swordsman than it was an older, more experienced Principe? While the Triarii, the oldest men in the legion and the ones that kept the hoplite-style armour longest, also kept the spear longer than either the Hastati or Principes.
Weren't the Hastati younger than the Principes, not poorer? Or am i confused here a bit? Also, the Hastati would be pretty good on money too... Remember these were still Romans making a nice living (not like the poorer who were the accensi and velites and such)
In the camillian army, the men were divided in groups based on wealth, like that the hastati units consisted of poorer citizens,
after the polybian reform, the men were divided in age groups and hastati became the younger soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato
I know of no support for this assertion in the sources. Our only real description of the organization and equipment of the Camillan army comes from Livy (8.8), and he clearly distinguishes the hastati (youths in the first bloom of manhood just old enough for service), principes (men in the full vigour of life), and triarii (veterans of proved courage) by age or experience, not wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karel de Stoute
However, in both descriptions of the Servian army (Livy 1.42-3 and Dion. Hal. 4.16), the first, second, third, and fourth classes (roughly equivalent to the triarii, principes, hastati, and rorarii) are armed with spear and sword. It may well have been that the weapons of the poorer classes were of inferior quality, but they apparently carried swords of some sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato
Ha, Atilius backed me up! :clown:
I'm gonna celebrate today for clearly winning with my argument :laugh: :laugh:
well, maybe i'm wrong about the camillian army but i'm sure that at first the roman army was organised in wealth classes by servius tullius. (livy 1.43)
Of course, Livy was writing some 130 or so years after Polybius. Where did he get his source material on earlier military organisation from?
Plutarch and Dionysius are both later still.
As it is, I rather suspect that both spears and swords were present in both the historical hastati and Gaesatai formations. Did not the later 'sword-based' legionaries use pilae as spears when necessary? And the Gaesatae were simply Gallic mercenaries from what I make of the sources (Polybius again); there is no reason for there not to have been several types of weapon in their repertoire.
However, the game engine prohibits the use of more than two weapons per unit. So herein lies your dilemma. As it is, I would personally support the use of spears by the Hastati as the first (less privileged if not actually poorer) rank and swords by the principes. But the EB team decided to follow Dionysus in making them spearmen. Since he was so much later, the persistence of spearmen when all legionaries carry swords might have the ring of an older source.
You could equally argue that young hastati are less familiar with battle and more inclined to blindly follow 'the glorious ways of their forefathers' who were spearmen, while the older principes aren't quite as naive and know the value of a good sword in close combat.
I was told that the Romans that fought against other city-states 4th BCE and before were more similar to Greeks in their military ways. So it's understandable to have 3rd BCE Hastati using swords, as that's EB's timeframe. If it covered pre-classical Rome, we might have seen a different manifestation.
Well i'm satisfied with the evidence presented in this thread to conclude there are in fact accuracte depictions.