Triari and phalanx

When did the triari make the transition from phalanx to regular formations? IIRC, the triari were still using phalanx in 280BC.

Also when did the principes go to pilum use from regular spears?

Thanks in advance!

Jagger, could you give some info on what context the triarii were using a phalanx formation in 280 BC? I'm assuming this was at Heraclea vs. Pyrrhus? The info before the 1st Punic War is pretty sparse. The Samnite wars apparently led to abandonment of the phalanx formation for more flexible maniples copied from the Samnites (I read one bit on the web about the Samnites deploying their maniples in "duplex acies" with a line of skirmishers in front.) The terrain of the Samnite wars was not generally suited to phalanx warfare.

The triarii maniple shown in Goldsworthy's "The Complete Roman Army" is 60 men, but only 3 ranks deep. If the illustration is correct, then it was clearly not a phalanx, and unless the maniples were combined, they would not be able to act as real phalanx. The legions formed on the triarii maniples so it seems unlikely that the triarii maniples were regularly combined to form phalanx formations.

Another argument against triarii forming as phalanx is their normal placement at the rear. Phalanx were typically used as the main line.

I read an account on the web of the battle of Heraclea vs. Pyrrhus in 280 BC which had the Roman triari in phalanx.

And I just finished giving the early triari a phalanx capability.

I am using the realism mod with the early, mid and late triari. So if there was any historical support, I thought I would make the early triari have the phalanx capability. And also may convert the early principe to a spear armed soldier to reflect the pre-maniple roman army. I am not sure how the early hastati evolved from the pre-maniple army.

I am not sure how realistic it is. But it would differentiate the early units from the mid and late units. And then of course, they all disappear with the Marian reforms.

Ok, I've been reading the relevant sections of "Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World" for info on the early Roman armies. (Goldsworthy's "Complete Roman Army" says little about the Roman army before the Punic wars and states that its starting point is indeed at the time of the Punic Wars, rather than predecessor Roman army types.)

It interprets Polybius, Livy and whatever archeological evidence there is to conclude that the Etruscans who conquered Rome around 600 B.C. utilized the hoplite system, and the 2nd Etruscan ruler, Servius Tullius organized Rome into classes. This "Servian army" had ~half the army as hoplites. Hoplite formations require a lot of men so of necessity a hoplite based army would need a lot of hoplites! These were the wealthiest class, landowners who could afford the equipment that the hoplite militia was required to provide. It would appear that other classes were under represented in numbers, and made up lighter infantry and skirmishers.

Servian Army (~14,400 men):
80 centuries of hoplites with full hoplite armour and weapons
20 centuries of lighter hoplites lacking much of armour and using oval long shields
20 centuries of similar troops, lacking greaves
20 centuries of javelinmen
30 centuries of slingers
(Assumptions are made about cavalry as well)

Rome kicked out the Etruscan kings in the late 6th or early 5th centuries BC but retained the above basic army form until they suffered some serious defeats by Gaul and Samnite armies in the 4th century BC. They adopted some of the Samnite styles of fighting and abandoned the phalanx somewhere around 300 BC.

As a result of the changes the army of the time was: hastati spearmen (~first 1/4 of them had spear and javelin, while the rear 3/4 had spear and oblong shield).

Behind the hastati were principes all carrying oblong shields and "fine arms." (Probably swords.)

Behind this was a group of three sections of triarii (vets of proven courage), rorarii (young and inexperienced), and accensii (the least reliable). The triarii were spear armed and carried shields.

Samnites.
I've wondered if it might be possible to move the start date to 3xx BC and create a Latin League faction and perhaps Samnites in place of the Scipii (although you kind of need a territory in the Appenines for the faction as well, with Capua being rebel.) Samnites could primarily be the spearmen and peltasts already available.

Gladius:
One of the interesting things to make note of is that it was probably not until mid-way through the 2nd Punic War that the Roman legions began standard use of the gladius as we think of it. This was a weapon adopted from the Celtiberians. The Celtiberians had abundant iron and blacksmiths that produced superior weapons. Their swords were strong and didn't bend/break like their contemporaries. It was not until Rome made progress in Spain that they could tap this resource. Scipio Africanus made use of the Spanish blacksmiths to re-equip his armies.

The triarii of 280 B.C. might have appeared phalanx like in action upon reading through the interpretation given of Livy's description of the post Samnite War army. They formed a spear wall, and advanced en masse. However, it might have been a rather thin version of a phalanx (lacking depth.)

The Triarii line was too thin for an agressive 'streamroller' style phalanx. They were very much a defensive stand off to keep the enemy at bay long enough to reform the Hastati and Principes.

Great info! Thanks.

I think I am going to have to call it a "what if" mod. For the beginning phase of the game, the romans would be considered still in the midst of the conversion from hoplite/Samnite army to the true Triarii/Principe/hastati army as currently portrayed. As I am using the Realism mod with early/mid/late versions of the triari/principe/hastati units, I simply converted the early units. So only pre-maniple roman units will be available in early years of the game-(20 to 30 years?).

I converted the triari into a phalanx unit with secondary sword. I converted the Principe into a pure 4 rank spear unit without pilum or secondary sword by using a modded triari TGA. The hastati unit remains the same except for a slight loosening of formation and increase in manpower. I did all this yesterday and everything worked great after the usual problems. I am going to re-examine the early principe after Red Harvests info.

I had to make changes in the export_unit_descr file, the descr_model_battle file and I modded the triari TGA's for each of the factions to differentiate the triari and principe units on the battlefield. It was a fairly easy mod.

Here are the files changed if anyone wants to experiment. Everything worked fine within my Realism mod.

:dizzy2: Changes in the export_unit_descr_file:
1. Gave Early triarii phalanx capability, adjusted mount_effects, adjusted formation factors, adjusted stat_ground effects., adjusted primary/secondary weapon stats and armor.

2. Early Principe is now a pure spear unit lacking a secondary sword or pilum similiar to the normal triari. Same areas adjusted as early triari

3. Early hastati has very few changes. The formation was bumped from 1 to 1.2 giving them a slightly more undisciplined light infantry feel. I also gave them slightly greater capabilities in woods and scrub. And I made the hastatis slightly larger at 50 men to a formation.

Remember these numbers reflect corrected hardy and ground factors. They also have adjusted shield, combat, purchase and unit maintenance values as my files are heavily modded. If yours are not, a straight cut and paste would not be appropriate.

type early triarii
dictionary early_triarii ; Early Triarii
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Medium_1
soldier early_triarii, 40, 0, 1
officer roman_early_centurion
officer roman_early_standard
mount_effect horse +3, chariot +3, camel +3
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, no_custom, very_hardy
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, square, phalanx
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 5, 5, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,0.55
stat_pri_attr spear
stat_sec 5, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 25 ,0.75
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 6, 4, 6, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat -4
stat_ground -1, 0, -3, 0
stat_mental 11, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 470, 170, 50, 80, 500
ownership romans julii,romans brutii,romans scipii,romans senate

type early principes
dictionary early_principes ; Early Principes
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Medium_1
soldier early_principes, 40, 0, 1
officer roman_early_centurion
officer roman_early_standard
mount_effect horse +2, chariot +2, camel +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, no_custom, very_hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 6, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,0.55
stat_pri_attr spear
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 4, 4, 6, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat -4
stat_ground -1, 0, -2, 0
stat_mental 9, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 450, 160, 50, 80, 450
ownership romans julii,romans brutii,romans scipii,romans senate

dictionary early_hastati ; Early Hastati
category infantry
class light
voice_type Light_1
soldier early_hastati, 50, 0, 1
officer roman_early_centurion
officer roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, no_custom, very_hardy
formation 1.2, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 12, 2, pilum, 35, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown ap
stat_sec 5, 3, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 25 ,0.75
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 3, 3, 6, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 1, flesh
stat_heat -3
stat_ground 2, 0, 2, 0
stat_mental 7, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 400, 140, 50, 70, 400
ownership roman

:dizzy2: Changes in the descr_model_battle file.
1. Note I used the triari CAS files for the principe with modded triarii TGA's. I changed the feathers to white and changed some trim as well. If I could figure out how to get rid of greaves, I would.
2. I didn't have to make any changes to the triarii file as it worked fine with phalanx.

type early_principes
skeleton fs_spearman ; combat spear
indiv_range 40
texture romans_julii, data/models_unit/textures/EarlyPrincipeJulii.tga
texture romans_brutii, data/models_unit/textures/EarlyPrincipeBrutii.tga
texture romans_scipii, data/models_unit/textures/EarlyPrincipeScipii.tga
texture romans_senate, data/models_unit/textures/EarlyPrincipeSenate.tga
model_flexi_m data/models_unit/unit_roman_triarii_high.cas, 15
model_flexi_m data/models_unit/unit_roman_triarii_med.cas, 30
model_flexi_m data/models_unit/unit_roman_triarii_low.cas, 40
model_flexi data/models_unit/unit_roman_triarii_lowest.cas, max
model_sprite romans_senate, 60.0, data/sprites/romans_senate_roman_triarii_sprite.spr
model_sprite romans_scipii, 60.0, data/sprites/romans_scipii_roman_triarii_sprite.spr
model_sprite romans_brutii, 60.0, data/sprites/romans_brutii_roman_triarii_sprite.spr
model_sprite romans_julii, 60.0, data/sprites/romans_julii_roman_triarii_sprite.spr
model_tri 400, 0.5f, 0.5f, 0.5f

~:cool: Remember the TGA's referenced above are my adjusted TGA's. You must reference a TGA file available in your texture file. I would recommend just using your existing Triarii TGA's unless you want to mod them.

Of course, if anyone is interested in my adjusted principe TGA's, drop me a PM. I am using webbirds and SgtV's TGA's for principes and triariis. I simply changed the feather to a white feather on each of the faction triarii TGA's. I also made a few minor color changes here and there to differentiate the triari and principe units on the battlefield. However on the battlefield, it isn't really necessary as the units have totally different formations. One is a five rank phalanx and the other a four rank spear unit. Although if anyone knows a quick easy way to get rid of the greaves from the triarii TGA, I would love to know how.

These changes will produce an early roman army more spear oriented on the medium/heavy infantry side. Hastati can still fill the light infantry role but with a bit more manpower than the later more stuctured hastatis. In the early years, it should be an interesting matchup particularly against the Gauls. The Romans may have a more difficult time now against the true hoplite Greek armies until the mobility of the mid-level principe/triari comes available.

Enjoy! ~:cheers:

~:handball: What is funny is I made all these changes yesterday. Everything worked. Time to go back to my campaign and have a chance to use my few remaining early units in some real battles. After about 2 years, the marion reforms hit in 167 BC. :dizzy2:

Red Harvest, I have done a bit of thinking and digging into the matter myself some time ago.

I generally agree with you, but on the matter of the Hastati and Principes I do not.
It seems that the Hastati were in fact purpose made from the get go. Their name actually derives from, not the Hasta but the Hasta Velites, a throwing spear, as Hasta seems to be a rather young name for a thrusting spear.
Anyway, they came about with the reforms abolishing the phalanx in its most solid form. The Romans had seen how effective the Samnites and Celts had been with their heavy javelineers (in case of the Celts it was just the normal warrior). The Samnites set up in a dual-ascies as you said, one line with javelins and large shields (think for a second about how close that description is to the Hastati) and the other with spears. Apparently the Roamns saw the benefits of a lighter force that was able in melee.

The Hastati were meant to win smaller engagements with weak enemies, in that they disrupted with their javelins and then charged in with their swords hopefully breaking the enemy outright. Should that fail they would disengage right away and let the true melee warriors get to the fight, the Principes. The names says it all, the main troops. They were armed with spears like the Triarii as that had been what the Samnited had always been using and the Romans themselves were confident in (few warriors went into battle without a spear even if he had a sword).
Later, quite possibly in the fights against Pyrrhus, it was understood how effective the javelins were right before the charge, and that they were more versatile than the spear (swords make much faster work of phalangites if it can get within them). Lastly the spear is indeed not as aggressive as the sword, and the main fighting troops need to be aggressive and not let the battle develop before them, but rather develop the battle themselves. And thus came to be the Principes as we know them.

But all this is very much conjecture.

Kraxis,

Thanks for weighing in on this. I appreciate your comments. I started a similar somewhat more detailed thread in the Monestary on the same subject. Early Roman Army Thread

As you say, it appears that this is very much conjecture, since even the "contemporary writers" were writing several hundred years later in most cases.

What sort of sword do you think the Romans were using during the early Republic? Have you seen any archaelogical info for the period that provides a few clues? The literature I've seen so far provides almost nothing and the authors are almost entirely mute (suggesting they have no idea?) They get all excited about the hispanic gladius, but that clearly came later--there is a big void. It doesn't sound like the Romans were using the falcata, but they might have had some form of kopis as a leftover/transition from hoplite days, but I'm not sure how good of a weapon they might have had (metallurgy and blacksmithing skills.)

Yes, the hastati are very interesting and I'm only quoting from the book. Whether they had pila this early or not is a good question. They could probably carry several more javelin than pila so I could see it going either way if pila were available and depending on how they wanted to employ the hastati and whether or not they used many other skirmishers. Are there pila head finds that fit in the correct dateline (320 to perhaps 260 B.C.)? It could easily be as you say and wouldn't really surprise me. One thing that suggests otherwise though, would be that the spear would take less training than the sword, and the hastati were the youngest and least trained of this militia force. I imagine a spear was cheaper as well. That was my reason for guessing (and it is only guessing) that the principes would have more expensive swords. The principes would on average have been older property holders that had been through more campaigns, so I could see them being more proficient with a sword.

The kopis/falcata-type sword is indeed what I have heard the Romans would have used. But it is certainly possible that they used enchiridion-type swords, short stabbing weapons (sound familiar?), at the same time rather cheap due to size (something like very large dagger, if you know the Saexe it would fit well in size). The Hastati certainly had swords when Pyrrhus entered the field as they fought more extensively.
Perhaps sword isn't the best word as we tend to think of either gladii or big celtic longswords. These were small and fast weapons, not cleavers, and at the same time not of any particular quality, but then again they didn't need to be as they weren't fencing weapons.

If the hastati had pila or javelins is not to guess easily, but if they had access to cheap swords then it is possible that they had access to pila as well, from a finacial point of view. But Rome was rather poor at the time, being farmers and herders, so javelins is my bet.
The pila is quite old, I think I have read about Etruscan pilaheads from around 550BC. But it is not impossible that the Romans either couldn't afford to equip troops on large scale with this or that they merely saw it as a battlefield curiousity.

A conclusion is forming in my mind right at this very moment.
The Hastati, being young and inexperienced as well as quite poor can only afford javelins and a cheap stabbingsword.
The Principes on the other hand have both the money and the skills to equip themselves with kopis-type swords that demand you can swing a sword, but is also generally more effective.
Another type of sword that possibly could have been used was a larger type of the enchiridion, something that has gone under the popular name of hoplitesword (try and google it). It is very much fencable and still a very capable stabber.

I considered that there was equal chance that the sword of the time for hastati was more of a dagger, like one of the large triangular types (parazonium?) It would probably be cheap and more forgiving of poor metallurgy/blacksmithing when in use.

I was getting the kopis crossed with the leaf shaped hoplite blade in my head. I'm less inclined to believe that a hastati sword of the time was the falcata/kopis. I've read that the Romans added the iron rim to the upper edge of the scutum after facing it (without the iron rim the shield doesn't do much good if your opponent cleaves it in a single blow--and with the weighting of the falcata and my experiences splitting hardwoods with a small hatchet as a kid it looks quite capable of doing so in practiced hands.) It appears more of a hacking weapon than a thrusting weapon looking at the shape, weighting and hand grip, so it seems less "Roman."

Could be as another author suggests, pre-Polybian sword weapon used by possibly Hastati and/or Principes was similar to the later gladius, but more prone to bend or break than the better made gladius hispanicus that replaced it. As such it might not have been all that different from a hoplite sword, perhaps a bit broader. It certainly would be a natural cultural progression: swordsmen to hoplites, back to swords of a modified hoplite style, and finally the metallurgy and blacksmithing catching up.