Printable View
"The Pilani (or Triarii), were originally troops who, standing behind the first two lines, held the pilum" taken from http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/w...re/g/pilum.htm
I see it azs being interesting that the units that do not have the pilum in our game are the units that used it in history for the first time. Nice, ha?
Oh yea, and the site is very nice, packed with info, although rather dictionary entries than full articles.
That is a rather odd explaination...
The Romans seems to have copied the Etruscan pilum which has been dated as old as 500BC. But given it was done during the period of hoplite warfare it can't have been the hoplites that used it, and they were the ancestors of the Triarii, Principes and Hastati (well more or less them).
I haven't heard about those Pilani (most certainly not as Triarii), but if anyone knows something I would be interested in getting the info.
Hi Kraxis,
found this:
Note that "pilus" means "file", NOT the same word as "pilum". In the Republic the triarii were sometimes referred to as "pilani".
at http://www.larp.com/legioxx/orgoff.html
The Triarii were composed of the oldest men of the legion and armored nominally better than the others (also largely consisting of men of the first class). They carried a larger, heavier spear, hasta (odd that the hastati were armed with pilae as opposed to hast).
It would appear that the Triarii were the last group of Roman soldiers (amongst the Hastati, Principes and Triarii) to adopt weapons and armorments of the Hoplite, replacing the round shield, hoplon, with an oval samnite style shield and heavy spears with throwable pilae. The Triarii were the most conservative group of the army, composed of the older, wealthier men, and thus the last to change their armorment style (remember the Roman soldier was expected to provide his own gear), the younger and nomilally poorer Hastati, and Pincipes probably accepted a change more readily. :book:
The article states that the Triarii were the third rank, and originally carried the pilum. The Triarii did normally stand behind the other two lines, but if they were supposed to originally have used the pilum, then the Roman battles would have been plagued as mine are now by some of my soldiers throwing sharp pointy things in the backs of the ones doing the actual fighting. Perhaps CA got it more correct than we thought. ~D
What's the effective range of a pilum? Twenty or thirty feet, maybe? There's no way you could throw from the back row of a manipular formation past the front, is there?
-Simetrical
Effective range is at least three times what you listed. They did throw their pila from the rear ranks while the front was engaged at times. Why not? If you have a deep mass of attackers and can throw over the heads of your own, it would make it very uncomfortable for those poor sods stuck waiting to fight. They even deployed archers on the 9th rank, and horse archers on the 10th rank on occasions to fire over the heads of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Now I don't think you would typically find the principes and triarii deployed in fashion that would allow them to throw over the hastati--maybe that is what you meant.
Ahhh, should have known with the title of Primus Pilus going to the senior centurion of late republican and imperial legions. But hey, given my rather substantial lack of knowledge in latin I think it is fair. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Herakleitos
Hastati comes from the javelin they employed initially, the Hasta Velites (see now where Velites coems from?). So the Hastati did take their name from the weapon. It is also possible that the Hasta wasn't named that in the early Roman ages and only got that name rather later on, possibly even the name went from the javelin to the spear. But that is pure speculation (but we haven't got much really ancient Roman texts to go by, so we actually don't know for sure what words they used).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zizka
The Triarii only replaced their spears for pila with the reforms of Marius, but then again they were not citizen soldiers anymore (not counting the intermediate period, well actually since we are talking about Triarii after Marius).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zizka
The hoplon was exchanged for the scutum relatively early, just like the others and the Pricipes also seems to have been spearmen initially, since the Romans copied the Samnite Duplex Acies. A formation where the first line was mainly heavy javelineers (can you say early Hastati?) and the second line was made up of heavy spearmen, intended to do the main fighting.
If we take that setup as he basis for hte Roman Triplex Acies it makes sense that the Pricipes got their name ('the main fighters') as that was originally their role, while the Hastati got their name from the weapon employed. In time the Romans noticed the effectiveness of the pila as well as hte close quarter effectiveness of the Hastati, so the changeover was understandable, while the Triarii being a very last reserve was kept both armed defensively as well as in a defensive position (crouching with spear in the ground pointing forwards).
So where was I going? No idea really... :dizzy2: ~;)
Kraxis - From what I gather the Hasta was the heavy thrusting spear of the hoplites. During the Samnite wars the Hastati and Triarii were armed with spears and the oval samnite scutum, the middle line, the principes were the main line fighting men, upon whom the hastati would retreat when hard pressed. the Hastati were light spearmen, not as heavily armored as the Principes and the Triarii. The pilum is not mentioned in the Samnite wars but this century long struggle saw the slow adoption of the javelin for all line except for the last and final hold of veteran triarii. The original skirmishers were simply poorer leves, but the velites were created as a formal group in the structure of the legion sometime after the end of the second punic war probably in response to the severe shortage in manpower and men of enough wealth to purchase armour for line fighting.
Also the Roman troops of Marius were all citizens, his legions were composed of the landless poor capite censi, but they were still roman citizens and were more in the sense volunteers than the pressed landed small farmers of the same period. Indeed Marius did not even need to enlist allied legions for his army campaigning against the invading germans. Marius' Reforms were more like examples, rather than sweeping reforms, some contemporary Roman armies and even a few after his example were still traditional. Marius simply re-designed his armies and then won some major victories, thus ensuring that his examples would be taken seriously. He decreased the size of the legion, not in numbers but by making each cohort a miniture legion, comprised of one Hastati, Principes and Priarii maniple. You know, I got carried away as well.
er...what were we discussing? oh yes, it appears to me that the Hastati and the Hasta were originally spearmen rather than skirmishers, with the hasta being the short thrusting spear as opposed to the lanca or pilum. The names Hastati and Principes could possibly come from the early tribal days of Roma, as the spearmen and the chief's men, just one possible way of translating the words, but then again all this is pure speculation...but its still fun speculation none the less.
Given we only have the rather unreliable Levy to explain how the old armies were (around the times of the Samnite wars) nothing can be certain. We have nothing from contemporary writers or close to contemporary writers. So we don't know if the ancient Romans used Hasta as the word for their spears. But given the roman tradition of keeping with words (gladius, spatha, scutum and equites) it is quite likely.
But if the Samnites did form up in the Duplex Acies, and that makes sense as they lived in rugged terrain, then it is fairly understandable that the Romans copied that and then expanded on it. Previously the Romans had been fighting mainly other people from the plains, or at least the mountainpeople when they came down to plunder, in the plains. So at least initially the Romans fought in the phalanx in the Samnite Wars. I'm inclined to believe that they did for the entirety of the first war. The second war is in my mind the period where the changes began.
I never said that the Hastati were skirmishers, merely that they were heavy javelineers. They could deal the enemy a hard blow with thier javelins and then in the confusion charge in. A weak enemy would break under it. Thus making it less taxing on the troops in general, as well as the fastest and lightest troops would be able to chase them. Seems fairly good to do it like that. If the enemy was strong then they would have been blunted for the real fight with the Principes.
I'm pretty certain that the Romans used pila against Pyrrhus, and that it was noted that they had little effect on the phalanx. This would be about the time I would say that the Principes would carry the spear into battle for the last time.
Scipio Africanus used Velites for his campaigns in Hispania, and he used them actively in battle. It is also considered the period where the Velites got the shield and a sword (how effective could a javelinarmed man be in melee without both?).
Want to ask the Zulus how effective a man armed with just a short spear and a shield can be ? 'Course, javelins aren't quite the ideal close-combat weapon, butting getting one stuck in your gut is no less deadly an experience than being run through with a sword or whatever.
Seems to me the Velites were pretty much an adaptation of the Greek Peltasts (who in turn were apparently adapted from some Balkan barbarians...), similarly composed of men too poor to afford the equipement needed to fight as heavy infantry. Given that the Romans cheerfully imported the hoplite principle too, it would seem fairly logical for them to get the dirt-poor-javelin-skirmisher one on the side...
Incidentally, as far as every source I've seen has told me, the first centurion of a legion's first cohort was indeed called Primus Pilum, First Javelin. The pilum apparently came to be held in high esteem and had some pretty heavy-duty symbolism attached to it, and soldiers who could afford it tended to have theirs decorated. For example the Praetorians are known to have had the lead weights of the close-range pila covered with decorative bronze sheet...
*shrug* Military peacockiness at work again.
Well the Greek Peltast was not Greek really, but Thracian. At least his origin was from Thrace. And the Greeks, while firmly stating that peltasts were not up to main fighting, were more than a match for most other javelineers as they often carried light armour and swords. In Thrace even chieftains fought as peltasts, some with heavy bronze bell cuirasses and corinthian helmets... Wierd. The normal peltast, though, was a man with a foxskin cap (the forerunner of the Thracian helmet), a thick cloak (easily able to deflect swordstrikes if used properly) and high boots, you see them all the time on Greek vases. A very different image from the peltasts we see, and a much more expensively equipped warrior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I have only seen the Pilus rank, and it has been used by both Connolly and Goldsworthy and I'm sitting with the Men at Arms 'The Roman Army - from Caesar to Trajan (revised edition)' by Michael Simkins, and he too uses Primus Pilus. Primus Pilus itself means First Spear, something that would fit very well with the Republican hoplite army. And given that the centurions didn't seem to carry pila, I have a hard time believing it would have been Pilum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Also, it is quite unlikely that the Praetorian's pila had weights of lead covered with bronze. Lead is so soft that it would be near impossible for them to carry them around, place them on the ground and so on, let alone use them in any sort of active service. The lead would soon be so banged up that the decorations would be ruined and the bronze lost.
Rather it is more plausible that the weights were of bronze entirely.
I posted a longer response, but the continuing d****d trouble with the server ate it. :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
I agree with the interpretaion that the Servian hoplite system probably ended sometime in the 2nd Samnite war. Terrain and tactics of the enemy must have been responsible. The Samnite maniple and duplex acies system, combined with their light infantry, javelins, cavalry, and heavy infantry would have been an ideal force to fight on such ground. Light forces do well vs. hoplites in covered, broken, and mountainous terrain, while the heavies would give the ability to hold points where needed. A similar though less fundamental change had occurred in Greece in the Peloponnesian wars. Athens suffered in some forays into such terrain, but learned from the mistake and employed the same light forces method to defeat some Spartan forces. In this case light forces were shown to be excellent at destroying hoplites in difficult terrain.
The more I've considered the Servian system, and its force distribution, the less I am concerned with the idea of the bulk of it being in the 1st class (wealthiest other than equites). All hoplites would have been land holders with a vested interested in protecting the countryside. It makes sense that they would form most of the forces and be similarly heavily armed. This seems to have been the hoplite ideal as I understand it (perhaps improperly.) It also carries on with the earlier ideals of warrior elite being the nobility. And hoplite influence is suggested in the later forbidding of consuls to lead the army mounted. (I think it was sometime around the 1st Punic War that this was dispensed with.) Note the Servian system did have a small contingent of slingers and javelinmen, nothing really novel about that. There is little reason I think to be surprised that the lesser levels of society were greatly under represented at the time.