Hastati or Principes?

Hello everyone,
First: Thanks again for EB Team who are doing a stellar job, creating this awesome mod. I loved the first EB, and I am currently giggling like an infant, hearing that its long awaited sequel is soon to be released. But now to my question:

I recently read a chapter from Jochen Bleicken´s “Verfassung der Römischen Republik” (Constitution of the Roman Republic”), where he talks about the Roman military system. One aspect caught my attention regarding the Pre-Marian Army composition, and it´s display in EB.
During the wars with the Samnites in the late 4th, or early 3rd century BC, the Romans adapted the manipular system, which took the place of the old phalanx. They now had the famous “acer triplex” formation. Bleicken says, that in the first stages of this ever evolving system, the first rank was made up of the Principes (hence the name “the first”, I think, my Latin is a little bit rusty. ). They were the ones who first implemented the new weapon style, using the sword and pilum. The second rank was formed by the Hastati, who were still using the old Spear (hasta). Of course the third rank, the good old Triarii, still in a hoplite phalanx.

In EB I and EB II (Preview), the units seem to be switched around, with the Principes using the spear and the Hastati the sword. I wonder why this is? Is this a later stage of the Roman army, when the Hastati were making up the first rank? But to my knowledge at that time both Hastati and Principes were wielding swords, which in EBI was reflected by the Polybian army. I can´t imagine, that the EB team made a mistake, maybe Bleicken´s thesis is not modern anymore?

I know, that the word “reform” is not a good term, when it comes to such cases, because the development of armies was a slow and steady process, and not done overnight. Secondly, the Pre-Marian armies were still militias, who equipped themselves. It is possible that the weapons in a maniple of for example Principes was mixed up, one soldier still using his father´s spear, whilst the other already got the new sword.

So in short:

1. Why do EB´s early Principes use a spear, when the Hastati should have it?
2. Why do EB´s early Hastati have a sword, when the Principes don´t?
3. Is this just a name switch up?
4. Which stage of the Roman military system is reflected in EB (first release)?
5. Where the maniples sorted by the type of weapon the soldiers used?
6. Or is Bleicken just wrong? (His original work is from 1975, I had the seventh edition from 1995)

Maybe this can be answered in just one sentence, or it can spark a discussion. I would be happy with both results. (Sorry if there are some mistakes in my English)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monophthalmos

1. Why do EB´s early Principes use a spear, when the Hastati should have it?
2. Why do EB´s early Hastati have a sword, when the Principes don´t?
3. Is this just a name switch up?
4. Which stage of the Roman military system is reflected in EB (first release)?
5. Where the maniples sorted by the type of weapon the soldiers used?
6. Or is Bleicken just wrong? (His original work is from 1975, I had the seventh edition from 1995)

---

1+2
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...i-and-Gaesatae
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-about-hastati

Both of Atilius posts.

3.I'm not an expert but I'm damn sure that the Hastati made up the front rank.And all info I could find states that they were indeed in the front ranks.
4.I believe it's the Camillan

I remember having quite a vivid discussion about this in University, sadly that's more than a year ago and I can't quite find my corresponding notes. But I'll try to remember:

3. no.
4. the socalled "Camillian system" but the engine cannot display the gradual nature of these changes accurately, no wonder afterall it's not like we'd know all the details.
5. not quite, the maniples were sorted either by wealth/social status or Experience/age, I'm currently not sure in which system it was sorted how exactly but these were the mechanisms ancients sorted by. The Weapon sorting was a consequence of the aforementioned systems, especially Wealth. Otherwise you could "just buy a spear" to be allowed in the last row^^
6. I'd assume he's incorrect in this point, all newer english literature I found lists Camillian and Polybian Principes as Second row of ... Heavy... Legionary... principal... proper Infantry. Incidently the German wikipedia article also puts them in the frontline, it's based on a text from 1985 tho. So I tend to agree with the English literature, especially as sorting 2-1-3 seems unrealistic*. I however don't remember reading any sources that clearly favour either setting.

*as in putting the poor/inexperienced between the welloff/proven and the rich/grizzled. it just seems to Complex for my taste. and I don't see the inherent advantage. When the Hastati were put in the second line due to their squishyness then they might aswell just make up the rearguard.

sorry for my english, before the marian reform, veliti was on the front line for skirmish, and after go back! first line was astati, second line was principes (similar equipement but more experienced and armoured), third line was triari (much more experienced, and that use a spear, not the principes). 1 legion was composed by 1200 astati 1200 princ and 600 triari. the division in manipoles was created for a better "manovrabily" of the army and the switch of the man who was fighting (in a battle of 1 day long you can be tired).
excuse me again for the english, if i can tomorrow post an interesting image of a standard legion deployement

PS principes not mean "first"


edit: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._secAC.svg.png

i've just founded this

Thanks for the answers, and the links, which are very informative.

Quote:

---

So I tend to agree with the English literature, especially as sorting 2-1-3 seems unrealistic*. I however don't remember reading any sources that clearly favour either setting.

---

Ca Putt
I think I can agree with you there!

Bleicken seems to have some interesting personal opinions: I remember, that he also says, that the battle of Beneventum wasn´t a Roman Viktory, and that Pyrrhos triumphed again. It was soposedly turned into an Roman victory in the Roman tradition only. Unfortunately he doesn´t give any sources at all, and I never found a similar statement anywhere else.

Oh it would not be surprising, afterall Ramesses II did the same with Qadesh. As long as the evil bugbear does not stand "ante portas" and the soldiers return to their loved ones, an unclear battle can easily be turned into a political victory. It's Pyrrhos, he always wins and always losses ;)

Edit: @Gneisenau: that's the Polybian system, the Cammilian system is slightly different and less well defined.

Yes, taht´s true,but I think other than in Ramesses II times, we have other historical sources than the pharao himself (It´s an inscription, when I recall correctly, proclaiming a victory), that was available to the Egyptian "populace".
At least Plutarch wrote about the battle in his live of Pyrrhos, and he is technically no Roman, eventhough being a citizen of the empire. Of course he is rather late, but he must have had his sources, for example Dinonysios of Halikarnassos, again a Greek. I think it would be quite difficult for the Romans to influence all the other traditions, since there surely were Epirote/Greek survivors of the battle as well. I´m not saying that it isn´t possible, I only think, there is again no proof, which would speak for Bleicken´s thesis. At least it wasn´t a clear enough victory, maybe anoter "pyrrhic" one, since Pyrrhos left Italy shortly after, abandonig his campaign.
But of course there may be some source I just don´t know, I didn´t put that much research into it :)

Pyrhos went to Sicily then. Again he won many victories we are told, but details are in short supply. Then back to Greece. Winning battles and consolidating your gains are not the same thing. Magna Graecia is a poor theater for that. It took the Romans more than a century to succeed definitively. Pyrhos had neither a large nor particularly elite force, but was able to move about pretty much as he pleased. A decisive defeat doesn't give you that. Furthermore it seems he was out for glory not rule atop a throne.
Bottom line:
If Hannibal thinks Pyrhos was a better general... no more need be said.

Sekunda (1996, p. 23ff.) argues, citing Rawson 1971, the reason for confusion lies in the name: early on, there wasn't a clear differentiation in the naming of a throwing spear. In fact, the earliest known mention of a "hasta" seems clearly to refer to a throwing spear (Ennius, Annales). Rawson said, according to Sekunda, that the first row of the hastati used hastae velitares, while the two back lines used spears which were later called hastae longae. I don't know if that's true, actually it doesn't sound so much better than the "complicated theories" Sekunda mentions before. But he surely is more familiar with the topic than I am.