0:45 :P Roman Legionary goes into a bar. Legionary: I'd like a martinus, please Barman: Don't you mean a martini? Legionary: If I'd wanted two drinks, I'd have ordered two.
On the topic of spears, I would love to see you talk about the Macedonian Sarissa... and maybe the Macedonian phalanx in comparison to the typical Greek phalanx (or maybe in comparison to the function of spears in a Roman Legion)
someone in the youtube hema community did but i dont remember which one it was. it was very interesting to hear the distinct differences in armor and how their way of fighting changed the weaknesses and advantages of each one. maybe metatron, but again not sure.
Post Constantine, 4th/5th century AD the Hasta and Lancea (heavy/light spears) were primary weapons of the Comitatenses (field armies) and Limitanei (garrison) infantry. The shields became oval/circular, lighter, one guesses easier to use a spear with. Unlike the earlier Principate period, Dominate infantry would typically hold position, form an 8 rank shield wall. They would dart then spear on-rushing cavalry (or charging German infantry), while rear ranks used arrows and javelins to slow the charge, before joining the push themselves. Very effective units.
Yeah, it's stuff like that that blows my mind. The Romans used spears both early and late in their history, but for their peak, they switched to the Gladius. Why did they switch, and why did it work so well? I tend to think it worked in spite of the gladius, or at least not because of it. The Romans has such great logistics, organization, and manpower, that they could have used almost any type of weapon and be successful, I think. But I want to know for sure. :P
@@shorewall Not true, they went from melee spear to pilum, then readopted the melee spear when smaller missile weapons like plumbata were introduced. I'd argue the reason is while the pilum isn't as good in melee as the hasta, it lets you fight against skirmishing infantry and cavalry that a melee only spear would leave you helpless against, and the Romans had LOTS of neighbors who liked throwing missiles.
@@TheChiconspiracy I think the transition back to spear also has to do a lot with who they were fighting against. If we're talking Eastern Roman Empire/ early Byzantine (pick your label of choice) they were facing a lot more cavalry on their eastern flank, and when it comes down to it a gladius just isn't a great weapon for taking on someone on a horse, no matter what you're holding in your other hand.
@@timothym9398 Except we see them fighting plenty of cavalry ridden by the Gauls and Germans even in Republican times, not to mention the Parthians. It's worth noting that Rome's enemies were getting more organized and improving their own infantry as time went on, like the Sassanids who fielded much better armed and trained melee infantry (the Daylam) as opposed to only fielding peasant fodder of the Parthians.
10:40 Another element in that evolution: "I'm closing in, so I'll use my gladius. Where can I put my spear? I can't just leave it on the ground, my comrades would trip over it. OK, I'll throw it at the enemies. Let's make it so that they can't throw it back. Hey mate! I've invented the pilum!"
The pilum is older than that I think. For example the hastati used pila and would fight alongside triarii. Also a typical pilum wouldn't be any good as a melee weapon (although there were heavier versions that didn't bend)
@@Aetheraev hastati fought with a spear until some time in the late samnite wars were the Roman's adopted a style of equipment that was used by the samnites first.
Hastati stopped to use the lance in the moment the 3 division of Hastates , Triari and Princeps lost it sense and the 3 line of infantryman started to be used freely whitout any particular foemation or use. The hastati were the 3rd line and they were the veteran of the legion abd they were used only in dire strait. The first that started to use the 3 line in a free way was Scipion .
You can throw a Hasta but that is like throwing your m-16 rifle at the enemy… guess you can…. Rather silly. If auxilia switch to long sword (spatula) just drop you hasta… throwing it, they can throw it back. Late Roman use hasta and flat shields, gave up on Pilum and the expensive curved Scutum. And the Gladius went away and all use long , thicker Spatha.
I'd argue that a short spear (7ft or shorter) used overarm has some significant advantages over a short sword in power, leverage, and reach while still being able to fight at shield to shield distance if needed. Hannibal's Lybian spearmen used short spears (Polybyus describes their weapons as shorter than the Roman hasta) killed many times their number in Hastati and Principes, and the hasta armed Batavi and Illyrian Auxiliaries were able to inflict severe defeats on the regular Legionaries sent against them. I've always felt the hasta was replaced with the pilum (until alternative missile weapons like plumbata came around) due to the large number of missile happy neighbors the Romans had. A hasta is superior in melee, but leaves you helpless against any kind of skirmishing troops or missile cavalry that have room to evade you. It makes me think of the earlier Battle of Sphacteria where the isolated Spartan hoplites were beaten by light Athenian troops who constantly bombarded them with missiles and would easily run away if charged. With their typical rear line position, I'm guessing the Romans hoped that most of the missiles would have already been expended by the time the Triarii entered into combat.
Now if you had like 5 darts you could set your 7 foot spear on the ground and launch them at enemy missile troops. Should enemy melee infantry/cavalry approach you'd still have the time to pick the spear up and change formations. That's what they moved on to later on.
One thing I mentioned in the comments of another video is that I think one motivator for sword and shield was it enabled the soldier to carry more pila when you're not lugging around that spear. You chuck a couple pila, disrupt the formation, close in. There's nothing necessarily precluding you from having a sword and you'd almost certainly want to carry a sword when you've got a spear. But carrying that spear does preclude you from carrying around a bunch of pila.
Nice! On a side note relating to the Triarii, I happen to like LindyBeige’s idea/theory that the Triarii in a social context within the Roman military culture, that they would also function in preventing the forward lines (ie Princeps, Velites) from retreating if they became overwhelmed. Paraphrasing Lindy: *spears out* “Hold on there, younger Roman, where do you think you’re going, get back in the fight and win, how do you think I managed to make it to this veteran status?” It’s an intriguing idea to help...motivate...comrades in the think/chaos of battle. Keep up the good work
The best combo of this scutum and spear I have ever fought with (SCA historical) was me with the scutum and a fishbat (short sword gladius type) tucked in so my hear was almost level with the grip and anchoring the shield while I had a spear wielder immediately behind me. (bridge battle) It was hilarious. I was flexible and he had a pot belly, so they couldn't hook the shield because I could stop them and he was destroying anyone who came close. I anchored three/four iterations of that shield wall being reinforced on the bridge. Small, strong female in plate mail ftw. 😂😂 It always made me wonder if that ever happened in history, having smaller fighters as just a huge shield /small sword supporting polearms. Dont just fight over my shoulder, fight OVER me.
Reminds me of how I used to lose almost every battle with the Rhodoks in Mount&Blade because most of my soldiers were simple spear men. Until I deployed the sharp shooters! :D
I don't know why, but whenever I think of a subject, such as the use of the spear with the escuteon, Matt comes forward and talks about it, it has happened to me several times
Matt you need to keep in mind context. These weapons combinations were used in ranks. A heavily curved shield and a flat shield or use completely differently when in lines. The Roman shield your wielding When receiving a charge pushes the opponent to the gaps between the Shields. When this happens the gladius is the optimal weapon to stab them. Flatter Shields tend to work better with spears. Also you are correct when fighting in ranks you always duck your head rather than raising your shield. Raising your shield exposes the people to your right and left
@@DLockholmdid they? The earlyer scutum Was mutch more flater and oval, you cant ovetlap shields if they are to curved, this Limits how tight the Formation can be
@@giftzwerg7345 There is no practical impediment when using a curved shield vs a flat shield. Lets make the comparison fair: The greek aspis (also called hoplon) vs a regular round shield (for our purposes, viking shields). The hoplon has a convex shape, thus, half of your body is literally inside the shield, but if you look at it from above as a cross-section draw, it has the same curve a scutum would have. I don't need to explain how successful the greek phalanx was, and I also don't need to explain how widespread shieldwall were So no, convex or curved shields doesn't impose any disadvantages when forming a shieldwall or a phalanx (pretty much the same thing), in fact, keep in mind that the scutum *was not** invented or created by the Romans, it was taken from northern italian tribes such as the Samnites and the Etruscans
I think the fact that the Triarii were the reserve in the last line of the Maniple is pretty relevant, since their job was to hold position while the rest of the army reformed or retreated, thus they didn't have to move a lot, just be good in defense, which explains their choice in weapons. Besides that, could you talk about the Roman Hasta sometime? is there anything particular about it or are the spears of antiquity interchangeable with those of the medieval period for practical purposes?
Not exactly true, you have to see the Triarii in terms of the overall development of the Roman army (and that's probably an organic development not a huge uproot like the Late Republican Romans always liked to portray). If you remember that earlier Roman Armies almost universally carried that Hasta, even after the Maniple emerged as a dominant force in the the organisation, then the Triarii, the most veteran and traditional part of the legion, continuing to use the "old style" of warfare has a very different connotation.
@@dernwine i wouldn't say they chose the Hasta as opposed to the Gladius to fulfill their role but rather clung to them as it allowed them to perform it better, as you said the Legion developed organically, using spears at first and making the switch over time. I believe it was polybius who remarked that Triarii stuck to their old ways with the use of spears, which more or less describes their mindset regarding their equipment.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 Fair one. I guess I reacted mostly to your use of the word "choice," since I don't think it was an active decision by the Triarii, at least not at first.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 The Hasta was replaced by the Pilum, not the Gladius... I'd argue that the hasta and scutum is superior in melee combat than either the pilum or gladius, but not as flexible against the large number of missile throwing enemies that the Roman army had to face in Italy. It's also telling that the Romans readopt the melee spear when small missile weapons like plumbata are introduced.
I hope you're going to paint that nice scutum soon and let us watch, lol. I wonder, will you use historical design, or scholagladiatoria logo? personally, I really like the lightning bolts on that shield. surprise!
The use of the spear according to the Romans themselves was due to issues of spear blocks in hilly, rough terrain. The pike phalanx of Macedonia were extremely effective against the Romans, until the Romans fled. The pursuing pikemen lost cohesiveness and were torn apart when the Romans rallied on rough terrain. A pike is more effective on its own terms bu the sword offered flexibility.
I think that's fair enough, but it sounds like a Combined arms approach would work as well. More cav, more skirmishers, to deal with fleeing units or rough terrain. I also read somewhere that the Macedonian Pikemen of Alexander's time may have been dual trained, 1) to use the sarissa and fight in formation, and 2) to use sword and javelin, much like a Roman legionary, to fight in rough terrain, or siege city walls. After all, pikemen can't fight on walls. Combine that with the stronger emphasis on cav and skirmishers, and I can see how they conquered the Persian Empire.
The sword offering flexibility is an interesting take. I'd say the spear offered the flexibility to fight in most contexts, while the gladius was specialized for extra close quarters and rough terrain.
Pikes are not comparable to the Roman hasta or any other spear around that size. The Romans were using flexible maniple formations even before the pilum was introduced. The hasta was replaced by the PILUM, not the sword. Romans always had swords weather they carried a melee spear or a throwing spear.
@@TheChiconspiracy famous historical users of pikes - the Macedonians, the Swiss, the Scots - all regions rather well known for mountains and other rough terrain.
There's an alternative to defending an attack to the head, Matt. You rotate your wrist and bring the shield's top right corner up towards your face. It's a fast maneuver that doesn't cost much in terms of fatigue while allowing you to maintain eye contact with what your opponent is up to next. Ducking could be risky if your opponent does a shield bash because your head will be bearing the force head-on (pun intended). Ducking also blinds you temporarily from seeing what your opponent might be doing next.
Another thing about the Triarii, they were the reserve, to be used when things went wrong. Having a mobile block of defensive heavyweights to stall a wild charge of Gauls, or Ligurians, or Samnites, would give ample time for the officers to calm routing men and bring the army back to the field. Also, the spear was the primary arm of at least the Principes and possibly the Hastatii as well until the Pyrhic Wars, so there is still ample time when Scutum and Spear were the arms of the Roman Legion, and that shouldn't be forgotten.
yeah, Matt demonstrating how difficult it is to attack from the left remembered me of Lindybeiges dark age reenactment videos. "It's not the guy in front of you that get's you"
@@Eidenhoek Well, if the leftmost person in your formation is being attacked from his left, it means you're getting flanked (and are, generally speaking, in trouble). Maybe change the formation, or retreat to a more defensible position.
@@RotemD I think even the Triarii had the gladius but mostly used their spears. I could imagine that the guy on the extreme left of a Triarii formation would use his sword instead of his spear to make up for the fact that there was no one protecting his left. Using his gladius, he would probably be a little more flexible. But that is pure conjecture on my part and may be complete BS.
One point about the spear is that the spear allows you to have multiple ranks of spears potentially engaged at the opponent at a given distance. I think this is the incredible advantage of the pike. It isn't just one rank in front of you, there are layers potentially several feet deep of pike. Moreso with a pike than a long two handed spear and more so in that regard than a one handed spear. A shield could be an advantage as well in that regard in allowing you to divert or potentially advance into a pike or spear formation.
Just a quick pedantic note on the pronunciation of "triarii": there's no "ah" sound in "rii", it should be more like "ree" (as in "Reebok", for example). Latin (especially classical era) had a mostly straightforward 1:1 relation between letters and phonemes.
You've done a couple of videos now about the use of the scutum, but what I'm missing is the little surprise hidden in its boss. I don't know if it was only a certain period, but there is a thing called 'plumbum' ('lead') supposed to be hidden inside: A small throwing dart with a lead ball to make it heavier. Yeah, it is hardly known, even google doesn't really provides pictures, but I've seen it multiple times in some museum. Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Freiburg / Breisgau, Germany used to show them if I remember correctly. Btw love the fact you're wearing the same kind of képi as me :D
Pilum seems to be a good weapon if you want to deprive your enemy of their shields and then close in with the gladius whilst you are protected and he isn't. Unless your enemy are throwing pila which they quite often were when the legions fought each other over rival claimants for Imperator. They were quite famously malleable about weapons and tactics depending on the enemy so there may have been instances when they adopted hastae. Also they may have fought unarmoured as antesignarii skirmishers with javelins. Lots of ideas for videos there Matt.
Not to say that the pilum could be used as a spear anyway, and had been used that way many times. IE Kings and Generals had just uploaded a clip about Sertorius. In one instance, during the civil war, Sertorius' legionaries, at night, fell upon the camp of the Bardyae, a unit of Marius' personal slaves that were responsible of many killings and rapings in Rome, and Plutarch said that the legionaries "tranfixed all of them with javelins". Obviously they didn't throw the javelins to the tents, but entred in the tents and stabbed the Bardyae on the ground with the pila.
I think pilum is an excellent weapon but judging on the pattern of Matt's scutum he is starting off with scutum et hasta. My most recent thoughts on his excellent video.
Spear is used to deal with charging infantry and cavalry. The shield to deal with arrows slings and thrown missles. The sword is the tool after initial melee contact is made.
Yeah, if I was designing the perfect infantry soldier for the Classical and Medieval Ages, it would be exactly what you've said, for those very reasons. You can theoretically respond to any kind of attack or situation. Only thing more might be some way to range attack, but probably better to have dedicated ranged units alongside. Infantry, Ranged, and Cavalry.
Shorewall many infantry also carried several javelins or slings and used them until they were close enough to engage in melee. In addition to having dedicated shooters and skirmishers.
The short spears used by early and later Romans (not to mention the Libyan spearmen of Hannibal), were for killing infantry at close range, not for passively receiving a charge. They can be used overarm to parry and stab over an enemy's shield even up close, and weren't just discarded.
TheChiconspiracy true like the zulus who used shorter spears as spearheads require less iron to craft then a sword. But he’s talking about long spears over 6ft. Your absolutely right a shorter spear could be quite formidable behind a shield as the threat of it being thrown is very real. It can be used offensively as a gladius though it lacks the hacking ability so important in shield wall clash
@@robertvecchiarello4863 If they are armored at all though, the "hacking" ability of the gladius would be rendered pretty moot. I'd say the ability of the spearmen to stab his comrade's foe in the face also makes up for that shortcoming.
I think the pilum is like the sword not a specialised weapon but a multipurous(english). You can use it like a spear and you can throw it. When i try spear and shield. I really feel like overhand is the way to go. I cannot sparr a lot but i am a martial arts practicioner(arg english) and feel pretty comfortable with my theory. Like everybody does XD. If you put your shiel hand to the opposite site of your ripcage(english) you can even attack from the left. Maybe not with a scutum but defenetly with every lighter shield.
I was looking for a Metatron's video that shows this "face away" someone should do in roman gear to protect his face from atacks. I didn't found it unfortunately, but I will describe what he did. Put your shield high, with your head in such a way you can look over your shield by little. Imagine your foe will strike you from your left side, from above. To defend yourself, stand still with your shield as Matt said in the video above, but don't move your head behind the shield, instead look downwards to the right in a way your helmet will take the blow with the side, deflecting away the blow and your neck will be coveread by the metal piece that is behind your helmet. I ask Matt if he can try this on camera with his helmet and shield as Metatron did before (or someone link here the video if you find it). I use large shields a lot and I know the less you cover your vision with it, the better. I can also link a Lindybeige video that shows why you would not want to blind yourself with the shield (but is a video with a scottish targe, which is a small shield, even tho the rule aplies). More on SHIELDS videos (see full videos if possible): 1) Do not blind yourself - Lindybeige video on targe: ruclips.net/video/e8Wh8KeAPmg/видео.html 2) Techniques with italian pavise - ruclips.net/video/az0GfDS3sjc/видео.html 3) Look for the shield position, never blind yourself - Roland Warzecha - ruclips.net/video/oQo7FjxjHSg/видео.html *EDITED* in fact both Matt and Metraton looks right. I found a video that demonstrates both of the ways of defending. So I was wrong before assuming the Matt way of doing it might be bad. Check the video: ruclips.net/video/jnoiTX0xZ0Y/видео.html
You mentioned, that the Legion-style of weapon system was great against pike blocks. It's a interesting point i have previously thought about, but never came to a satisfying conclusion: In ancient times, pikes were shredded by legionaries, in the right circumstances (often the terrain played a role). But when the pike had a comeback in the late middle ages and early renaissaince, there where never a legion-like-developement. Ok, yeah, there were rondartschiers, but they were a tiny percentage and never were widely used. In the ongoing renaissaince it makes sense: The firearm developed and so maybe it wasn't necessary to waste energy to enhance an old weapon system. But the pikeblock made it's debut at about 1400 (sempach 1386 was one of the first uses of massed offensive pikes). so there were at least a 100 years of pike-heyday in which a counter could be developed. You opinion?
The pike block that would dominate the middle ages and early modern period was far less vulnerable than the static pike blocks of the Macedonians. You had support troops with shorter weapons like halberds protecting them from infiltrators, and they could present arms in four directions at once, even while moving. The Spanish briefly tried to use sword and shield troops against them (leftover troop types from the the battles against the Moors), but they tended to get steamrolled, and eventually revolutionized pike warfare by increasing the firepower of their own.
When fighting in formation, men could have attacked the enemy to their right with the long reach of the spear. I could imagine a drill where men thrust their spears forward, and then on a command, all thrust their spears towards the right to catch unsuspecting enemies who are focusing on defending from the man in front of them.
In the Battle of Culloden, the English Infantry were ordered to use their bayonets on the man attacking to their right, to stab under his upraised right arm.
You are a tall fellow Matt (if I remember correctly from another video). I think Romans were often just clearing 5 feet in height. So a scutum 3 and a half feet tall covered more of them than it does your over 6 feet height. Something more like 4 feet 2 inches tall would be a little heavier but would give more coverage to you from shoulder to shin. Also 10kilo weights all battle long and practicing with heavier items. Carrying so much equipment and doing hard labour. These Romans must have been like power lifters with hand grips like rock climbers.
I think one aspect which might have been somewhat forgotten is the huge morale boost you get from having a big shield. Arrow's, stones and lighter(LIGHTER*, please read) javelins can be blocked and on the converse seeing an enemy shield formation taking fire from your own forces without damaging said formation could be a morale blow for the enemy. *True, yes, you may loose your shield if a javelin gets stuck in the shield but then the shield has already done its job and potentially saved your life.
Love you content matt. I wanted to make a suggestion on a topic that I can't find very much information about. Fights involving the defense of colours or flags.
I love that he's giving this in-depth lecture about the physics and historical martial application of these weapons while he's dressed like he's about to take his kid fishing.
On a vaguely related note, is there anything a Renaissance pike block could do against a dismounted group of men-at-arms? I know by that time they also had guns and cannons but, if we remove that from the equation, could they do anything at all except run away?
Great video - the Polybian legion and its units/tactics often gets short-shrift compared with the post-Marian legion. I personally find manipular legion more interesting. One thing to note - the Hellenistic phalanx give the manipular legion a very hard time in the Pyrrhic wars when first encountered (as did Pyrrhus’s war elephants) in 280 BC, as Pyrrhus handed the Romans two very costly defeats.
@scholargladiatoria can you comment on the use of round vs oval/rectangular shields as people seem to be more tall than wide so an oval/ rectangular design seems more reasonable.
The other reason for not moving the shield so much is that legionnaires needed to save up energy and strain of their shield arm for the shield bash, which is what that brass bowl is for.
People need to remember that the scutum and gladius was the secondary attack, it was only used (ideally) after the pilla were thrown into the enemy formation, which caused disarray and allowed the Roman infantry to more effectively pierce a pike phalanx. Also the gladius and scutum combo was used in a response to their most dangerous enemies armies, the Greeks and Carthagians were known for pike phalanxes and the gladius and scutum with pilla were used to disrupt that formation. So when they conquered the Greeks and Carthagians they eventually went back to the scutum and spear (around early late 4th century AD) as the gladius and scutum outlived it’s usefulness.
Greeks and Carthaginians fought in many other ways though, like Gaul, Iberian and African mercenaries, Thureophoroi, Peltasts, etc, Romans didnt just develop to face pikes, nor did they face them for the majority of their time using Scutums and Pila.
There is little evidence that Carthage used pikes at the time of Hannibal. His Lybyian spearmen were most likely armed in a similar manner to the triarii.
You mention the pilum almost incidentally. I suggest that this heavy throwing spear was the decisive factor in defeating like phalanxes of the Macedonian successors. Inhibited from using even their small shields effectively, they must have been very vulnerable to a volley of these weapons. Disrupted just before impact, the scrum would have allowed the legionaries to get between the rows of pikes and get stuck in with short swords. I suspect that trying to do so without having thrown pila first would have been much less effective.
Yep, I agree with that. The weakness of a pike unit has always been ranged attacks, since they can't hold a big shield. Along with disrupting the formation with pila, I think the gladius and scutum were better able to exploit any natural gaps that formed between pike units, say on the advance. I think it is interesting that Pyrrhus of Epirus put skirmishers between units of his pikemen when fighting the Romans, to allows his line to expand and contract without creating openings, while retaining the powerful push of the pike.
Pike phalanxes were actually fairly resistant to missiles, as the back rows formed a sort of screen in front and above the projectiles could be deflected, knocked off course or slowed down, making it easier for the phalangites to withstsnd them with their armor. As for getting between the rows, there were several more spear tips waiting behind the first row, it wouldn't be as easy as it might seen.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 That is only true against projectiles that came in certain angle towards the 6th and beyond ranks, but the 5 first ranks of the phalanx were holding their pikes towards the enemy, they didn't have any protection against projectiles.
I wonder how differently formation and close ranks combat played into things. So much hema and martial combat training is applicable more to sparring then close order drill and killing. In close ranks, I'd imagine the shield wall land keeping it whole was Paramount in the initial battering of the enemy.
Well that didn't die out even in Imperial period, since Auxiliaries were also deployed alongside the legions--in Imperial period while the stick they used was the pilum, for the flanks where Auxiliaries were often positioned they still made use of spears albeit of different shape of shield
It seems like the large shield and long spear would be best against a mixed force of archers, cavalry and infantry. If you had the long spear AND a short sword, and a decent helmet with a big shield, you'd pretty much be the tank of the ancient battlefield
I think the main difference is actually the stance of Rome at the time. Early republic (slow growth) and late empire (decline) are more defensive whereas later republic and early empire is a more aggressive expansion period
Probably not so much while a shieldwall was still cohesive. With respect to the triarii, they normally lined up in a single rank, which means there would be no impediment behind them to handling the spear underarm.
Sorry guys, this is way offtopic but I just watched this short film called Simulation here in YT and in 15:00 comes this actor and at first I was sure it was Matt - but he isn't, his name is Bruce Woolley. I think the resemblance is quite uncanny, what do you think? :D
I've heard of a theory, that says the Triarii (most hardened veterans, longest service) were in the last line because a) they were the oldest troops in the formation and had earned their laurels b) they actively prevented the Hastati (and Pricipes) from routing. That appears to make sense, i've always asked myself why the republican battleorder had the spearmen in the last line.
So I am curious if I have any misconceptions on the late roman warfare. I assume they focused on killing each other especially by the time of Diocletian. And I am just curious if they had any innovative changes in tactics after Augustus. Or the Marian reforms.
@@tl8211 Yep, here's one a few centuries before the Romans made it cool. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyreophoroi#/media/File:Thueros_affresco.jpg Considering how Greek armies were increasingly made up of guys with center grip shields even before Phillip II made hoplites obsolete and the fact that the Romans themselves used various center grip shields for nearly a thousand years, I think it's safe to say the Aspis is not the best shield for spear use.
I’m glad Matt has brought up the subject of Triarii. It gives me the opportunity to bring up a point that has puzzled me. The popular image is off the Republican Roman reserve kneeling as if this is a suitable resting position. If you think this is feasible, try getting down on one knee and see how long you can stay there before fidgeting, swopping knees and then standing up to gain relief. Am l on to something or am l missing the mark?
It really is a matter of habit, compare it to sitting in a Japanese manner. It's incredibly uncomfortable when not accustomed to it but if you do most of your resting sitting that way it will get more and more comfortable. Back to the Roman reserves, kneeling allows you to get the weight of your equipment off you and onto the ground whilst still allowing you to stand up quickly, probably not much slower than just taking one step forward. Mind you that this is just speculation and I have no historical evidence or basis for this.
Matyas Wejdemar Point taken and appreciated. Would our Romans remain on one knee for an hour?, 2 hours? I know it may be thought unmilitary but why not just sit down and rest properly or, failing that, stay upright. There you can fidget and move keeping the blood circulating. Their shields and spears would be resting on the ground. They campaigned in armour so that would hardly be noticed by them. With a little active service of my own to draw on, fully laden in training we stopped on one knee, observing arcs. Come the real thing we sat taking the (considerable) weight off still being vigilant. On the ancient battlefield, the reserve might have a very long wait.
This. It's really annoying to see everyone say the "GLADIUS replaced the hasta', when the evidence shows Romans (and pretty much every other civilized people) using swords alongside their thrusting spears all long.
@@DLockholm Right... so the short stabbing and cutting swords that are documented on the belts of soldiers across the Mediterranean as sidearms were nonexistant in Italy, and the Romans were only carrying spears until they decided to adopt the pilum and gladius and lose the hasta...
@@DLockholm The hispanic style short stabbing sword replacing the hellenic style short stabbing sword (both were called "gladius") doesn't change the fact that it was the pilum that replaced the hasta.
What is often forgotten is that a pilum is, well, a spear. The lighter type not so much, but the heavier one can be used as a spear quite comfortably, and there are documented cases of such. With that in mind, I think the tactical idea for an individual soldier was to use throwing pila as thrown projectiles, and then either use the heavy pilum as a spear when facing cavalry, or throw it at close range and use a sword to walk into pike blocks. This would result in percieved shift to sword and shield when facing mostly infantry armies, and perceived shift to spear and shield when going against cavalry (e.g. Parthian campaign, late Roman frontier). The key tactical development was someone making the Roman army disciplined and motivated enough to go into a close melee against spear blocks, probably during the republican era.
And swords existed alongside melee specific spears for a long time prior to the pilum, no sword replaced the hasta. I'd argue though that we see the melee focused spear reintroduced when lighter missile alternatives like plumbata make it viable, and spears were definitely used against infantry. Hannibals best troops were his Lybian spearmen, and they killed a whole lot of Roman "swordsmen". The Romans themselves had auxiliary troops with hasta like the Batavi, and they whooped the regular legions sent against them when they revolted.
If your formation had phylum and launched them at 20 steps from enemy phalanx, many of their shields would suddenly get useless. Then you pull gladius and attack. But closing distance between pikes still required good training and good armor for all soldiers in formation, something possible only post-Marian reforms.
I wonder if the spear to gladius transition was also because of the force augmentation was improving with auxiliary archers and anti-personnel ballistas.
The gaps in the shields the Trojans use in Troy (and I've seen somewhere in artifacts, I think...) occur to me, when you speak about ducking the head behind the shield when attacked. At 1 and 3/4 minutes into this example: ruclips.net/video/NEDWpbmFY6o/видео.html I always thought the gap was to position the spear shaft in, like a couched lance, for bracing charges or ease of making a phalanx or lazy repetitive stabbing all day etc. Now I'm thinking, that it might be to be able to still see somewhat and not be blinded, every time at attack comes at the head. Just a guess, if such shields were even really a thing. IMHO, that's what people will learn to do quickly; go for above the shoulder and below the knee - because the shield doesn't move fast. Then the head is constantly "pinned down" and one can try to finish it etc. I liked having my "tower shield" in LARP on a typical horizontal strap and bar system, because I could raise and lower it better and keep it out with less fatigue (we also, in our tweenage Diablo and Final Fantasy minds, knew of no other system lolz!). Granted tho, my shield would be about 1 AC less rated than a true scututm, because it was smaller and had no curve (or boss). I also wore a boxing glove "gauntlet" on only my left hand, because my fingers and shield hand were so exposed right on the edge. But I never had to duck behind like you show here, I simply raised my shield up, and could lower it down. I learned that cowering behind my shield just got me attacked from all over, especially above. It also made "backfists" with the shield very easy to shove weapons and people away and to the side while I moved around, or to just shoulder the thing and bull rush like American football (a friend with ZERO melee knowledge almost broke my back in the first 30 seconds of me giving him me own shield, because I fell down on the metal fire ring of our backyard campsite that we'd forgotten in the shin high summer grass!). A friend, who played a barbarian, made a horrific specialized weapon to defeat me and my accursed shield (I was the only person to use such). A two handed poleax halbred THING called the Mangler 3000 - it got a whole new damage level category lol. The front was a typical but giant reverse curve halbred blade, the top a short spike, and the back had a long thin hook, that I allowed him to measure out perfectly. Whenever I raised my shield to block, the hook would still come over the top and hit me in the head even if I ducked a bit (good thing I had a Vietnam era steel pot helmet, a magic artifact by our hardware store gear standards!), but would eventually do enough damage to break the armor and kill me, and of course hook my shield down out of the way. The spike on the other other of the Mangler 3000 reminds me of Alexander's sarissa. Good times...
Matt I think you should also make mention of something: The Trarii in the Republican Army of the Punic War (I call it the Polybian Legions, but Late-Middle Republican Legions could also work?) might have been the only units in the Roman Army that used the Hasta (Roman spear) and Scutum in conjunction, but if we look back even earlier to the Middle Republic the *entire* Roman heavy infantry would have been carrying Spears and Scutum, not just the Trarii. We can even see this in some of the names that survived into later Roman forces, even though the Hastati in the Punic wars and beyond carried a Gladius and Scutum their name (obviously deriving from Hasta) clearly shows that they did at some point fight equipped with Spears.
They were in kings/eary republican times, when the Roman army fought in hoplite fashion, with spear and round shield. The hastati were the soldiers that, thus fighting in the phalanx, could not afford a complete armor, so were kept in the back lines, behind the principes. The legionary formation was adopted at sometime during the Samnite wars.
@@neutronalchemist3241 Um no. So for starters the Roman Army probably never actually fought in a Phalanx, that's probably an anachronism of the late-Republican and Early-Imperial historians misinterpreting evidence. The Maniple system probably grew organically out of a more fluid Italian system of warfare that dominated central Italy around 400BC. The Triarii where the remnants of the old Warlord-Clan based armies (as I said that dominated central Italy) while the Hastati and Principes both seem to have derived from the Urban Community emergency levees that became intigrated into Romes overall strategy around this time. Either way, the use of the Hasta by Hastati and Principes continued well into the 3rd century BCE, long after the Maniple strucutre had become the norm.
@@dernwine Ancient historians were less idiots than some modern historian gives them credit for. Actually there are no evidences for all those "probably", while Rome, culturally, grew at the conjunction of the Greek and Etruscan world, two cultures that used hoplite formation fight. Much of modern historians accepts Roman use of the hoplite phalanx until the early stages of the Samnite wars (J.E. Lendon for one).
@@neutronalchemist3241 For starters when you start your post with the word "idiot" in the first sentence you undermine your arguments. Nobody is claiming they whree idiots, just ethnocentric and products of their own time and thus apt to interpret the past in some rather suspect ways. There's a lot of evidence for those probablies, both iconographic, archaeological and within inconsistencies found in the source texts, I am not going to list them here because there's 400 page books explaining them that I don't want to reprint. In another thread I recommended Jeremy Armstrongs War and Society in Early Rome for the most current and up to date evidence. Remember modern scholarship is now casting questions on the idea that the Phalanx was even fully developed in the Greek world by 450BCE, let alone spread to Italy where it was supposedly going out of fashion by then (and whether the Etruscans used it either is still a very open question). J.E. Lendon also published his work in 2006, and like many older Historians he simply takes Livy and Polybius at their word rather than disect the evidence and try to find out how warfare was actually conducted. But if you really want to believe that the "Phalanx" was in anachronistic use at the begining of the Republic and you decide you want to take the word of the ancient sources: Livy states that the use of round shields ended around the SIege of Veii, well before the Samnite Wars (and co-incidentally around the time that the old Warband armies and the new Community Army would have properly merged together).
@@dernwine For starters, demoting the work of actual historians that recently wrote on the specific subject, on the pretense that "they takes Livy and Polybius at their word" (that's a not even that polite way to call them incompetent), while your favourite thesis, that you call "modern scholarship" (because the ones that doesn't agree with it are... ancient? Outdated? Obsolete?) would be supported by "actual evidences" that you refuses to share, undermines your arguments much more than the use of the word "idiots". Central grip shields and phalanx formation can coexist BTW (the triarii demonstrated that, if it wasn't clear enough). Ancient historians were less idiots than you give them credit for.
Lol. I'm pretty sure I have that book that has the picture of the triarius. If you look through all of the illustrations you can find the likenesses of several celebrities including Brad Pitt and Sean Bean on soldiers from various times.
my reason to watch this is i found a spearhead a very old one , i live near top of mountain between moesia and thrace border these places were washed with blood probably charging mountain to mountain
The spear also allows you to threaten opponents not directly in front of you, in effect reducing the protection of the massive shield. I have read of many instances of the scutum and gladius meeting the hoplite or pikemen phalanx, but I do not remember any case where the phalanx was outmatched by "closing in". Rather by being outflanked or after losing cohesion due to uneven ground and such. I think the reason the spear became less popular has something to do with the discipline and experience required to maintain the "hedgehog formation". After all the triari were the most experienced and disciplined of the army.
The problem with that thought is that Roman Armies become more disciplined as we move from the Early Republic into the Later Republic not less. So if anything based on that assessment you'd expect the Romans to move *towards* spears rather than away from them (also spears and spear based formations are some of the easiest combat styles to teach inexperienced soldiers but that's another matter). *edit* Bear in mind until around the 3rd Century BCE the Hastati and Principes would have also carried spears, not just the Triarii. I suspect the changes in armament of the first two lines of the army in the 3rd century was more to do with the Plebian economic base (from which they where drawn) becoming more wealthy as Rome expanded, and adapting to what was already a rather fluid combat style that the Roman Legions had going for them (at least compared to the Phalanx). The Triarii on the other hand came from a class that was more traditionally warlike (initially at least) compared to the front two lines, so their retention of the Hasta probably had something to do with tradition, as well as their new emerging battlefield role.
@@dernwine I do not contest the tradition argument; after all the triarii were supposed to mostly observe. However I do contest the assumption that the spear and shield configuration and the phalanx formation are simple or basic. A spear is basic on each own, as a two-handed weapon, but when you only have one hand to handle it, it's a beast. Lindybeige has a video where it's shown that even very competent hema practitioners find it exceedingly difficult. Threndgrand only shows the proper technique, and it is as complicated as it is murderous. He actually gets more penetration than with a two-handed spear. But when we get to the phalanx things get even more complicated. 1. it absolutely must not present gaps 2. it cannot be allowed to veer to the right 3. it should not pursue fleeing enemies 4. it needs to coordinate with cavalry or light infantry to cover its flanks 5. soldiers perform coordinated attacks; archaeological evidence suggests that hoplites aimed for the rim of the enemy's shield, which if struck hard enough will cause the shield to rotate slightly, exposing the enemy's opposite side to another hoplite, for a brief moment. The fact that they did this systematically betrays an insane level of training. Sorry for the long answer :P, although I'll hold that it still is pertinent to suggest that maybe the Romans thought there simply were too many things that could go wrong with the phalanx, and it was smarter to keep things simple.
@@NoFuture396 The Triarii where only to mostly observe by the end of their existence, you need to bear in mind that initially the Triarii where the evolution of the primary fighting arm of the Roman Army. Some problems with what you say: 1. Most formations must not present gaps. The Phalanx/shield wall is one of the easiest ways get soldiers not to create gaps. 2. Most formations can't be allowed to veer to the to one side. the Aspis equipped phalanx has this tendency (specifically to the right) more than others but it's still present in other formations. 3. No heavy Infantry formation should break to persue enemies if there are still enemies on the field (a phalanx can break ranks to join the pursuit if the entire enemy army is defeated.) A Roman Maniple running off after a fleeing enemy creates a big problem just as part of a Phalanx does. 4. Legions need to co-ordinate with cavalry and light infantry too, as does any heavy infantry force. 5. Soldiers did preform co-ordinated attacks, but this isn't necessary. It's the difference between a professional well drilled phalanx that is used to working with each other and a fresh levee phalanx, it's not critical to a phalanxes ability to operate. The Phalanx/Shield wall, although not easy and yes requires training, remains one of the easiest formations to master for a citizen militia. Part of the reason the Phalanx is easy to teach is because it's rigidity. It's certainly easier than the Roman Maniple system as it was in the Republic of the Punic wars (though not for earlier armies necessarily) which required a lot of drilling in complicated tactical movements and commands in order to maintain their flexibility. No combat formation for heavy infantry is simple, but a Phalanx/Shield wall armed with spears is the simplest one you can teach. Spears are difficult to handle for someone who is used to using a sword, spears are, compared to swords especially, really simple to teach a beginner (so many issues with swords that you need to bear in mind that do not apply to a pointy stick, this is one of the reasons why spears where so ubiquitous in history). There was a reason my re-enactment group always taught spear *first* before we let people move on to other things. Ignoring the fact that the Romans probably never fought in a phalanx: The Maniple system is in no way simpler than the Phalanx. It has way more moving parts, way more command and control issues, fighting in it for the individual soldier requires way more situational awareness. *Edit* again my central argument was less that the Phalanx is easy, that was just an aside, but that if the Phalanx was so hard to master the Roman Army, as it became more experienced would find it easier to fight in, not less, and so we can't take that as an explanation for the abandonment of the spear by the Legions in the 3rd Century, or by the Triarii in the 1st Century.
@@dernwine Interesting points all. Well heavy infantry is heavy infantry, so one should expect they share similar vulnerabilities. Still I maintain that the maniple configuration was more forgiving being versatile, whereas the phalanx was more specialized, so a high risk - high reward approach. I am afraid I know little to none of reenactment, but as far as sparring in a hema context goes, I think the last thing you would want is novices practising with spears or staffs; even with good protective gear they are still too dangerous. Besides the scutum and gladius style is much simpler than a single-strap shield and sword, i.e. the viking variant, since the latter allows more lines of attack. Are you even supposed to parry with the gladius? In contrast the over-hand spear requires excessive parrying, since you are threatened at minimum by 4 people at any time. Now pikes yes, those I see being much simpler. I mean what technique could you possibly apply to them? Maybe as you said it had more to do with tradition versus newer fashions. Or maybe the undisputed versatility of the maniples was the key to deal with Rome's contemporary enemies. As Matt says, it's all about context.
@@dernwine Those disciplined Roman "swordsmen" were also bested by their own similarly well trained Auxiliary Batavi and Illyrian units (armed with hasta) when they revolted, not to mention Hannibal's Libyan spearmen. The third century saw the adoption of the plumbata, which was a missile weapon light enough to allow the carrying of a melee spear once again. I think the move to pilum in the Republican period was mostly due to the large number of skirmishing troops the Romans faced in Italy. As the Spartans learned at Sphacteria, a melee focused spear is useless against an enemy that bombards you with javelins and melts away before you can reach them. The Triarii may be superior in melee to the principes and hastati, but the latter two can meet skirmishing light troops or cavalry with their own javelins.
Have you released any material or thoughts on ramming for the phalanxes in roman armies? 20 men wide, shields front, heavy, fast and agressive buggers with gladiuses doesn't sound like a picnic
A pike-phalanx was able to defeat a Roman formation in frontal combat on good going. The long pikes would plant their tips in the shield and press the legionary back. Unless the phalanx split or was flanked (the latter happened more often than the first), the legionary could not beat a phalangite.
Romans used this combination in their early days when they fought like a phalanx. Then they got problems with the samnites (italy hill tribe) who used throwing spears like the pilum. Then they changed their tactic until they got a professional army at which time auxillaries used your spear, shield and a longsword. This stayed more or less until the later roman times when the military was reformed again (mercenaried, limenates and so on). My guess is the reason for this is that the type of fights they where in changed (not mainly big battles anymore but smaller skymishes, raids with a handfull of people and such things) as well as their use of other range weapons (bow, throwing arrows...).
You got it the other way around, they used a more traditional single line hoplite phalanx before facing the Samnites between 340-290 BC and then they switched to the maniple system which included the three ranks of infantry types, they fought that way all the way to the Jugurthine and Cimbrian wars where Marius reformed the legion again in 106 BC.
@@mrd7067 It's not clear when the transition to swords actually happened but Roman legionaries were described to be using them in the second Punic war so there was likely a period in which manipular armies still had their Hastatii and Principes using Hastas before that
@@gabrielinostroza4989 To my understanding they always had swords/blades as a secondary (even velites). My guess is they had greek types before they went to the gladius. Has been a while though.
@@mrd7067 generally yes, swords were sidearms in the ancient world, mostly a standard that the Greek hoplites set, though they could be the main weapon for some cultures and kinds of warrior.
You can throw a Hasta but that is like throwing your m-16 rifle at the enemy… guess you can…. Rather silly. If auxilia switch to long sword (spatula) just drop you hasta… throwing it, they can throw it back. Late Roman use hasta and flat shields, gave up on Pilum and the expensive curved Scutum. And the Gladius went away and all use long , thicker Spatha.
The shield vs pike argument is not necessarily true. The Romans got their butt whooped by pike formations first. Then they came out victorious by luring them in rough terrain while keeping OPEN order against which the Macedonians couldn't win a conclusive fight. When trying to close frontally the romans were defeated by the sarissa like everybody else. It was their initiative and flexibility which won those confrontations.
That is uncertain, the big shield can easily protect you. Sarissas were pretty long, 7 meters in most cases, but a long pole is difficult to keep in place specially when you are holding it parallel to the ground from one of the extreme ends, so in theory I can push aside the pike with ease and the other guy would have to raise the pike and then try to put it in the same place, but I'm in the way so he would have to drop the pike and draw his sword or keep it raised, but there is another pike in front of me and then another 3 successive pikes, I think that it would take coordinated teamwork to push our way through and keep the points above us or behind us, but remember that the pikemen where continuously supported by javelins and arrows so that makes the whole thing harder. Of course, this is theory but it can be done because a pike is useless when the head of the spear is behind me or above me. A good simulation can verified this, I haven't see any tbh, which is very strange due the big reenactment groups that we have nowadays but well.
@@DLockholm we don't need a simulation since history is enough. Frontally the sarissa was unbeaten, even for the Romans. It is true that the Macedonian phalanx needed more support than the Roman phalanx which was its vulnerability. But when we look which course history took then we have to acknowledge that the pike came back strong as the ultimate formation weapon in the late middle ages. If sword and shield was so successful why was it abandoned? On the grand scheme of things the Romans were the only people that were victorious with a sword and shield combination, no one did that as modus operandi.
@@pinocchio418 That is biased tho, and against the scientific method too. Is worth to mention that a lot of ancient historians didn't give specific details and they also were biased as fuck so, irrelevant is the thing that u are pointing out.
How effective was the roman pilum at removing people's shields ? Did they stick in them and bend making the unwieldy? Did this lead more to the use of the sword as you're then fighting enemies with a long weapon and no shield?
thegnthrand has several videos where they throw pilums at shields. Search and you'll see. The effects varied with the pila. They weren't always made the same way. Some have soft shafts and some have stiff ones. Pila were thrown. Just 15-30m away and followed by a massed charge or thrown at a charging enemy formation. The barbed tips can make removal harder, not in time before the Romans reach the shield holder. The stuck javelin makes the shield unwieldy so people need to throw it away.
I think you're wrong here about a few things. The first thing is that when people talk about Romans generally (which is very difficult to do because of the time scale involved) they tend to miss out on the (common) exceptions - there are numerous accounts of Romans using large two handed spears (pikes I guess) in situations that it was felt called for it, including in the republic era, Marcus Furius Camillus was a fan of them for example, later on auxillia were often the majority of a legion and often carried large spears and there are various accounts of Romans using their javelins as hand-held spears (battle of pharsalus for example) against cavalry - and why not, it is a spear. Second thing is that the Scutum did not nullify pikes and allow the Romans to close in to defeat the pike-men - that isn't what happened in any of those battles. In any battle where a macedonian pike phalanx went toe to toe with roman infantry (which the romans tried to avoid) the initial result was the Romans being resoundingly beaten in the initial clash. In such engagements any roman soldier in the front ranks was facing 5-10 (probably 10) pike tips before he could get to a phalangite with his sword - those pikes tips slammed against his shield, turning the shield into a battering ram which then drove the romans back in a near immediate retreat, killing quite a few of them. The Romans won those battles through a combination of disciplined refusal to let the battle end there, letting the phalanxes pursue them into difficult terrain where they (phalanx) couldnt keep formation and then regrouping (the romans) and making rapid maneuvers onto the phalanxes flanks and gaps once they were exposed. If the Phalanxes formed square to avoid being out flanked the romans rained missile weapons on the square till they broke and ran. Despite its toe to toe power the phalanx wasnt then adopted by the romans - why? Because its conditions for success in battles were too numerous; flat terrain, no exposed flanks, only a threat when moving, needs to be supported by cavalry and anything that needs supporting cavalry to win depends upon its cavalry beating the enemy cavalry every time and cavalry was not a roman strength.
well, anyway, I do think it's a real concept, that soldiers of then were like soldiers of today. YOu don't get to where two opponents are going to have a match against eachother. You instead, get to where YOU can safely attack the opponent without danger of being attacked. If we had a good grasp on the basic strategies of the basic weapons, then we can imagine when one would be better than the other. For example, if you are going to stab at people who are in front of you, you use a spear. If you are going to stab at people up against you, you use a dagger. if you are going to stab at people who are pressed up against your shield, you use a sword. but basically, you use your shield formation to make sure that you are safe from being stabbed, and then when theres something you can stab from where you are nice and safe, you stab it. Everything else you do is to try and get to where you can safely stab. (if the plan is to stab them). If they have a shield wall,, you can't stab them. You have to do something that lets you stab them (which is where the idea of rucking to shove them over comes from, because now you can stab them while they are being pushed over., and a sword will work equally well to stab someone at your feet as it will to stab someone squeezed onto your shield)
They were often the principes' and hastatis' fathers, and the velites' grandfathers. When it was really raining shit, their last due was to hold position (being quite old and eavily armed, they had not much possibilities to flee anyway) to ensure their sons will survive.
This is hoplite warfare meaning that it's about formation fighting, concentrating spear tips into as small a front as possible. If you're swinging the spear around, you're not doing it right, it's about stabbing over the enemy shield wall. Also, remember that we are a culture no longer used to wearing armour, which means we don't have confidence in its reliability and thus we can envision just allowing the enemy to hit us on the armored side and trusting that it will hold. You can see Matt has no choices defensively, other than just taking shots on his left. This isn't 1v1 fighting or the equipment for it.
You shouldn't underestimate the value of the pilum. Not only could it kill or injure enemies from a distance weakening formations, it could also disable an enemies shield leaving him vulnerable.
A gladius is also much lighter and easier to carry (it just hangs in its scabbard). On the march it frees up your hand so you can carry supplies. And the post-Marian-reform legionaries famously carried all they needed themselves. A shield-and-spear may very well be better in the actual fight but it also meant it was all you could carry and you needed a baggage train which means some men have to just be concerned with the supplies and fewer men are available on the front line. A gladius-and-shield, even if it is less effective for the individual soldier (which can be argued), if it means more soldiers, who are more mobile strategically and don't have to be concerned with the vulnerable baggage train - it wins out strategically. If the choice is between 10k spearmen in the battle with 5k in the baggage train (some of them armed to protect it) or 15k gladius-wielders who are just 80% as effective as thespearmen (and I'm almost certain that this is an undervalue), then simple maths gives it to the gladius-equipped army, so long as providing all the other equipment (armour, shields) is possible. There is also the little matter of thrown weapons - javelins/pilums (pilae?) and/or darts/plumbatae. With a sword in a scabbard you can have your projectiles at hand, chuck them at the enemy at the right time (normally at the last moment) then quickly draw the sword and be ready for melee. I'm not sure you can do that with a spear as the main weapon. You can throw the spear itself, sure, but then you'd have to draw your sidearm (sword/dagger) and we're back at it.
Except that that free hand is taken up by two pila (Pilum is Neutral Subjective Singular, Pila would be the plural, for it to be Pilae as a plural it would have to be a Feminine Subjective) as well as your Furca. So there isn't really a practical difference in terms of your free hand between 1x Pilum and 1x Hasta for early Roman Legionary and 2x Pila for a Post Marian Legionary. Also you can hold your Hasta in your Shield hand while you throw your Pilum and then grab it from your off hand. Overall, especially in the earlier Roman armies where the change from Hasta to Sword happened en masse, I don't think there was that sort of centralised thought process going on in the Roman state (remember these soldiers where not full time soldiers and generally equipped themselves). Yes Marius's reforms in 100BCE probably did away with the last vestiges of the Triarii (or maybe just recognised a reality on the ground), but that's just the end of a long trend that had started in the 3rd Century. Instead I suspect it has a lot to do with the economics facing the population base that these soldiers where drawn from, combined with different links to tradition in the different population groups. The Triarii where probably drawn from a Socio-Economic group that had a much older link to warfare than the Hastati and Principes so there may have been a "This is how we always fought" mentality going on there in addition to the slightly different battlefield and psychological use of the Triarii.
@@dernwine There was no change from hasta to sword... it was from hasta to pilum. Pretty much every civilized army had swords on their hip at the time. Even persian archers had swords centuries before this.
@@TheChiconspiracy Aside from the fact that as I said Hasta and Pilum are not mutually exclusive (even the old descriptions of the Class system mentions that lower class soldiers carried hasta and pila at the same time) "at the time"? We are talking about a massive time span here, between the first large Roman armies and the adoption of the Marian system is span of 300 years. No the sword was not carried by every civilised nation soldiers, especially not ones where the soldiers where part time levees required to provide their own equipment. Early forms of Hastati and Principes would usually carry some form of back up, but if and what that was would largely have been up to them.
@@dernwine I meant civilized armies in the Mediterranean... Hellenic armies were carrying swords on their hips centuries earlier, and not just the wealthy hoplites but the thyrophoroi, which republican Roman troops are essentially a variant of. The Persian archers at Marathon had swords. Swords were not that expensive at the time... Even the velites carried swords as Polybious tells us, "The youngest soldiers or velites are ordered to carry a sword, javelins, and a target"
@@TheChiconspiracy Centuries earlier? What period do you think I'm talking about? Thureophoroi appear only in the 200's BCE, the earliest forms of the Hastati and Principes go back to about 450BCE, the socio economic situation in 3rd Century Greek city states and 5th Century central Italy do not compare well. Even more so when you compare the Royal Army of the greatest empire in the world to the citizen soldiers of a minor city state beyond the fringes of the civilized world. Swords are always expensive, the bronze alone costs quite a bit of money, and for a citizen-soldier it would always have been a question of whether it was worth spending that money on a back up weapon or if you'd spent it better on improvements to the business at home. Again the legions of Polybius in 200BCE are not a great model for the earlier legions of 450-300BCE, the centralisation of the state, attitude to the army, and socio-economic reality of those serving is markedly different.
Afaik the widespread use of the Scutum(as opposed to Aspis/Clipeus/hopliteshield) went hand in hand with the decline of the importance of the Triarii. While this decline was most likely brought on by sorting Infantry Types by age instead of purely wealth and reduction of the number of Triarii Maniples this should be noted when evaluating the military success of Spear+Scutum.
TBH the Scutum over Aspis probably has more to do with the democratization of the Army rather than changes in combat styles (think once you allow lots of Plebs into the army from the lower strata of society then they also need cheaper equipment, a scutum is both cheaper and probably psychologically more comforting than an Aspis). Also while the Aspis certainly was used in the Armies of the Rex and Early Republic it never was universal and various Italian designs, both square and round center grip, where in use from a very early period indeed.
@@dernwine While I agree with your base assumption(social change over tactical change) I think you will find that Triarii always were Plebeans, and "opening the floodgates" to the poor would not have affected the Triarii as much as the Hastati and Principes, tho Internal changes of the criteria however did. It is safe to assume that (as you alluded to) the shift was very gradual as the equipment was the warriors private property. In addition the Triarii as a group were certainly rather conservative and both they and their Aspises had a very low turnover. When you're in the last battleline it is unlikely that your shield gets trashed and if you're rich and bored your shield will, in case of your demise or retirement, be most likely to be taken up by the younger generation(be it as recovered loot or an heirloom). But that's not actually the point, the point is that the Spear+Scutum Style was mainly used at a time where the Triarii had already declined in military potential. This is only limited to Triarii tho, Other groups were quite fond of the safety of a long stick and a door to protect you from baddies aswell, which is why we see such styles all around... the world really. And not just in backliners but in the bulk of many armies.
@@carlpult5235 That's if you are taking Livy at his word, however modern historiography is offering a different view of it (I recommend War and Society in Early Rome by Jeremy Armstrong if you are interested). In the new view the Triarii (along with the Roarii and Acensii) are the remnants of an older, patrician and patrician clientele only army that dominated Roman Warfare up to about 450-400BCE, after which the increased demands on the military class along with the changing nature of warfare (particularly the profit derrived from warfare) meant that the plebian classes (still land owners just not directly associated with the Patricians) where involved in warfare. Assuming the more current view is correct the change from a family based warband style army to a community army probably was what caused the change in equipment from high cost to more democratic lower cost (it also offers an explanation of why the Triarii where at the back, to push perhaps less disciplined and reluctant plebs in front of them though that's a somewhat nasty interpretation). *edit* The opening of the flood gates I refer to of course would change the Hastati and Principes more, but that's because they where created by that. However the creation of a massive new portion of the army would naturally also have a big effect on the nature of arms and armour within the older, more established army, especially as time went on. Either way the Spear and Scutum style was not just in use for the Triarii btw, the Manniple style legions developed (as I mentioned) sometime between the latter half of the 5th century and the first half of the 4th Century BCE, but the Spear and Scutum remained in use by the Hastati and Principes until the 3rd Century. The Triarii where simply the last part of the army to abandon the spear (probably with Marius reforms, potentially earlier if Marius was just descriptive rather than prescriptive, which is entirely possible). So it's kind of difficult to say that it was mainly used when the Triarii had declined in military potential.
@@dernwineThank you for the Book suggestion. I must admit my time with the topic lies before 2016 and I did not read that one. It obviously is an issue of gradual changes, tho I would argue that one cannot call the "pre camillian" Top-level Infantry "triarii" as they were surely not called that(as they were not the "third" of anything). And you will notice that I did not argue that the Triarii did not "evolve" from a non-plebian Unit. PS: why would you assume I did not know, about Hastati and Principes using spears? You'd get that far from Videogames or basic latin alone :D Tho this is even more ... indicative of my point as these high-turnover groups abandoned spears even sooner.
@@carlpult5235 No worries, as you pointed out it's a relatively new book (*edit* it's also a academic work so it's stupidly expensive and difficult to read XD ) and the entire argument about the development of the Roman Army along these lines seems to be a long way from reaching popular culture, so I'm quite happy to try to spread the word :). I wouldn't call them Triarii in a pre-Maniple context either, they're just the main heavy infantry arm of the Romans, but it's sometimes use full to use the word when talking about the time when things where changing since there was definitely continuity between the Pre-Maniple/Pre-Camillian Warbands and the Triarii. I just assumed that you where not aware of the use of the Hasta by the Hastati and Principes because of the phrase " the Spear+Scutum Style was mainly mainly used at a time where the Triarii had already declined in military potential." I read that as referring to the post Punic era when the Triarii really became a bit of an Appendix to the army, and it seemed to suggest you where not aware of the use of spears by earlier formations. Since clearly misunderstood your point I apologize.
I would personally rather have scutum and spear with gladius as a sidearm in combat. But for a huge army like the Romans there will always be a lot of troops in the back row where the pililum works better.
Can you talk about why large shields did not come back into prominence during the early 16th century? I know there were units of sword and shield that worked but were not adopted large scale, but why wasn't that an innovation explored? Firearms?
Many of the front line troops of this period had plate armor that provided very good protection. Only two handed pole weapons had a chance to defeat them. Hence the proliferation of pikes and halberds and the gradual disappearance of shields and one handed weapons.
You have a Hasta… thrusting spear. You would not use a Scutum. You use a lighter, thinner auxillia shield. Do not use Trajan’s column… they made the shield small so you can see the soldiers…. Plus auxilia using Dragon teeth on their chain maille… so the public knows they are non-citizens. Forts on the frontier, were Auxilia were stationed, their artwork does not show dragon teeth nor the few chain maille shirts found.
A couple of off the wall random thoughts here: The Germanic tribes should have come up with some kind of hook that they could have used to hook the feet of the legionaries. = @ ) You mention that it is "very hard" to counter these shields. That has been my experience with even smaller shields. Obviously, you cannot flank individuals, when they are in formation. It makes me wonder about the degrees of protection would you say that one is nearly as invulnerable, wielding a shield like this, in formation, in a purely frontal confrontation, as one would be if one were wearing full plate? I would guess that the degree of protection from the plate armor would be better, because it has all round protection and you are not as dependent on your comrades protecting you. Many of the ancient battles involved thousands of soldiers. It is interesting to think that medieval armies were probably cheaper due to their armor. Sure the armor would have been expensive, but it still would probably have been less expensive than hiring say 100 spearmen for the duration of a long campaign. Obviously, some warriors were obligated to serve, but you still had to feed and clothe them. In a way medieval armies may have been more cost-effective than ancient armies, just because of the armor.
Could there be a psychological aspect in that if you have a long weapon you are less inclined to close. By equipping their troops with only short range weapons roman generals forced their men to close range. This would be paticularly terrifying to opponents trained in stand off spear and shield vs spear and shield poking matches.
5:32 it's heavy. HOW HEAVY? When you mention that waving it around will tire your shield arm rapidly, I believe you're thinking of those who don't spend a lot of time carrying any considerable weight, whereas professional soldiers of the day did exactly that. I'm retired now but when I was working I thought nothing of carrying ten or twenty pounds of tools in my left hand all day not to mention hoisting fifty to sixty pounds up to shoulder height thirty or more times a day. How long could I have waved that shield around before getting tired?
While this is true to some degree, we also have to compare like with like. Most historical shields are much lighter than a Roman shield. Obviously the larger the shield, the heavier the shield tends to be, unless they are made thinner. The Roman shield is towards the heavier end of the spectrum of shields from all of history, though medieval pavises are even heavier.
The Aspis or Greek hoplite shield was c16-20lb & the sctumn as similar weight. When I used to do labouring, tree felling etc I soon found that fit, strong guys could handle gear like this all day once accustomed. It was also used as a battering-ram to knock enemies over when all your weight was put behind it. I think the earlier oval sutum would've been easier to handle a Hasta(spear) with as it didn't have such squared corners which block spear thrusts, but a gentler oval profile with less dishing.
Matt looks like some low-level post-apocalise character with this spear, shield and modern winter clothing.
Pug2 looking clean
He looks ready to take the NCR in the second battle of Hoover dam
He just needs the shield to be a painted police shield and tie a glow stick on one end of the spear.
AVE! TRUE TO CEASAR!
Haha! Quite right! Brilliant!
0:45 :P
Roman Legionary goes into a bar.
Legionary: I'd like a martinus, please
Barman: Don't you mean a martini?
Legionary: If I'd wanted two drinks, I'd have ordered two.
"I'll have 5 drinks" "You put up 2 fingers" "What part of 5 don't you understand?"
LOL - my latin high school classes finally make sense 😃
Well done mate 😁😁😁🇮🇪
the proper name Martini is actually a plural.
Wayne and Shuster Fan Club represent;).
Updating my christmas list. Spear, spear, swords and shields.
Maybe some spam, too?
Where's the Bacon on your list?🤔
Don't forget sandals
On the topic of spears, I would love to see you talk about the Macedonian Sarissa... and maybe the Macedonian phalanx in comparison to the typical Greek phalanx (or maybe in comparison to the function of spears in a Roman Legion)
Followed by the Roman Comitatenses.
someone in the youtube hema community did but i dont remember which one it was. it was very interesting to hear the distinct differences in armor and how their way of fighting changed the weaknesses and advantages of each one. maybe metatron, but again not sure.
You are underestimating the roll that SuperDry played in keeping the legions warm and dry.
Post Constantine, 4th/5th century AD the Hasta and Lancea (heavy/light spears) were primary weapons of the Comitatenses (field armies) and Limitanei (garrison) infantry. The shields became oval/circular, lighter, one guesses easier to use a spear with.
Unlike the earlier Principate period, Dominate infantry would typically hold position, form an 8 rank shield wall. They would dart then spear on-rushing cavalry (or charging German infantry), while rear ranks used arrows and javelins to slow the charge, before joining the push themselves. Very effective units.
Yeah, it's stuff like that that blows my mind. The Romans used spears both early and late in their history, but for their peak, they switched to the Gladius. Why did they switch, and why did it work so well?
I tend to think it worked in spite of the gladius, or at least not because of it. The Romans has such great logistics, organization, and manpower, that they could have used almost any type of weapon and be successful, I think. But I want to know for sure. :P
@@shorewall Not true, they went from melee spear to pilum, then readopted the melee spear when smaller missile weapons like plumbata were introduced. I'd argue the reason is while the pilum isn't as good in melee as the hasta, it lets you fight against skirmishing infantry and cavalry that a melee only spear would leave you helpless against, and the Romans had LOTS of neighbors who liked throwing missiles.
@@TheChiconspiracy I think the transition back to spear also has to do a lot with who they were fighting against. If we're talking Eastern Roman Empire/ early Byzantine (pick your label of choice) they were facing a lot more cavalry on their eastern flank, and when it comes down to it a gladius just isn't a great weapon for taking on someone on a horse, no matter what you're holding in your other hand.
@@timothym9398 Except we see them fighting plenty of cavalry ridden by the Gauls and Germans even in Republican times, not to mention the Parthians. It's worth noting that Rome's enemies were getting more organized and improving their own infantry as time went on, like the Sassanids who fielded much better armed and trained melee infantry (the Daylam) as opposed to only fielding peasant fodder of the Parthians.
@@TheChiconspiracy Gauls and Germans aren't really cavalry powers. They were primarily infantry forces with some cavalry.
10:40 Another element in that evolution: "I'm closing in, so I'll use my gladius. Where can I put my spear? I can't just leave it on the ground, my comrades would trip over it. OK, I'll throw it at the enemies. Let's make it so that they can't throw it back. Hey mate! I've invented the pilum!"
Well it would have been the Samnites who had that idea originally, but it makes sense.
The pilum is older than that I think. For example the hastati used pila and would fight alongside triarii. Also a typical pilum wouldn't be any good as a melee weapon (although there were heavier versions that didn't bend)
@@Aetheraev hastati fought with a spear until some time in the late samnite wars were the Roman's adopted a style of equipment that was used by the samnites first.
Hastati stopped to use the lance in the moment the 3 division of Hastates , Triari and Princeps lost it sense and the 3 line of infantryman started to be used freely whitout any particular foemation or use. The hastati were the 3rd line and they were the veteran of the legion abd they were used only in dire strait. The first that started to use the 3 line in a free way was Scipion .
You can throw a Hasta but that is like throwing your m-16 rifle at the enemy… guess you can…. Rather silly. If auxilia switch to long sword (spatula) just drop you hasta… throwing it, they can throw it back. Late Roman use hasta and flat shields, gave up on Pilum and the expensive curved Scutum. And the Gladius went away and all use long , thicker Spatha.
I'd argue that a short spear (7ft or shorter) used overarm has some significant advantages over a short sword in power, leverage, and reach while still being able to fight at shield to shield distance if needed. Hannibal's Lybian spearmen used short spears (Polybyus describes their weapons as shorter than the Roman hasta) killed many times their number in Hastati and Principes, and the hasta armed Batavi and Illyrian Auxiliaries were able to inflict severe defeats on the regular Legionaries sent against them.
I've always felt the hasta was replaced with the pilum (until alternative missile weapons like plumbata came around) due to the large number of missile happy neighbors the Romans had. A hasta is superior in melee, but leaves you helpless against any kind of skirmishing troops or missile cavalry that have room to evade you. It makes me think of the earlier Battle of Sphacteria where the isolated Spartan hoplites were beaten by light Athenian troops who constantly bombarded them with missiles and would easily run away if charged. With their typical rear line position, I'm guessing the Romans hoped that most of the missiles would have already been expended by the time the Triarii entered into combat.
Now if you had like 5 darts you could set your 7 foot spear on the ground and launch them at enemy missile troops. Should enemy melee infantry/cavalry approach you'd still have the time to pick the spear up and change formations. That's what they moved on to later on.
One thing I mentioned in the comments of another video is that I think one motivator for sword and shield was it enabled the soldier to carry more pila when you're not lugging around that spear. You chuck a couple pila, disrupt the formation, close in. There's nothing necessarily precluding you from having a sword and you'd almost certainly want to carry a sword when you've got a spear. But carrying that spear does preclude you from carrying around a bunch of pila.
Nice! On a side note relating to the Triarii, I happen to like LindyBeige’s idea/theory that the Triarii in a social context within the Roman military culture, that they would also function in preventing the forward lines (ie Princeps, Velites) from retreating if they became overwhelmed. Paraphrasing Lindy: *spears out* “Hold on there, younger Roman, where do you think you’re going, get back in the fight and win, how do you think I managed to make it to this veteran status?” It’s an intriguing idea to help...motivate...comrades in the think/chaos of battle. Keep up the good work
I've been needing this ever since Rome Total War came out
TRIARII!!
It's come to the triarii 😨
Surprised he didn't mention that
It must be serious then.
The best combo of this scutum and spear I have ever fought with (SCA historical) was me with the scutum and a fishbat (short sword gladius type) tucked in so my hear was almost level with the grip and anchoring the shield while I had a spear wielder immediately behind me. (bridge battle) It was hilarious. I was flexible and he had a pot belly, so they couldn't hook the shield because I could stop them and he was destroying anyone who came close. I anchored three/four iterations of that shield wall being reinforced on the bridge. Small, strong female in plate mail ftw. 😂😂 It always made me wonder if that ever happened in history, having smaller fighters as just a huge shield /small sword supporting polearms. Dont just fight over my shoulder, fight OVER me.
Ok why does noone in sca ever usr spear an shield tho?
3:00 The Gaels called in air support! Find cover!!
Reminds me of how I used to lose almost every battle with the Rhodoks in Mount&Blade because most of my soldiers were simple spear men. Until I deployed the sharp shooters! :D
I loved that I learned that there is a technique for switching the grip/direction of the spear in your hand without Matt even mentioning it haha
I don't know why, but whenever I think of a subject, such as the use of the spear with the escuteon, Matt comes forward and talks about it, it has happened to me several times
It happens to me as well it's like he just know
Matt you need to keep in mind context. These weapons combinations were used in ranks. A heavily curved shield and a flat shield or use completely differently when in lines. The Roman shield your wielding When receiving a charge pushes the opponent to the gaps between the Shields. When this happens the gladius is the optimal weapon to stab them. Flatter Shields tend to work better with spears. Also you are correct when fighting in ranks you always duck your head rather than raising your shield. Raising your shield exposes the people to your right and left
The Triarii did use curve shields and phalanx
@@DLockholmdid they? The earlyer scutum Was mutch more flater and oval, you cant ovetlap shields if they are to curved, this Limits how tight the Formation can be
@@giftzwerg7345 There is no practical impediment when using a curved shield vs a flat shield.
Lets make the comparison fair: The greek aspis (also called hoplon) vs a regular round shield (for our purposes, viking shields). The hoplon has a convex shape, thus, half of your body is literally inside the shield, but if you look at it from above as a cross-section draw, it has the same curve a scutum would have. I don't need to explain how successful the greek phalanx was, and I also don't need to explain how widespread shieldwall were
So no, convex or curved shields doesn't impose any disadvantages when forming a shieldwall or a phalanx (pretty much the same thing), in fact, keep in mind that the scutum *was not** invented or created by the Romans, it was taken from northern italian tribes such as the Samnites and the Etruscans
I think the fact that the Triarii were the reserve in the last line of the Maniple is pretty relevant, since their job was to hold position while the rest of the army reformed or retreated, thus they didn't have to move a lot, just be good in defense, which explains their choice in weapons.
Besides that, could you talk about the Roman Hasta sometime? is there anything particular about it or are the spears of antiquity interchangeable with those of the medieval period for practical purposes?
Excellent point about the hasta- I keep wondering about that too.
Not exactly true, you have to see the Triarii in terms of the overall development of the Roman army (and that's probably an organic development not a huge uproot like the Late Republican Romans always liked to portray). If you remember that earlier Roman Armies almost universally carried that Hasta, even after the Maniple emerged as a dominant force in the the organisation, then the Triarii, the most veteran and traditional part of the legion, continuing to use the "old style" of warfare has a very different connotation.
@@dernwine i wouldn't say they chose the Hasta as opposed to the Gladius to fulfill their role but rather clung to them as it allowed them to perform it better, as you said the Legion developed organically, using spears at first and making the switch over time. I believe it was polybius who remarked that Triarii stuck to their old ways with the use of spears, which more or less describes their mindset regarding their equipment.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 Fair one. I guess I reacted mostly to your use of the word "choice," since I don't think it was an active decision by the Triarii, at least not at first.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 The Hasta was replaced by the Pilum, not the Gladius... I'd argue that the hasta and scutum is superior in melee combat than either the pilum or gladius, but not as flexible against the large number of missile throwing enemies that the Roman army had to face in Italy. It's also telling that the Romans readopt the melee spear when small missile weapons like plumbata are introduced.
I hope you're going to paint that nice scutum soon and let us watch, lol.
I wonder, will you use historical design, or scholagladiatoria logo?
personally, I really like the lightning bolts on that shield.
surprise!
The use of the spear according to the Romans themselves was due to issues of spear blocks in hilly, rough terrain.
The pike phalanx of Macedonia were extremely effective against the Romans, until the Romans fled. The pursuing pikemen lost cohesiveness and were torn apart when the Romans rallied on rough terrain.
A pike is more effective on its own terms bu the sword offered flexibility.
I think that's fair enough, but it sounds like a Combined arms approach would work as well. More cav, more skirmishers, to deal with fleeing units or rough terrain.
I also read somewhere that the Macedonian Pikemen of Alexander's time may have been dual trained, 1) to use the sarissa and fight in formation, and 2) to use sword and javelin, much like a Roman legionary, to fight in rough terrain, or siege city walls. After all, pikemen can't fight on walls. Combine that with the stronger emphasis on cav and skirmishers, and I can see how they conquered the Persian Empire.
All that "flexibility" will be why the sword was the chosen primary arm of pretty much every culture on Earth pre-firearms then... oh wait.
The sword offering flexibility is an interesting take. I'd say the spear offered the flexibility to fight in most contexts, while the gladius was specialized for extra close quarters and rough terrain.
Pikes are not comparable to the Roman hasta or any other spear around that size. The Romans were using flexible maniple formations even before the pilum was introduced.
The hasta was replaced by the PILUM, not the sword. Romans always had swords weather they carried a melee spear or a throwing spear.
@@TheChiconspiracy famous historical users of pikes - the Macedonians, the Swiss, the Scots - all regions rather well known for mountains and other rough terrain.
There's an alternative to defending an attack to the head, Matt. You rotate your wrist and bring the shield's top right corner up towards your face. It's a fast maneuver that doesn't cost much in terms of fatigue while allowing you to maintain eye contact with what your opponent is up to next. Ducking could be risky if your opponent does a shield bash because your head will be bearing the force head-on (pun intended). Ducking also blinds you temporarily from seeing what your opponent might be doing next.
Another thing about the Triarii, they were the reserve, to be used when things went wrong. Having a mobile block of defensive heavyweights to stall a wild charge of Gauls, or Ligurians, or Samnites, would give ample time for the officers to calm routing men and bring the army back to the field.
Also, the spear was the primary arm of at least the Principes and possibly the Hastatii as well until the Pyrhic Wars, so there is still ample time when Scutum and Spear were the arms of the Roman Legion, and that shouldn't be forgotten.
You don't need to attack from the left, your friend is there.
yeah, Matt demonstrating how difficult it is to attack from the left remembered me of Lindybeiges dark age reenactment videos. "It's not the guy in front of you that get's you"
What about the leftmost person?
@@Eidenhoek Well, if the leftmost person in your formation is being attacked from his left, it means you're getting flanked (and are, generally speaking, in trouble). Maybe change the formation, or retreat to a more defensible position.
@@RotemD I think even the Triarii had the gladius but mostly used their spears. I could imagine that the guy on the extreme left of a Triarii formation would use his sword instead of his spear to make up for the fact that there was no one protecting his left. Using his gladius, he would probably be a little more flexible. But that is pure conjecture on my part and may be complete BS.
One point about the spear is that the spear allows you to have multiple ranks of spears potentially engaged at the opponent at a given distance. I think this is the incredible advantage of the pike. It isn't just one rank in front of you, there are layers potentially several feet deep of pike. Moreso with a pike than a long two handed spear and more so in that regard than a one handed spear. A shield could be an advantage as well in that regard in allowing you to divert or potentially advance into a pike or spear formation.
Just a quick pedantic note on the pronunciation of "triarii": there's no "ah" sound in "rii", it should be more like "ree" (as in "Reebok", for example).
Latin (especially classical era) had a mostly straightforward 1:1 relation between letters and phonemes.
In Latin, yes, but he's using it as a loanword in English, where Latin plurals in -i are consistently pronounced like this.
loved the Rome 2 total war picture lol. Im playing as rome right now haha. Do you actually play and enjoy the total war (historical) titles Matt?
You've done a couple of videos now about the use of the scutum, but what I'm missing is the little surprise hidden in its boss. I don't know if it was only a certain period, but there is a thing called 'plumbum' ('lead') supposed to be hidden inside: A small throwing dart with a lead ball to make it heavier. Yeah, it is hardly known, even google doesn't really provides pictures, but I've seen it multiple times in some museum. Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Freiburg / Breisgau, Germany used to show them if I remember correctly.
Btw love the fact you're wearing the same kind of képi as me :D
Pilum seems to be a good weapon if you want to deprive your enemy of their shields and then close in with the gladius whilst you are protected and he isn't. Unless your enemy are throwing pila which they quite often were when the legions fought each other over rival claimants for Imperator. They were quite famously malleable about weapons and tactics depending on the enemy so there may have been instances when they adopted hastae. Also they may have fought unarmoured as antesignarii skirmishers with javelins. Lots of ideas for videos there Matt.
Not to say that the pilum could be used as a spear anyway, and had been used that way many times.
IE Kings and Generals had just uploaded a clip about Sertorius. In one instance, during the civil war, Sertorius' legionaries, at night, fell upon the camp of the Bardyae, a unit of Marius' personal slaves that were responsible of many killings and rapings in Rome, and Plutarch said that the legionaries "tranfixed all of them with javelins". Obviously they didn't throw the javelins to the tents, but entred in the tents and stabbed the Bardyae on the ground with the pila.
I think pilum is an excellent weapon but judging on the pattern of Matt's scutum he is starting off with scutum et hasta. My most recent thoughts on his excellent video.
Spear is used to deal with charging infantry and cavalry. The shield to deal with arrows slings and thrown missles. The sword is the tool after initial melee contact is made.
Yeah, if I was designing the perfect infantry soldier for the Classical and Medieval Ages, it would be exactly what you've said, for those very reasons. You can theoretically respond to any kind of attack or situation. Only thing more might be some way to range attack, but probably better to have dedicated ranged units alongside. Infantry, Ranged, and Cavalry.
Shorewall many infantry also carried several javelins or slings and used them until they were close enough to engage in melee. In addition to having dedicated shooters and skirmishers.
The short spears used by early and later Romans (not to mention the Libyan spearmen of Hannibal), were for killing infantry at close range, not for passively receiving a charge. They can be used overarm to parry and stab over an enemy's shield even up close, and weren't just discarded.
TheChiconspiracy true like the zulus who used shorter spears as spearheads require less iron to craft then a sword. But he’s talking about long spears over 6ft. Your absolutely right a shorter spear could be quite formidable behind a shield as the threat of it being thrown is very real. It can be used offensively as a gladius though it lacks the hacking ability so important in shield wall clash
@@robertvecchiarello4863 If they are armored at all though, the "hacking" ability of the gladius would be rendered pretty moot. I'd say the ability of the spearmen to stab his comrade's foe in the face also makes up for that shortcoming.
I think the pilum is like the sword not a specialised weapon but a multipurous(english). You can use it like a spear and you can throw it.
When i try spear and shield. I really feel like overhand is the way to go. I cannot sparr a lot but i am a martial arts practicioner(arg english) and feel pretty comfortable with my theory. Like everybody does XD.
If you put your shiel hand to the opposite site of your ripcage(english) you can even attack from the left. Maybe not with a scutum but defenetly with every lighter shield.
I agree on overhand spear as being the "right" way. Especially when you think about fighting in formation.
I was looking for a Metatron's video that shows this "face away" someone should do in roman gear to protect his face from atacks. I didn't found it unfortunately, but I will describe what he did.
Put your shield high, with your head in such a way you can look over your shield by little. Imagine your foe will strike you from your left side, from above. To defend yourself, stand still with your shield as Matt said in the video above, but don't move your head behind the shield, instead look downwards to the right in a way your helmet will take the blow with the side, deflecting away the blow and your neck will be coveread by the metal piece that is behind your helmet.
I ask Matt if he can try this on camera with his helmet and shield as Metatron did before (or someone link here the video if you find it). I use large shields a lot and I know the less you cover your vision with it, the better. I can also link a Lindybeige video that shows why you would not want to blind yourself with the shield (but is a video with a scottish targe, which is a small shield, even tho the rule aplies).
More on SHIELDS videos (see full videos if possible):
1) Do not blind yourself - Lindybeige video on targe: ruclips.net/video/e8Wh8KeAPmg/видео.html
2) Techniques with italian pavise - ruclips.net/video/az0GfDS3sjc/видео.html
3) Look for the shield position, never blind yourself - Roland Warzecha - ruclips.net/video/oQo7FjxjHSg/видео.html
*EDITED* in fact both Matt and Metraton looks right. I found a video that demonstrates both of the ways of defending. So I was wrong before assuming the Matt way of doing it might be bad. Check the video:
ruclips.net/video/jnoiTX0xZ0Y/видео.html
You mentioned, that the Legion-style of weapon system was great against pike blocks.
It's a interesting point i have previously thought about, but never came to a satisfying conclusion: In ancient times, pikes were shredded by legionaries, in the right circumstances (often the terrain played a role).
But when the pike had a comeback in the late middle ages and early renaissaince, there where never a legion-like-developement.
Ok, yeah, there were rondartschiers, but they were a tiny percentage and never were widely used.
In the ongoing renaissaince it makes sense: The firearm developed and so maybe it wasn't necessary to waste energy to enhance an old weapon system.
But the pikeblock made it's debut at about 1400 (sempach 1386 was one of the first uses of massed offensive pikes). so there were at least a 100 years of pike-heyday in which a counter could be developed.
You opinion?
The pike block that would dominate the middle ages and early modern period was far less vulnerable than the static pike blocks of the Macedonians. You had support troops with shorter weapons like halberds protecting them from infiltrators, and they could present arms in four directions at once, even while moving.
The Spanish briefly tried to use sword and shield troops against them (leftover troop types from the the battles against the Moors), but they tended to get steamrolled, and eventually revolutionized pike warfare by increasing the firepower of their own.
When fighting in formation, men could have attacked the enemy to their right with the long reach of the spear. I could imagine a drill where men thrust their spears forward, and then on a command, all thrust their spears towards the right to catch unsuspecting enemies who are focusing on defending from the man in front of them.
In the Battle of Culloden, the English Infantry were ordered to use their bayonets on the man attacking to their right, to stab under his upraised right arm.
You are a tall fellow Matt (if I remember correctly from another video). I think Romans were often just clearing 5 feet in height. So a scutum 3 and a half feet tall covered more of them than it does your over 6 feet height. Something more like 4 feet 2 inches tall would be a little heavier but would give more coverage to you from shoulder to shin.
Also 10kilo weights all battle long and practicing with heavier items. Carrying so much equipment and doing hard labour. These Romans must have been like power lifters with hand grips like rock climbers.
I think one aspect which might have been somewhat forgotten is the huge morale boost you get from having a big shield. Arrow's, stones and lighter(LIGHTER*, please read) javelins can be blocked and on the converse seeing an enemy shield formation taking fire from your own forces without damaging said formation could be a morale blow for the enemy.
*True, yes, you may loose your shield if a javelin gets stuck in the shield but then the shield has already done its job and potentially saved your life.
Triari-ee not triari-aye.
I blame Total war.
Wouldnt Triari sound the same as Triari-ee?
@@alexandermartinez1318 The two vowels at the end are not a dipthong, so you'd pronounce both "i's" separately, hence: "tree-ar-ee-ee"
Blame English pronunciation of Latin words.
Rome 2 got it right.
I agree, Rome: Total War popularised this pronunciation
Love you content matt. I wanted to make a suggestion on a topic that I can't find very much information about. Fights involving the defense of colours or flags.
Ducking the head down below the shield would also explain the sizeable neck guards that Roman helmets would eventually have.
I love that he's giving this in-depth lecture about the physics and historical martial application of these weapons while he's dressed like he's about to take his kid fishing.
How do you change the grip on the spear in close order (phalanx etc)?
On a vaguely related note, is there anything a Renaissance pike block could do against a dismounted group of men-at-arms? I know by that time they also had guns and cannons but, if we remove that from the equation, could they do anything at all except run away?
Great question! One for a video, I think :-)
Great video - the Polybian legion and its units/tactics often gets short-shrift compared with the post-Marian legion. I personally find manipular legion more interesting. One thing to note - the Hellenistic phalanx give the manipular legion a very hard time in the Pyrrhic wars when first encountered (as did Pyrrhus’s war elephants) in 280 BC, as Pyrrhus handed the Romans two very costly defeats.
Mostly because the elephants
@scholargladiatoria can you comment on the use of round vs oval/rectangular shields as people seem to be more tall than wide so an oval/ rectangular design seems more reasonable.
The other reason for not moving the shield so much is that legionnaires needed to save up energy and strain of their shield arm for the shield bash, which is what that brass bowl is for.
People need to remember that the scutum and gladius was the secondary attack, it was only used (ideally) after the pilla were thrown into the enemy formation, which caused disarray and allowed the Roman infantry to more effectively pierce a pike phalanx. Also the gladius and scutum combo was used in a response to their most dangerous enemies armies, the Greeks and Carthagians were known for pike phalanxes and the gladius and scutum with pilla were used to disrupt that formation. So when they conquered the Greeks and Carthagians they eventually went back to the scutum and spear (around early late 4th century AD) as the gladius and scutum outlived it’s usefulness.
Greeks and Carthaginians fought in many other ways though, like Gaul, Iberian and African mercenaries, Thureophoroi, Peltasts, etc, Romans didnt just develop to face pikes, nor did they face them for the majority of their time using Scutums and Pila.
There is little evidence that Carthage used pikes at the time of Hannibal. His Lybyian spearmen were most likely armed in a similar manner to the triarii.
What is better? Scutum or Pavise?
I guess it is all about the CONTEXT?
@M 78 I think there also were slightly smaller, handcarried ones.
Awesome, I used to wonder a lot about this.
You mention the pilum almost incidentally. I suggest that this heavy throwing spear was the decisive factor in defeating like phalanxes of the Macedonian successors. Inhibited from using even their small shields effectively, they must have been very vulnerable to a volley of these weapons. Disrupted just before impact, the scrum would have allowed the legionaries to get between the rows of pikes and get stuck in with short swords. I suspect that trying to do so without having thrown pila first would have been much less effective.
Yep, I agree with that. The weakness of a pike unit has always been ranged attacks, since they can't hold a big shield. Along with disrupting the formation with pila, I think the gladius and scutum were better able to exploit any natural gaps that formed between pike units, say on the advance.
I think it is interesting that Pyrrhus of Epirus put skirmishers between units of his pikemen when fighting the Romans, to allows his line to expand and contract without creating openings, while retaining the powerful push of the pike.
Pike phalanxes were actually fairly resistant to missiles, as the back rows formed a sort of screen in front and above the projectiles could be deflected, knocked off course or slowed down, making it easier for the phalangites to withstsnd them with their armor. As for getting between the rows, there were several more spear tips waiting behind the first row, it wouldn't be as easy as it might seen.
@@gabrielinostroza4989
That is only true against projectiles that came in certain angle towards the 6th and beyond ranks, but the 5 first ranks of the phalanx were holding their pikes towards the enemy, they didn't have any protection against projectiles.
I wonder how differently formation and close ranks combat played into things. So much hema and martial combat training is applicable more to sparring then close order drill and killing. In close ranks, I'd imagine the shield wall land keeping it whole was Paramount in the initial battering of the enemy.
Well that didn't die out even in Imperial period, since Auxiliaries were also deployed alongside the legions--in Imperial period while the stick they used was the pilum, for the flanks where Auxiliaries were often positioned they still made use of spears albeit of different shape of shield
Did you see the recent walking dead episode where they started using Romanesque battle tactics to fight in formation? Was an interesting detail.
It seems like the large shield and long spear would be best against a mixed force of archers, cavalry and infantry. If you had the long spear AND a short sword, and a decent helmet with a big shield, you'd pretty much be the tank of the ancient battlefield
I think the main difference is actually the stance of Rome at the time. Early republic (slow growth) and late empire (decline) are more defensive whereas later republic and early empire is a more aggressive expansion period
I never figured out how people fought in tight formations with underarm spear action. Can you do a demonstration or explanation?
Probably not so much while a shieldwall was still cohesive. With respect to the triarii, they normally lined up in a single rank, which means there would be no impediment behind them to handling the spear underarm.
@@jamesfrankiewicz5768 Except for the disadvantages in leverage, power, defensive ability, attack angle, ect...
@@jamesfrankiewicz5768
single rank? that is totally wrong, where did you read that?
Ranks where from 5 to 8 ranks tightly packed
Sorry guys, this is way offtopic but I just watched this short film called Simulation here in YT and in 15:00 comes this actor and at first I was sure it was Matt - but he isn't, his name is Bruce Woolley. I think the resemblance is quite uncanny, what do you think? :D
I've heard of a theory, that says the Triarii (most hardened veterans, longest service) were in the last line because
a) they were the oldest troops in the formation and had earned their laurels
b) they actively prevented the Hastati (and Pricipes) from routing.
That appears to make sense, i've always asked myself why the republican battleorder had the spearmen in the last line.
So I am curious if I have any misconceptions on the late roman warfare. I assume they focused on killing each other especially by the time of Diocletian. And I am just curious if they had any innovative changes in tactics after Augustus. Or the Marian reforms.
The ancient history geek in me ♥️'s this video!
~
Would you say the greek aspis is the best possible weapon to use in spear formations?
@@tl8211 Yep, here's one a few centuries before the Romans made it cool. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyreophoroi#/media/File:Thueros_affresco.jpg
Considering how Greek armies were increasingly made up of guys with center grip shields even before Phillip II made hoplites obsolete and the fact that the Romans themselves used various center grip shields for nearly a thousand years, I think it's safe to say the Aspis is not the best shield for spear use.
I’m glad Matt has brought up the subject of Triarii. It gives me the opportunity to bring up a point that has puzzled me.
The popular image is off the Republican Roman reserve kneeling as if this is a suitable resting position. If you think this is feasible, try getting down on one knee and see how long you can stay there before fidgeting, swopping knees and then standing up to gain relief. Am l on to something or am l missing the mark?
It really is a matter of habit, compare it to sitting in a Japanese manner. It's incredibly uncomfortable when not accustomed to it but if you do most of your resting sitting that way it will get more and more comfortable.
Back to the Roman reserves, kneeling allows you to get the weight of your equipment off you and onto the ground whilst still allowing you to stand up quickly, probably not much slower than just taking one step forward.
Mind you that this is just speculation and I have no historical evidence or basis for this.
Matyas Wejdemar Point taken and appreciated. Would our Romans remain on one knee for an hour?, 2 hours? I know it may be thought unmilitary but why not just sit down and rest properly or, failing that, stay upright. There you can fidget and move keeping the blood circulating. Their shields and spears would be resting on the ground. They campaigned in armour so that would hardly be noticed by them.
With a little active service of my own to draw on, fully laden in training we stopped on one knee, observing arcs. Come the real thing we sat taking the (considerable) weight off still being vigilant. On the ancient battlefield, the reserve might have a very long wait.
I really like your videos !cheers from Rome 💪🏻
It's not a matter of choice between spear and gladius - Triarii were also equipped with swords. It's a matter of choice between spear and PILUM. :)
This. It's really annoying to see everyone say the "GLADIUS replaced the hasta', when the evidence shows Romans (and pretty much every other civilized people) using swords alongside their thrusting spears all long.
@@TheChiconspiracy
Evidence you invented? because you are totally wrong
@@DLockholm Right... so the short stabbing and cutting swords that are documented on the belts of soldiers across the Mediterranean as sidearms were nonexistant in Italy, and the Romans were only carrying spears until they decided to adopt the pilum and gladius and lose the hasta...
@@TheChiconspiracy
No, I clearly explain all this matter in another comment which you didn't response.
@@DLockholm The hispanic style short stabbing sword replacing the hellenic style short stabbing sword (both were called "gladius") doesn't change the fact that it was the pilum that replaced the hasta.
What is often forgotten is that a pilum is, well, a spear. The lighter type not so much, but the heavier one can be used as a spear quite comfortably, and there are documented cases of such. With that in mind, I think the tactical idea for an individual soldier was to use throwing pila as thrown projectiles, and then either use the heavy pilum as a spear when facing cavalry, or throw it at close range and use a sword to walk into pike blocks.
This would result in percieved shift to sword and shield when facing mostly infantry armies, and perceived shift to spear and shield when going against cavalry (e.g. Parthian campaign, late Roman frontier). The key tactical development was someone making the Roman army disciplined and motivated enough to go into a close melee against spear blocks, probably during the republican era.
And swords existed alongside melee specific spears for a long time prior to the pilum, no sword replaced the hasta. I'd argue though that we see the melee focused spear reintroduced when lighter missile alternatives like plumbata make it viable, and spears were definitely used against infantry. Hannibals best troops were his Lybian spearmen, and they killed a whole lot of Roman "swordsmen". The Romans themselves had auxiliary troops with hasta like the Batavi, and they whooped the regular legions sent against them when they revolted.
If your formation had phylum and launched them at 20 steps from enemy phalanx, many of their shields would suddenly get useless. Then you pull gladius and attack. But closing distance between pikes still required good training and good armor for all soldiers in formation, something possible only post-Marian reforms.
I wonder if the spear to gladius transition was also because of the force augmentation was improving with auxiliary archers and anti-personnel ballistas.
The gaps in the shields the Trojans use in Troy (and I've seen somewhere in artifacts, I think...) occur to me, when you speak about ducking the head behind the shield when attacked. At 1 and 3/4 minutes into this example: ruclips.net/video/NEDWpbmFY6o/видео.html
I always thought the gap was to position the spear shaft in, like a couched lance, for bracing charges or ease of making a phalanx or lazy repetitive stabbing all day etc. Now I'm thinking, that it might be to be able to still see somewhat and not be blinded, every time at attack comes at the head. Just a guess, if such shields were even really a thing.
IMHO, that's what people will learn to do quickly; go for above the shoulder and below the knee - because the shield doesn't move fast. Then the head is constantly "pinned down" and one can try to finish it etc. I liked having my "tower shield" in LARP on a typical horizontal strap and bar system, because I could raise and lower it better and keep it out with less fatigue (we also, in our tweenage Diablo and Final Fantasy minds, knew of no other system lolz!). Granted tho, my shield would be about 1 AC less rated than a true scututm, because it was smaller and had no curve (or boss). I also wore a boxing glove "gauntlet" on only my left hand, because my fingers and shield hand were so exposed right on the edge. But I never had to duck behind like you show here, I simply raised my shield up, and could lower it down. I learned that cowering behind my shield just got me attacked from all over, especially above. It also made "backfists" with the shield very easy to shove weapons and people away and to the side while I moved around, or to just shoulder the thing and bull rush like American football (a friend with ZERO melee knowledge almost broke my back in the first 30 seconds of me giving him me own shield, because I fell down on the metal fire ring of our backyard campsite that we'd forgotten in the shin high summer grass!).
A friend, who played a barbarian, made a horrific specialized weapon to defeat me and my accursed shield (I was the only person to use such). A two handed poleax halbred THING called the Mangler 3000 - it got a whole new damage level category lol. The front was a typical but giant reverse curve halbred blade, the top a short spike, and the back had a long thin hook, that I allowed him to measure out perfectly. Whenever I raised my shield to block, the hook would still come over the top and hit me in the head even if I ducked a bit (good thing I had a Vietnam era steel pot helmet, a magic artifact by our hardware store gear standards!), but would eventually do enough damage to break the armor and kill me, and of course hook my shield down out of the way. The spike on the other other of the Mangler 3000 reminds me of Alexander's sarissa. Good times...
Matt I think you should also make mention of something:
The Trarii in the Republican Army of the Punic War (I call it the Polybian Legions, but Late-Middle Republican Legions could also work?) might have been the only units in the Roman Army that used the Hasta (Roman spear) and Scutum in conjunction, but if we look back even earlier to the Middle Republic the *entire* Roman heavy infantry would have been carrying Spears and Scutum, not just the Trarii. We can even see this in some of the names that survived into later Roman forces, even though the Hastati in the Punic wars and beyond carried a Gladius and Scutum their name (obviously deriving from Hasta) clearly shows that they did at some point fight equipped with Spears.
They were in kings/eary republican times, when the Roman army fought in hoplite fashion, with spear and round shield. The hastati were the soldiers that, thus fighting in the phalanx, could not afford a complete armor, so were kept in the back lines, behind the principes. The legionary formation was adopted at sometime during the Samnite wars.
@@neutronalchemist3241 Um no. So for starters the Roman Army probably never actually fought in a Phalanx, that's probably an anachronism of the late-Republican and Early-Imperial historians misinterpreting evidence. The Maniple system probably grew organically out of a more fluid Italian system of warfare that dominated central Italy around 400BC. The Triarii where the remnants of the old Warlord-Clan based armies (as I said that dominated central Italy) while the Hastati and Principes both seem to have derived from the Urban Community emergency levees that became intigrated into Romes overall strategy around this time.
Either way, the use of the Hasta by Hastati and Principes continued well into the 3rd century BCE, long after the Maniple strucutre had become the norm.
@@dernwine Ancient historians were less idiots than some modern historian gives them credit for. Actually there are no evidences for all those "probably", while Rome, culturally, grew at the conjunction of the Greek and Etruscan world, two cultures that used hoplite formation fight. Much of modern historians accepts Roman use of the hoplite phalanx until the early stages of the Samnite wars (J.E. Lendon for one).
@@neutronalchemist3241 For starters when you start your post with the word "idiot" in the first sentence you undermine your arguments. Nobody is claiming they whree idiots, just ethnocentric and products of their own time and thus apt to interpret the past in some rather suspect ways. There's a lot of evidence for those probablies, both iconographic, archaeological and within inconsistencies found in the source texts, I am not going to list them here because there's 400 page books explaining them that I don't want to reprint. In another thread I recommended Jeremy Armstrongs War and Society in Early Rome for the most current and up to date evidence.
Remember modern scholarship is now casting questions on the idea that the Phalanx was even fully developed in the Greek world by 450BCE, let alone spread to Italy where it was supposedly going out of fashion by then (and whether the Etruscans used it either is still a very open question). J.E. Lendon also published his work in 2006, and like many older Historians he simply takes Livy and Polybius at their word rather than disect the evidence and try to find out how warfare was actually conducted. But if you really want to believe that the "Phalanx" was in anachronistic use at the begining of the Republic and you decide you want to take the word of the ancient sources: Livy states that the use of round shields ended around the SIege of Veii, well before the Samnite Wars (and co-incidentally around the time that the old Warband armies and the new Community Army would have properly merged together).
@@dernwine For starters, demoting the work of actual historians that recently wrote on the specific subject, on the pretense that "they takes Livy and Polybius at their word" (that's a not even that polite way to call them incompetent), while your favourite thesis, that you call "modern scholarship" (because the ones that doesn't agree with it are... ancient? Outdated? Obsolete?) would be supported by "actual evidences" that you refuses to share, undermines your arguments much more than the use of the word "idiots". Central grip shields and phalanx formation can coexist BTW (the triarii demonstrated that, if it wasn't clear enough). Ancient historians were less idiots than you give them credit for.
Lol. I'm pretty sure I have that book that has the picture of the triarius. If you look through all of the illustrations you can find the likenesses of several celebrities including Brad Pitt and Sean Bean on soldiers from various times.
my reason to watch this is i found a spearhead a very old one , i live near top of mountain between moesia and thrace border these places were washed with blood probably charging mountain to mountain
The spear also allows you to threaten opponents not directly in front of you, in effect reducing the protection of the massive shield.
I have read of many instances of the scutum and gladius meeting the hoplite or pikemen phalanx, but I do not remember any case where the phalanx was outmatched by "closing in". Rather by being outflanked or after losing cohesion due to uneven ground and such.
I think the reason the spear became less popular has something to do with the discipline and experience required to maintain the "hedgehog formation". After all the triari were the most experienced and disciplined of the army.
The problem with that thought is that Roman Armies become more disciplined as we move from the Early Republic into the Later Republic not less. So if anything based on that assessment you'd expect the Romans to move *towards* spears rather than away from them (also spears and spear based formations are some of the easiest combat styles to teach inexperienced soldiers but that's another matter). *edit* Bear in mind until around the 3rd Century BCE the Hastati and Principes would have also carried spears, not just the Triarii.
I suspect the changes in armament of the first two lines of the army in the 3rd century was more to do with the Plebian economic base (from which they where drawn) becoming more wealthy as Rome expanded, and adapting to what was already a rather fluid combat style that the Roman Legions had going for them (at least compared to the Phalanx). The Triarii on the other hand came from a class that was more traditionally warlike (initially at least) compared to the front two lines, so their retention of the Hasta probably had something to do with tradition, as well as their new emerging battlefield role.
@@dernwine I do not contest the tradition argument; after all the triarii were supposed to mostly observe. However I do contest the assumption that the spear and shield configuration and the phalanx formation are simple or basic.
A spear is basic on each own, as a two-handed weapon, but when you only have one hand to handle it, it's a beast. Lindybeige has a video where it's shown that even very competent hema practitioners find it exceedingly difficult. Threndgrand only shows the proper technique, and it is as complicated as it is murderous. He actually gets more penetration than with a two-handed spear.
But when we get to the phalanx things get even more complicated. 1. it absolutely must not present gaps
2. it cannot be allowed to veer to the right
3. it should not pursue fleeing enemies
4. it needs to coordinate with cavalry or light infantry to cover its flanks
5. soldiers perform coordinated attacks; archaeological evidence suggests that hoplites aimed for the rim of the enemy's shield, which if struck hard enough will cause the shield to rotate slightly, exposing the enemy's opposite side to another hoplite, for a brief moment. The fact that they did this systematically betrays an insane level of training.
Sorry for the long answer :P, although I'll hold that it still is pertinent to suggest that maybe the Romans thought there simply were too many things that could go wrong with the phalanx, and it was smarter to keep things simple.
@@NoFuture396 The Triarii where only to mostly observe by the end of their existence, you need to bear in mind that initially the Triarii where the evolution of the primary fighting arm of the Roman Army.
Some problems with what you say:
1. Most formations must not present gaps. The Phalanx/shield wall is one of the easiest ways get soldiers not to create gaps.
2. Most formations can't be allowed to veer to the to one side. the Aspis equipped phalanx has this tendency (specifically to the right) more than others but it's still present in other formations.
3. No heavy Infantry formation should break to persue enemies if there are still enemies on the field (a phalanx can break ranks to join the pursuit if the entire enemy army is defeated.) A Roman Maniple running off after a fleeing enemy creates a big problem just as part of a Phalanx does.
4. Legions need to co-ordinate with cavalry and light infantry too, as does any heavy infantry force.
5. Soldiers did preform co-ordinated attacks, but this isn't necessary. It's the difference between a professional well drilled phalanx that is used to working with each other and a fresh levee phalanx, it's not critical to a phalanxes ability to operate.
The Phalanx/Shield wall, although not easy and yes requires training, remains one of the easiest formations to master for a citizen militia. Part of the reason the Phalanx is easy to teach is because it's rigidity. It's certainly easier than the Roman Maniple system as it was in the Republic of the Punic wars (though not for earlier armies necessarily) which required a lot of drilling in complicated tactical movements and commands in order to maintain their flexibility. No combat formation for heavy infantry is simple, but a Phalanx/Shield wall armed with spears is the simplest one you can teach. Spears are difficult to handle for someone who is used to using a sword, spears are, compared to swords especially, really simple to teach a beginner (so many issues with swords that you need to bear in mind that do not apply to a pointy stick, this is one of the reasons why spears where so ubiquitous in history). There was a reason my re-enactment group always taught spear *first* before we let people move on to other things.
Ignoring the fact that the Romans probably never fought in a phalanx: The Maniple system is in no way simpler than the Phalanx. It has way more moving parts, way more command and control issues, fighting in it for the individual soldier requires way more situational awareness.
*Edit* again my central argument was less that the Phalanx is easy, that was just an aside, but that if the Phalanx was so hard to master the Roman Army, as it became more experienced would find it easier to fight in, not less, and so we can't take that as an explanation for the abandonment of the spear by the Legions in the 3rd Century, or by the Triarii in the 1st Century.
@@dernwine Interesting points all. Well heavy infantry is heavy infantry, so one should expect they share similar vulnerabilities. Still I maintain that the maniple configuration was more forgiving being versatile, whereas the phalanx was more specialized, so a high risk - high reward approach.
I am afraid I know little to none of reenactment, but as far as sparring in a hema context goes, I think the last thing you would want is novices practising with spears or staffs; even with good protective gear they are still too dangerous.
Besides the scutum and gladius style is much simpler than a single-strap shield and sword, i.e. the viking variant, since the latter allows more lines of attack. Are you even supposed to parry with the gladius?
In contrast the over-hand spear requires excessive parrying, since you are threatened at minimum by 4 people at any time. Now pikes yes, those I see being much simpler. I mean what technique could you possibly apply to them?
Maybe as you said it had more to do with tradition versus newer fashions. Or maybe the undisputed versatility of the maniples was the key to deal with Rome's contemporary enemies. As Matt says, it's all about context.
@@dernwine Those disciplined Roman "swordsmen" were also bested by their own similarly well trained Auxiliary Batavi and Illyrian units (armed with hasta) when they revolted, not to mention Hannibal's Libyan spearmen. The third century saw the adoption of the plumbata, which was a missile weapon light enough to allow the carrying of a melee spear once again.
I think the move to pilum in the Republican period was mostly due to the large number of skirmishing troops the Romans faced in Italy. As the Spartans learned at Sphacteria, a melee focused spear is useless against an enemy that bombards you with javelins and melts away before you can reach them. The Triarii may be superior in melee to the principes and hastati, but the latter two can meet skirmishing light troops or cavalry with their own javelins.
Have you released any material or thoughts on ramming for the phalanxes in roman armies? 20 men wide, shields front, heavy, fast and agressive buggers with gladiuses doesn't sound like a picnic
Found himself some deep dark woods to wave it around in
A pike-phalanx was able to defeat a Roman formation in frontal combat on good going. The long pikes would plant their tips in the shield and press the legionary back. Unless the phalanx split or was flanked (the latter happened more often than the first), the legionary could not beat a phalangite.
Romans used this combination in their early days when they fought like a phalanx. Then they got problems with the samnites (italy hill tribe) who used throwing spears like the pilum. Then they changed their tactic until they got a professional army at which time auxillaries used your spear, shield and a longsword. This stayed more or less until the later roman times when the military was reformed again (mercenaried, limenates and so on). My guess is the reason for this is that the type of fights they where in changed (not mainly big battles anymore but smaller skymishes, raids with a handfull of people and such things) as well as their use of other range weapons (bow, throwing arrows...).
You got it the other way around, they used a more traditional single line hoplite phalanx before facing the Samnites between 340-290 BC and then they switched to the maniple system which included the three ranks of infantry types, they fought that way all the way to the Jugurthine and Cimbrian wars where Marius reformed the legion again in 106 BC.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 You`re right. Isn`t that the same with different words?
@@mrd7067 It's not clear when the transition to swords actually happened but Roman legionaries were described to be using them in the second Punic war so there was likely a period in which manipular armies still had their Hastatii and Principes using Hastas before that
@@gabrielinostroza4989 To my understanding they always had swords/blades as a secondary (even velites). My guess is they had greek types before they went to the gladius. Has been a while though.
@@mrd7067 generally yes, swords were sidearms in the ancient world, mostly a standard that the Greek hoplites set, though they could be the main weapon for some cultures and kinds of warrior.
You can throw a Hasta but that is like throwing your m-16 rifle at the enemy… guess you can…. Rather silly. If auxilia switch to long sword (spatula) just drop you hasta… throwing it, they can throw it back. Late Roman use hasta and flat shields, gave up on Pilum and the expensive curved Scutum. And the Gladius went away and all use long , thicker Spatha.
The shield vs pike argument is not necessarily true. The Romans got their butt whooped by pike formations first. Then they came out victorious by luring them in rough terrain while keeping OPEN order against which the Macedonians couldn't win a conclusive fight. When trying to close frontally the romans were defeated by the sarissa like everybody else. It was their initiative and flexibility which won those confrontations.
That is uncertain, the big shield can easily protect you. Sarissas were pretty long, 7 meters in most cases, but a long pole is difficult to keep in place specially when you are holding it parallel to the ground from one of the extreme ends, so in theory I can push aside the pike with ease and the other guy would have to raise the pike and then try to put it in the same place, but I'm in the way so he would have to drop the pike and draw his sword or keep it raised, but there is another pike in front of me and then another 3 successive pikes, I think that it would take coordinated teamwork to push our way through and keep the points above us or behind us, but remember that the pikemen where continuously supported by javelins and arrows so that makes the whole thing harder.
Of course, this is theory but it can be done because a pike is useless when the head of the spear is behind me or above me.
A good simulation can verified this, I haven't see any tbh, which is very strange due the big reenactment groups that we have nowadays but well.
@@DLockholm we don't need a simulation since history is enough. Frontally the sarissa was unbeaten, even for the Romans. It is true that the Macedonian phalanx needed more support than the Roman phalanx which was its vulnerability. But when we look which course history took then we have to acknowledge that the pike came back strong as the ultimate formation weapon in the late middle ages. If sword and shield was so successful why was it abandoned? On the grand scheme of things the Romans were the only people that were victorious with a sword and shield combination, no one did that as modus operandi.
@@pinocchio418 That is biased tho, and against the scientific method too.
Is worth to mention that a lot of ancient historians didn't give specific details and they also were biased as fuck so, irrelevant is the thing that u are pointing out.
How effective was the roman pilum at removing people's shields ? Did they stick in them and bend making the unwieldy? Did this lead more to the use of the sword as you're then fighting enemies with a long weapon and no shield?
thegnthrand has several videos where they throw pilums at shields. Search and you'll see.
The effects varied with the pila. They weren't always made the same way. Some have soft shafts and some have stiff ones. Pila were thrown. Just 15-30m away and followed by a massed charge or thrown at a charging enemy formation. The barbed tips can make removal harder, not in time before the Romans reach the shield holder. The stuck javelin makes the shield unwieldy so people need to throw it away.
did Gauls really wear those checkered/striped brightly coloured trousers?
How was the sheild made? Leather and wood? Thx 😃
I think you're wrong here about a few things. The first thing is that when people talk about Romans generally (which is very difficult to do because of the time scale involved) they tend to miss out on the (common) exceptions - there are numerous accounts of Romans using large two handed spears (pikes I guess) in situations that it was felt called for it, including in the republic era, Marcus Furius Camillus was a fan of them for example, later on auxillia were often the majority of a legion and often carried large spears and there are various accounts of Romans using their javelins as hand-held spears (battle of pharsalus for example) against cavalry - and why not, it is a spear.
Second thing is that the Scutum did not nullify pikes and allow the Romans to close in to defeat the pike-men - that isn't what happened in any of those battles. In any battle where a macedonian pike phalanx went toe to toe with roman infantry (which the romans tried to avoid) the initial result was the Romans being resoundingly beaten in the initial clash. In such engagements any roman soldier in the front ranks was facing 5-10 (probably 10) pike tips before he could get to a phalangite with his sword - those pikes tips slammed against his shield, turning the shield into a battering ram which then drove the romans back in a near immediate retreat, killing quite a few of them. The Romans won those battles through a combination of disciplined refusal to let the battle end there, letting the phalanxes pursue them into difficult terrain where they (phalanx) couldnt keep formation and then regrouping (the romans) and making rapid maneuvers onto the phalanxes flanks and gaps once they were exposed. If the Phalanxes formed square to avoid being out flanked the romans rained missile weapons on the square till they broke and ran. Despite its toe to toe power the phalanx wasnt then adopted by the romans - why? Because its conditions for success in battles were too numerous; flat terrain, no exposed flanks, only a threat when moving, needs to be supported by cavalry and anything that needs supporting cavalry to win depends upon its cavalry beating the enemy cavalry every time and cavalry was not a roman strength.
well, anyway, I do think it's a real concept, that soldiers of then were like soldiers of today. YOu don't get to where two opponents are going to have a match against eachother. You instead, get to where YOU can safely attack the opponent without danger of being attacked. If we had a good grasp on the basic strategies of the basic weapons, then we can imagine when one would be better than the other. For example, if you are going to stab at people who are in front of you, you use a spear. If you are going to stab at people up against you, you use a dagger. if you are going to stab at people who are pressed up against your shield, you use a sword. but basically, you use your shield formation to make sure that you are safe from being stabbed, and then when theres something you can stab from where you are nice and safe, you stab it. Everything else you do is to try and get to where you can safely stab. (if the plan is to stab them). If they have a shield wall,, you can't stab them. You have to do something that lets you stab them (which is where the idea of rucking to shove them over comes from, because now you can stab them while they are being pushed over., and a sword will work equally well to stab someone at your feet as it will to stab someone squeezed onto your shield)
Triarii were there to make sure the Principes didn't flee
They were often the principes' and hastatis' fathers, and the velites' grandfathers. When it was really raining shit, their last due was to hold position (being quite old and eavily armed, they had not much possibilities to flee anyway) to ensure their sons will survive.
Elmur Fudd is pleased with -sing- Spear and metal heeeeeeelmut
This is hoplite warfare meaning that it's about formation fighting, concentrating spear tips into as small a front as possible. If you're swinging the spear around, you're not doing it right, it's about stabbing over the enemy shield wall. Also, remember that we are a culture no longer used to wearing armour, which means we don't have confidence in its reliability and thus we can envision just allowing the enemy to hit us on the armored side and trusting that it will hold. You can see Matt has no choices defensively, other than just taking shots on his left. This isn't 1v1 fighting or the equipment for it.
See I wonder how much this influenced future fighting styles that derive from here
You shouldn't underestimate the value of the pilum. Not only could it kill or injure enemies from a distance weakening formations, it could also disable an enemies shield leaving him vulnerable.
A gladius is also much lighter and easier to carry (it just hangs in its scabbard). On the march it frees up your hand so you can carry supplies. And the post-Marian-reform legionaries famously carried all they needed themselves. A shield-and-spear may very well be better in the actual fight but it also meant it was all you could carry and you needed a baggage train which means some men have to just be concerned with the supplies and fewer men are available on the front line. A gladius-and-shield, even if it is less effective for the individual soldier (which can be argued), if it means more soldiers, who are more mobile strategically and don't have to be concerned with the vulnerable baggage train - it wins out strategically. If the choice is between 10k spearmen in the battle with 5k in the baggage train (some of them armed to protect it) or 15k gladius-wielders who are just 80% as effective as thespearmen (and I'm almost certain that this is an undervalue), then simple maths gives it to the gladius-equipped army, so long as providing all the other equipment (armour, shields) is possible.
There is also the little matter of thrown weapons - javelins/pilums (pilae?) and/or darts/plumbatae. With a sword in a scabbard you can have your projectiles at hand, chuck them at the enemy at the right time (normally at the last moment) then quickly draw the sword and be ready for melee. I'm not sure you can do that with a spear as the main weapon. You can throw the spear itself, sure, but then you'd have to draw your sidearm (sword/dagger) and we're back at it.
Except that that free hand is taken up by two pila (Pilum is Neutral Subjective Singular, Pila would be the plural, for it to be Pilae as a plural it would have to be a Feminine Subjective) as well as your Furca. So there isn't really a practical difference in terms of your free hand between 1x Pilum and 1x Hasta for early Roman Legionary and 2x Pila for a Post Marian Legionary. Also you can hold your Hasta in your Shield hand while you throw your Pilum and then grab it from your off hand. Overall, especially in the earlier Roman armies where the change from Hasta to Sword happened en masse, I don't think there was that sort of centralised thought process going on in the Roman state (remember these soldiers where not full time soldiers and generally equipped themselves). Yes Marius's reforms in 100BCE probably did away with the last vestiges of the Triarii (or maybe just recognised a reality on the ground), but that's just the end of a long trend that had started in the 3rd Century.
Instead I suspect it has a lot to do with the economics facing the population base that these soldiers where drawn from, combined with different links to tradition in the different population groups. The Triarii where probably drawn from a Socio-Economic group that had a much older link to warfare than the Hastati and Principes so there may have been a "This is how we always fought" mentality going on there in addition to the slightly different battlefield and psychological use of the Triarii.
@@dernwine There was no change from hasta to sword... it was from hasta to pilum. Pretty much every civilized army had swords on their hip at the time. Even persian archers had swords centuries before this.
@@TheChiconspiracy Aside from the fact that as I said Hasta and Pilum are not mutually exclusive (even the old descriptions of the Class system mentions that lower class soldiers carried hasta and pila at the same time) "at the time"? We are talking about a massive time span here, between the first large Roman armies and the adoption of the Marian system is span of 300 years. No the sword was not carried by every civilised nation soldiers, especially not ones where the soldiers where part time levees required to provide their own equipment. Early forms of Hastati and Principes would usually carry some form of back up, but if and what that was would largely have been up to them.
@@dernwine I meant civilized armies in the Mediterranean... Hellenic armies were carrying swords on their hips centuries earlier, and not just the wealthy hoplites but the thyrophoroi, which republican Roman troops are essentially a variant of. The Persian archers at Marathon had swords.
Swords were not that expensive at the time... Even the velites carried swords as Polybious tells us, "The youngest soldiers or velites are ordered to carry a sword, javelins, and a target"
@@TheChiconspiracy Centuries earlier? What period do you think I'm talking about? Thureophoroi appear only in the 200's BCE, the earliest forms of the Hastati and Principes go back to about 450BCE, the socio economic situation in 3rd Century Greek city states and 5th Century central Italy do not compare well. Even more so when you compare the Royal Army of the greatest empire in the world to the citizen soldiers of a minor city state beyond the fringes of the civilized world.
Swords are always expensive, the bronze alone costs quite a bit of money, and for a citizen-soldier it would always have been a question of whether it was worth spending that money on a back up weapon or if you'd spent it better on improvements to the business at home. Again the legions of Polybius in 200BCE are not a great model for the earlier legions of 450-300BCE, the centralisation of the state, attitude to the army, and socio-economic reality of those serving is markedly different.
Hasta was never replaced, auxiliary troops still used them
Afaik the widespread use of the Scutum(as opposed to Aspis/Clipeus/hopliteshield) went hand in hand with the decline of the importance of the Triarii. While this decline was most likely brought on by sorting Infantry Types by age instead of purely wealth and reduction of the number of Triarii Maniples this should be noted when evaluating the military success of Spear+Scutum.
TBH the Scutum over Aspis probably has more to do with the democratization of the Army rather than changes in combat styles (think once you allow lots of Plebs into the army from the lower strata of society then they also need cheaper equipment, a scutum is both cheaper and probably psychologically more comforting than an Aspis). Also while the Aspis certainly was used in the Armies of the Rex and Early Republic it never was universal and various Italian designs, both square and round center grip, where in use from a very early period indeed.
@@dernwine While I agree with your base assumption(social change over tactical change) I think you will find that Triarii always were Plebeans, and "opening the floodgates" to the poor would not have affected the Triarii as much as the Hastati and Principes, tho Internal changes of the criteria however did. It is safe to assume that (as you alluded to) the shift was very gradual as the equipment was the warriors private property. In addition the Triarii as a group were certainly rather conservative and both they and their Aspises had a very low turnover. When you're in the last battleline it is unlikely that your shield gets trashed and if you're rich and bored your shield will, in case of your demise or retirement, be most likely to be taken up by the younger generation(be it as recovered loot or an heirloom).
But that's not actually the point, the point is that the Spear+Scutum Style was mainly used at a time where the Triarii had already declined in military potential. This is only limited to Triarii tho, Other groups were quite fond of the safety of a long stick and a door to protect you from baddies aswell, which is why we see such styles all around... the world really. And not just in backliners but in the bulk of many armies.
@@carlpult5235 That's if you are taking Livy at his word, however modern historiography is offering a different view of it (I recommend War and Society in Early Rome by Jeremy Armstrong if you are interested). In the new view the Triarii (along with the Roarii and Acensii) are the remnants of an older, patrician and patrician clientele only army that dominated Roman Warfare up to about 450-400BCE, after which the increased demands on the military class along with the changing nature of warfare (particularly the profit derrived from warfare) meant that the plebian classes (still land owners just not directly associated with the Patricians) where involved in warfare. Assuming the more current view is correct the change from a family based warband style army to a community army probably was what caused the change in equipment from high cost to more democratic lower cost (it also offers an explanation of why the Triarii where at the back, to push perhaps less disciplined and reluctant plebs in front of them though that's a somewhat nasty interpretation). *edit* The opening of the flood gates I refer to of course would change the Hastati and Principes more, but that's because they where created by that. However the creation of a massive new portion of the army would naturally also have a big effect on the nature of arms and armour within the older, more established army, especially as time went on.
Either way the Spear and Scutum style was not just in use for the Triarii btw, the Manniple style legions developed (as I mentioned) sometime between the latter half of the 5th century and the first half of the 4th Century BCE, but the Spear and Scutum remained in use by the Hastati and Principes until the 3rd Century. The Triarii where simply the last part of the army to abandon the spear (probably with Marius reforms, potentially earlier if Marius was just descriptive rather than prescriptive, which is entirely possible). So it's kind of difficult to say that it was mainly used when the Triarii had declined in military potential.
@@dernwineThank you for the Book suggestion. I must admit my time with the topic lies before 2016 and I did not read that one.
It obviously is an issue of gradual changes, tho I would argue that one cannot call the "pre camillian" Top-level Infantry "triarii" as they were surely not called that(as they were not the "third" of anything). And you will notice that I did not argue that the Triarii did not "evolve" from a non-plebian Unit.
PS: why would you assume I did not know, about Hastati and Principes using spears? You'd get that far from Videogames or basic latin alone :D Tho this is even more ... indicative of my point as these high-turnover groups abandoned spears even sooner.
@@carlpult5235 No worries, as you pointed out it's a relatively new book (*edit* it's also a academic work so it's stupidly expensive and difficult to read XD ) and the entire argument about the development of the Roman Army along these lines seems to be a long way from reaching popular culture, so I'm quite happy to try to spread the word :).
I wouldn't call them Triarii in a pre-Maniple context either, they're just the main heavy infantry arm of the Romans, but it's sometimes use full to use the word when talking about the time when things where changing since there was definitely continuity between the Pre-Maniple/Pre-Camillian Warbands and the Triarii.
I just assumed that you where not aware of the use of the Hasta by the Hastati and Principes because of the phrase " the Spear+Scutum Style was mainly mainly used at a time where the Triarii had already declined in military potential." I read that as referring to the post Punic era when the Triarii really became a bit of an Appendix to the army, and it seemed to suggest you where not aware of the use of spears by earlier formations. Since clearly misunderstood your point I apologize.
I would personally rather have scutum and spear with gladius as a sidearm in combat. But for a huge army like the Romans there will always be a lot of troops in the back row where the pililum works better.
Scutum and shield? The scutum is the shield. Do you mean a scutum and a spear, with a gladius as a sidearm? I think this is how it was anyway.
Can you talk about why large shields did not come back into prominence during the early 16th century? I know there were units of sword and shield that worked but were not adopted large scale, but why wasn't that an innovation explored? Firearms?
Many of the front line troops of this period had plate armor that provided very good protection. Only two handed pole weapons had a chance to defeat them. Hence the proliferation of pikes and halberds and the gradual disappearance of shields and one handed weapons.
It's 'scuta' for the plural, not scutums. :P
Scutums work too in English. But you're right otherwise.
Matt, are there any really good reading on arms and armors outside of Europe, like Mongols, Ottoman, Egyptian, whatnot.
The channel Razmasfar, while predominantly looks at historical middle eastern martial arts. They also show weapons from this period and area.
What about that black saber on the wall behandling you? Show it. Tell us all about it.
You have a Hasta… thrusting spear. You would not use a Scutum. You use a lighter, thinner auxillia shield. Do not use Trajan’s column… they made the shield small so you can see the soldiers…. Plus auxilia using Dragon teeth on their chain maille… so the public knows they are non-citizens. Forts on the frontier, were Auxilia were stationed, their artwork does not show dragon teeth nor the few chain maille shirts found.
A couple of off the wall random thoughts here:
The Germanic tribes should have come up with some kind of hook that they could have used to hook the feet of the legionaries. = @ )
You mention that it is "very hard" to counter these shields. That has been my experience with even smaller shields. Obviously, you cannot flank individuals, when they are in formation. It makes me wonder about the degrees of protection would you say that one is nearly as invulnerable, wielding a shield like this, in formation, in a purely frontal confrontation, as one would be if one were wearing full plate? I would guess that the degree of protection from the plate armor would be better, because it has all round protection and you are not as dependent on your comrades protecting you.
Many of the ancient battles involved thousands of soldiers. It is interesting to think that medieval armies were probably cheaper due to their armor. Sure the armor would have been expensive, but it still would probably have been less expensive than hiring say 100 spearmen for the duration of a long campaign. Obviously, some warriors were obligated to serve, but you still had to feed and clothe them. In a way medieval armies may have been more cost-effective than ancient armies, just because of the armor.
Could there be a psychological aspect in that if you have a long weapon you are less inclined to close. By equipping their troops with only short range weapons roman generals forced their men to close range. This would be paticularly terrifying to opponents trained in stand off spear and shield vs spear and shield poking matches.
5:32 it's heavy.
HOW HEAVY?
When you mention that waving it around will tire your shield arm rapidly, I believe you're thinking of those who don't spend a lot of time carrying any considerable weight, whereas professional soldiers of the day did exactly that. I'm retired now but when I was working I thought nothing of carrying ten or twenty pounds of tools in my left hand all day not to mention hoisting fifty to sixty pounds up to shoulder height thirty or more times a day. How long could I have waved that shield around before getting tired?
While this is true to some degree, we also have to compare like with like. Most historical shields are much lighter than a Roman shield. Obviously the larger the shield, the heavier the shield tends to be, unless they are made thinner. The Roman shield is towards the heavier end of the spectrum of shields from all of history, though medieval pavises are even heavier.
The Aspis or Greek hoplite shield was c16-20lb & the sctumn as similar weight. When I used to do labouring, tree felling etc I soon found that fit, strong guys could handle gear like this all day once accustomed. It was also used as a battering-ram to knock enemies over when all your weight was put behind it. I think the earlier oval sutum would've been easier to handle a Hasta(spear) with as it didn't have such squared corners which block spear thrusts, but a gentler oval profile with less dishing.
Scutum was about 8kg, no? 🤔
Ducking behind the shield seems suicidal, since you can't see where the next attack will come from.
Good context Matt!