Simon Elliot Webcast questions

[AntiokosIII]

I just listened to Dr. Elliot's talk on the RomanArmy on the '3 Brits and the Hobby' site. Dr.Elliot had some fascinating points to make on changes to the Legions for the Parthian campaigns of Septimus Severus. He describes the Legions drawn up in close, deep formations to resist cataphract charges. Part of his description sounds like 'long spear' troops; other parts sound more like 'short spear-shieldwall' troops. I have lots of respect for Dr. Elliot's work, but no idea if these notions are considered mainstream by historians. If they are, has there been any talk about a separate 'Severan' list option to allow reclassifying legions as either of the two types when campaigning in the East? I have never heard of Imperial Romans used as a spear phalanx this late; and a Roman shieldwall seems ...well...different. My ROman knowledge is not deep, though.
This is not a demand/suggestion/plea for changes to existing lists. It's more a question posed to folks who know more than I do about whether they hear Dr. Elliot saying the same things I think I hear.

[nikgaukroger]

I found myself in considerable disagreement with his views of the later Roman army, and personally I don't think he is in line with the current view amongst (military) historians.

The use of a close formation with some troops retaining the spear (or pilum in this case) in hand to resist a cavalry charge is not new to Septimius Severus, Arrian describes just that in his account of fighting the Alans.

Back in 1979 Everett Wheeler published an article "The Legion as Phalanx" which argued that the later legion operated as, surprise, surprise, a phalanx, however, whilst it has some support I don't think it is consensus - in fact I think a lot of people rather fudge the issue as the evidence is so patchy. I would certainly say that the descriptions of the C4th in Ammianus do not give us a picture of a spear phalanx - just too many references to fighting with swords basically - and, IMO, it is more consistent with the style of the early imperial legions. After that it gets very difficult to say as the evidence is woefully inadequate - although it seems reasonably likely that the infantry tactics described in the Strategikon are the linear descendant of late Roman tactics and this still mentions the use of swords in attacking.

I have no idea where the idea of Severan legions forming up 16 deep comes from, unless it is just a extrapolation from the idea that they are using a phalanx. It is sometimes said that the much later Strategikon has the infantry deployed 16 deep, however, that is clearly not a combat formation and those are 8 or 4 deep, plus supporting archers.

One thing mentioned that made me think we've missed something from the EIR is the lanciarii which seem to have been developed about the time of Severus.

A problem we have with the development of the Roman army is that we see changes in equipment, shields and swords are the usual ones highlighted, but there is nothing saying why the changes were made so it becomes a case of (educated) guesswork and speculation. There is then also the change in unit sizes.

I could go on, but will restrain myself 

[lionheartrjc]

My problem with the podcast was that Simon covers a long period of Roman history at almost breakneck speed. He did not appear to be reading from a prepared script but was talking off the top of his head.  This inevitably means that he is making statements with only a cursory reference to some of his sources and it does not offer a chance for some of his statements to be challenged.  It does not help that his interviewers have only a basic knowledge of Roman history.

There is plenty of artefactual evidence for shafted weapons in the 3rd century. Some are clearly pila, but other spearheads have also been retrieved. These fall into two types, broader in the middle or broadest at the base. The suggestion is that the spears that are broadest at the base are for thrusting, not throwing.  Vegetius (latter half of the 4th century) calls the 4th century pilum a spiculum, and a similar weapon a bebra (possibly based upon the Germanic angon). He also describes a lighter javelin, the verutum.  (P Southern and K R Dixon, The Late Roman Army provides a good summary of Late Roman equipment).

None of this would seem to justify the picture of a spear phalanx in the style of the classical Greeks or Hellenistic states.  It is necessary to be cautious when using the term phalanx.  It may simply mean a formed body of infantry.

I also cannot find any reference to Roman legionaries forming 16 deep to resist cavalry.

So in summary, might Roman troops thrust their weapons against cavalry - sure.  Could you describe them as a phalanx, well only if you mean that they were a formed body of infantry.  16 deep in a Greek or Hellenistic style, no I don't think so.  On listening to the podcast I am not sure Simon intended to suggest that thy were - but hopefully he can clarify this.

Richard

[lionheartrjc]

On the topic of lanciarii, Luke Ueda Sarson has a good summary of them:  http://lukeuedasarson.com/Lanciarii.html.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

On Roman equipment I'd recommend "Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, second edition" by Bishop & Coulston. Only 8 quid on Kindle 

[nikgaukroger]

On the topic of lanciarii, Luke Ueda Sarson has a good summary of them:  http://lukeuedasarson.com/Lanciarii.html.

Richard

Although rather oddly he makes no mention of the pay records for troops in Egypt from about 300 CE which includes lanciarii if the legio II Triana separately from a vexillatio of the same legio - the relative numbers for the pay being 878 and 1109 (if we can trust Barker in AEIR).

[SteveO]

In defence of Simon, and at the risk of speaking for him, he did praise MEG for being the best set of rules he knew for representing legionaries (and ancient battles in general). Therefore, he appears happy with how they are currently represented and their effect on the table.

As already intimated, we often see the term phalanx used by writers to describe any body of troops in close formation - that doesn't mean they were hoplites or phalangites.

[lionheartrjc]

Spoke to Simon about this last night.  He touched on the idea of deep legionary formations in his Legionaries book.  To quote him "I really don't mind people disagreeing, it gets more research done."
Hopefully he will expand on this idea in his forthcoming books.

[sultanbev]

"we often see the term phalanx used by writers to describe any body of troops in close formation"

Yes, I've often seen early 18th Century Janissaries in North Africa described as 'in phalanx' and that's armed with matchlocks.

mark

[AntiokosIII]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. They basically confirm what I thought I knew.