Atlatl

[MichelleH]

Testing page five

[Rokcet Scientist]

NOW it works...!

[gunny]

The 20' spears, Frank=====The 20' spears.

[Frank Harrist]

It's apples and oranges. Steel tipped spears versus stone-tipped spears. We were discussing atlatls. The romans never used atlatls that I know of.

[gunny]

Be a cool atlatl dart---------20' with a Clovis tip.

[Minimalist]

Those cohorts with 2-javelins-per-legionair were a form of light infantry.

Um....no.

In the early Republican period the Romans light troops, the velites, were still armed with a couple of pila but wore no armor giving them mobility at the expense of defense. The first and second lines, the hastati and principes, carried two pila but the third line, the triarii, were armed with spears although not the 20 foot Macedonian style pike you are referring to.

After the reforms of Gaius Marius, (c. 106 BC) the legion was made up of 10 cohorts of heavy infantry armed with pila, gladius and the scutum or oblong shield. Roman commanders generally recruited auxilliary cavalry, skirmisher, archers and slingers in the areas they operated. By the Imperial period, all that changed was the armor as the legionary kit came to include the Lorica segmentata but the armaments remained essentially unchanged until much later.

And ALL weaponry that was used before or since 106 BC, and the formations they were used in, is negligible? That would be about a thousand years of weapons development and use that suddenly needs to be ignored?
Sorry, Bob, but imho that is the very definition of tunnel vision...

BTW: nice pic. But that is a guard. Thus equipped with a guard's weapons. It is not a heavy infantry legionair as he would be kitted out for a battle. If anything, that guard could be described as a light infantry legionair.

Roman use of the phalanx died out after the Etruscan period. When they came into contact with the Samnites and other hill tribes of Italy they were forced to adopt their tactics, namely the manipular legion more suited to the terrain than the cumbersome Greek phalanx.

http://www.geocities.com/delerius2001/Rome.htm

Legion organization.

The Romans adopted the phalanx formation for their infantry around 550 BC, but this proved impractical in the hilly terrain of Italy. They evolved a heavy infantry system of smaller 120-man units called maniples, literally a handful. The maniples could be employed in column-like a phalanxes or in lines. The maniples were the basic building blocks of a legion. The number of legions in service started at four and grew as the Empire expanded. A legion was a largely self- sufficient fighting force of light troops, heavy infantry, and cavalry.

The use of such tactics (and the Samnite pilum which the Romans also adopted!) was well established by the Battle of Sentinum in 295 BC which was less than 30 years after the Roman disaster at the Caudine Forks at the hands of those same Samnites. The Romans were still capable of learning from their enemies at that time.

As for the re-enactor...they love their little poses but he is a representative specimen of a legionary of the late first century BC- mid 4th century AD.

[Minimalist]

Be a cool atlatl dart---------20' with a Clovis tip.

One could launch it out of a ballista, I suppose. The Romans fired lots of stuff from those.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Those cohorts with 2-javelins-per-legionair were a form of light infantry.

Um....no.

In the early Republican period the Romans light troops, the velites, were still armed with a couple of pila but wore no armor giving them mobility at the expense of defense. The first and second lines, the hastati and principes, carried two pila but the third line, the triarii, were armed with spears although not the 20 foot Macedonian style pike you are referring to.

After the reforms of Gaius Marius, (c. 106 BC) the legion was made up of 10 cohorts of heavy infantry armed with pila, gladius and the scutum or oblong shield. Roman commanders generally recruited auxilliary cavalry, skirmisher, archers and slingers in the areas they operated. By the Imperial period, all that changed was the armor as the legionary kit came to include the Lorica segmentata but the armaments remained essentially unchanged until much later.

And ALL weaponry that was used before or since 106 BC, and the formations they were used in, is negligible? That would be about a thousand years of weapons development and use that suddenly needs to be ignored?
Sorry, Bob, but imho that is the very definition of tunnel vision...

BTW: nice pic. But that is a guard. Thus equipped with a guard's weapons. It is not a heavy infantry legionair as he would be kitted out for a battle. If anything, that guard could be described as a light infantry legionair.

Roman use of the phalanx died out after the Etruscan period. When they came into contact with the Samnites and other hill tribes of Italy they were forced to adopt their tactics, namely the manipular legion more suited to the terrain than the cumbersome Greek phalanx.

http://www.geocities.com/delerius2001/Rome.htm

Legion organization.

The Romans adopted the phalanx formation for their infantry around 550 BC, but this proved impractical in the hilly terrain of Italy. They evolved a heavy infantry system of smaller 120-man units called maniples, literally a handful. The maniples could be employed in column-like a phalanxes or in lines. The maniples were the basic building blocks of a legion. The number of legions in service started at four and grew as the Empire expanded. A legion was a largely self- sufficient fighting force of light troops, heavy infantry, and cavalry.

The use of such tactics (and the Samnite pilum which the Romans also adopted!) was well established by the Battle of Sentinum in 295 BC which was less than 30 years after the Roman disaster at the Caudine Forks at the hands of those same Samnites. The Romans were still capable of learning from their enemies at that time.

As for the re-enactor...they love their little poses but he is a representative specimen of a legionary of the late first century BC- mid 4th century AD.

Sure, but the Roman empire was slightly larger than the Italian hills, Bob... Different terrain, differing tactics of course. But on battle fields – note the word 'fields', i.e. a large open area – the heavy infantry pike phalanx was used by just about every army up until the 18th century.

As for the re-enactor [...] he is a representative specimen of a legionary ON GUARD DUTY. Not on a battle field.

[Minimalist]

the heavy infantry pike phalanx was used by just about every army up until the 18th century.

But not by the Romans during their period of expansion...and they found out, probably by accident, that their manipular formations were the perfect tactic for defeating phalanx using enemies. The Romans had little trouble conquering Greece and Macedonia in the second century BC.


Trajan's column....no phalanxes, no pikes.

[Guest]

The Romans were obviously quick learners; an army of Celts from north of the Alps hammered a Roman army and sacked Rome in the late Fourth century BC (c.330?).

[Barracuda]

Hey Realist! Thanks for the link/photo of the saddle.

I had wondered for a long time how they stayed mounted without stirups!

[Rokcet Scientist]

The Romans were obviously quick learners; an army of Celts from north of the Alps hammered a Roman army and sacked Rome in the late Fourth century BC (c.330?).

And not just once!

[Minimalist]

The Romans were obviously quick learners; an army of Celts from north of the Alps hammered a Roman army and sacked Rome in the late Fourth century BC (c.330?).

Brennus in 390 BC.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Vae victis!

And in
410 AD: Sack of Rome - Rome is sacked by Alaric, King of the Visigoths
455 - Rome is sacked by Geiseric, King of the Vandals
546 - Rome is sacked and depopulated by Totila, King of the Ostrogoths, during the war between the Ostrogoths and the Byzantines
846 - The Saracens attack Rome and loot old St. Peter's Basilica, though the Roman City walls prevent further damage to the city itself.
1084 - Rome is sacked by the Normans of Robert Guiscard.

[Frank Harrist]

And not once did a Roman use an atlatl!