All Things Cannae

[antiochus]

This is a continuation of a discussion that started from another thread (Rome's best general)."

Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff wrote:
Since the Triarii customarily provided the camp guard, it is tempting to equate these with Polybius' "10,000"......

I respectfully dispute the notion the “triarii customarily provided the camp guard.â€

[PMBardunias]

Polybius (XV 11) at the battle of Zama, via Hannibal’s speech to his troops, gives the game away by naming Paullus as the commander in chief at Cannae.

What explains the discrepancy? Was Polybius simply pandering to Scipio, or was there some earlier tradition?

[Paullus Scipio]

Steven wrote:-
[quote]Polybius (III 117) “as the main battle commenced the Romans (the 10,000 men) carried out their orders and attacked this force (Hannibal’s camp)…Hannibal, who had gained the upper hand in every part of the field, came to their rescue (Carthaginian camp guards), put the Romans to flight, and shut them up in their own camp. He killed 2,000 of their number and captured all the rest.â€

[Paullus Scipio]

Steven wrote:-
[quote]I respectfully dispute the notion the “triarii customarily provided the camp guard.â€

[Tarbicus]

In times long before the word processor and spell checker, and if a certain type of troop was known by different names anyway, and the writing of a book took a very long time; perhaps they simply forgot what they called them before and used a different name or term unintentionally?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Quite possibly.....

[andersao]

indeed, and one of the question marks over whether 'velites' were introduced as part of the legions in 211 BC [Livy XXVI.4.10 Frontinus Stratagems IV.7.29] is Livy's use of the term earlier

This has been a hotly debated topic in scholarship, but I would point out that, off the top of my head, I am aware that both Goldsworthy (Punic Wars, 2000) and Daly (Cannae, 2002) have strongly argued against Livy's claim that there was some major reform in 211.
Daly's argument is perhaps the most thorough; he states that although the velites existed before 211, they may have been anachronistically called the rorarii (until 211), as their equipment differed very little from these predecessors.
In any case, Livy's various claims are dubious on more than one occassion, and I think both Goldsworthy and Daly are right to dismiss his statement that there was some major reform at Capua.
That said, Daly's entire argument is worth reading (see G. Daly 'Cannae', 2002, pp.71-73)

As for guarding camps, I thought it might be interesting to point out that Polybius has the velites guarding camps in his description of the Roman army in book 6. (Polyb. 6.35.5). However, this specifically refers to guarding them while the army in encamped, whereas I noted the above references to Dionysus have the triarii guarding the camps during battle (approx. 150 years earlier).

[Timotheus]

......Well spotted, Steven ! Polybius has Hannibal say:"...keep before your eyes the battle of the Trebia fought against the father of the present Roman General,

I am not sure how far you can take this quote. Hannibal knew both Consuls were at the battle. It would be easy for him to rally his troops by lying about which one was in command that day.

This is of course assuming that we can even take the speech at face value.

[Paullus Scipio]

Timotheus wrote:-

It would be easy for him to rally his troops by lying about which one was in command that day.

...remembering that it is Polybius who is putting the words into 'Hannibal's' mouth, what possible motive could 'Hannibal' have for lying to his own troops, especially as many of them will have been present at Cannae and would know the truth?? How would getting the commander's name wrong possibly improve the morale of the troops?

This is of course assuming that we can even take the speech at face value.

.....naturally, such a speech could not be delivered to tens of thousands of troops in real life, nor (usually) was such a speech if given recorded for posterity. It is usually an authors 'device' for conveying information he wants us to have....a literary topos. In this instance, it is one more piece of evidence to add to the rest ( see 'Rome's Ablest General thread') that it was really Aemilius Paullus who commanded at Cannae.....
Tarbicus/Jim wrote

perhaps they simply forgot what they called them before and used a different name or term unintentionally?

....which raises an interesting point! Authors frequently 'forget' when they are reading their sources, and often unintentionally use the terminology they find. This is one important clue for scholars when analysing, say, Livy because tracing two or more different 'terminology threads' through the work allows us to deduce when the author is using a particular source.

[Duncan Head]

...and Livy [XXVI.4], when describing a special force raised to fight with cavalry in 211 tells us the light-armed already had this weapon in use)

Not quite, surely?

He does say that the light-armed force in question had spears with a head similar to the hasta velitaris, yes. Which, if that meant "the spear of the velites", would mean that the velites already existed under that name (or else Livy was being even more anachronistic than usual...).

But wasn't it Rawson who argued that hasta veltaris originally meant the pilum? After all the classic h.v. is, as you say, a sort of mini-version of the socketed pilum. In that case, the velites would have been named after the spear, not vice versa, and that naming could (if we accept that Livy's earlier references might be anachronistic) have taken place in or after 211.

My own view is still that the 211 cavalry-support incident is the first reference we have to light infantry having swords and shields, and that therefore an equipment change happened in 211 - whether it was associated with any change in organisation, numbers or nomencalature, or not.

[Aryaman2]

I think the introduction of Velites is in line with the theme of Roman inferiority in light infantry, something Livy also speaks about when he explains the reinforcements of light infantry sent by King Hiero in 216.
I mean, regardless of their weapons, velites were very different from rorarii or any other kind of skirmishers the Romans had used before that were basically the low classes unable to afford the equipment of line infantry. Velites OTOH were picked men selected for their task as light infantry (recalling a discussion from the Greek Militarysection)

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

Not quite, surely?

...well, so readers may make up their own minds, describing a special force selected from legionaries, the original reads;
"..et septena iacula quaternos longa pedes data, praefixa ferro quale hastis velitaribus inest..." which Frank Gardner Moore translated in the Loeb version "..and seven javelins apiece four feet long and having iron heads such as are on the spears of the light troops.."
Aubrey de Selincourt in the Penguin has the slightly less accurate "...seven lances , four feet long, tipped with iron like the spears of the light infantry.."
'hastis velitaribus' is surely literally 'spear of the velites', and I don't believe that Rawson's idea can be correct. If a 'pilum' is meant, why not say so? Livy and his readers certainly knew what it was and he uses the word. Furthermore, Livy gives us an exact description of the weapon - it is javelins(iacula =light throwing weapon, not pila = heavy throwing weapon) and they are only four feet long ( so definitely not a pilum) In addition, the pilum had been around hundreds of years before the 'hastis velitaribus', as archaeology confirms...He must have picked up the expression from his sources. ( Velites were obsolete/gone by Livy's day). Polybius too descibes this weapon (the 'mini-pilum') and distinguishes it from 'pilum'( see below)

In that case, the velites would have been named after the spear, not vice versa,

...this seems a little unlikely to me, because then 'velite' would have to mean something like 'hastis velitaribus carriers', and that does not fit the latin etymology at all.

My own view is still that the 211 cavalry-support incident is the first reference we have to light infantry having swords and shields, and that therefore an equipment change happened in 211 - whether it was associated with any change in organisation, numbers or nomencalature, or not.

.....well, strictly speaking Livy does not actually say this. He tells us that a 'special force' of picked legionaries is raised to fight with the cavalry, they are given smaller round shields than the cavalry ( parmae breviores quam equetres) - presumably instead of legionary scuta and seven 'javelins' four feet long with iron heads like light infantry spears (hastis velitaribus). No mention of swords, notice, though we may assume the legionaries retained theirs....and no mention of what the armament of the light infantry/skirmishers is, beyond the javelins. At the end of the passage, he says"Thereafter the Roman side was superior in cavalry also; (and) it was made the practice to have light-armed/velites in the legions ("Inde equitata quoque superior Romana res fuit; [et -depending on text version]institutum ut velites in legionibus essent" He is clearly describing an organisational change, not a weapon one; from then on, light infantry were legionary implying this is because of the success of the legionary 'special force', and presumably done to raise the quality of the light troops. Note that in Livy's description of the army circa 340 BC, it is the Legion's Hastati, who consist of youths in the first bloom of manhood (florem juvenem pubescentium in militiam) , but in Polybius' later description it is the velites, now part of the Legion, who are drawn from the youngest... It is Polybius who describes the weapons of this legionary velite as " a sword, javelins and round circular shield...three feet in diameter.They also wear a plain helmet, and sometimes cover it with a wolf's skin or something similar...the wooden shaft of the javelin measures about two cubits (3 ft, 0.9 m) in length and is about a finger's breadth in thickness; it's head is a span long (9 ins, 0.225 m )hammered out to such a fine tip that it is necessarily bent on first impact, and the enemy cannot return it (this description is very like Livy's, and note that this too is clearly not the pila, which Polybius goes on to describe later)....The next in seniority( i.e. no longer the youngest) called Hastati are ordered to wear a complete panoply..."
I would therefore disagree that there was some sort of equipment change ( remembering too that 'amateur' shieldless javelin throwers ( servants and the like)had long since been superceded as skirmishers in Greek and Italian/Roman armies by 'professional' shielded peltasts, then thureophoroi and the like,) I would also argue that the rorarii(light infantry) of earlier Roman armies were more likely than not shielded javelin throwers, and possibly, on being incorporated in the Legions, may have had a name change ( assuming Livy and Polybius' earlier use of terminology is anachronistic, which may not be the case....( see above earlier post)
Inaki wrote:-

Velites OTOH were picked men selected for their task as light infantry (recalling a discussion from the Greek Militarysection)

...not quite, a little confusion here between the picked force (legionaries) and the light infantry (see above), but I would agree with you generally that the re-organisation likely came about to improve the quality of Roman light troops.

[antiochus]

Polybius has let his consistency slip! (or despite his patrons, did he deliberately leave clues?) That makes it even more likely, verging on the certain that Paullus commanded.

I believe that is a given. There is also another factor that comes into play, which although continuously dismissed by many, concerns Livy’s description of the Roman army’s deployment at Cannae. Livy has the army deployed in two wings, the right wing consisting of Roman legions and Roman cavalry, and the left wing consisting of the allied legions and the allied cavalry.

Polybius’ account of the Roman deployment lacks clarity, but it does seem to support Livy’s, so I am puzzled as to why Livy’s deployment is ignored, especially when Livy’s deployment arrangement was common for some two hundred years before, then disappeared for a time, only to resurface again at Cannae. With the Romans occupying the right wing, besides being the position of honour (which is associated with strength, life and luck), having the Romans occupy the right wings also accords with Roman orientation of seniority, with those on the right being senior in ranking to those on the left. What all this means is there is something distinctively “Romanâ€

[Duncan Head]

'hastis velitaribus' is surely literally 'spear of the velites', and I don't believe that Rawson's idea can be correct. If a 'pilum' is meant, why not say so? Livy and his readers certainly knew what it was and he uses the word.

That would depend on what his source had said. If the source used the term hasta velitaris, would Livy know that an allusion to the pilum might have been meant?

Furthermore, Livy gives us an exact description of the weapon - it is javelins(iacula =light throwing weapon, not pila = heavy throwing weapon) and they are only four feet long ( so definitely not a pilum)

But do we really know how long the socketed pilum was in the 3rd century?

In any case, Livy doesn't say that the weapon was a hasta velitaris, just that it was tipped like one - "praefixa ferro quale hastis uelitaribus", as you quoted yourself. Whatever this weapon was, therefore, it was not a hasta velitaris in the way that Livy (or Livy's source) understood the word. Hence the "not quite" of my original post - Livy does not say, as you implied, that the hasta velitaris was in use by the light infantry before this incident (or even during this incident, strictly!)

The Rawson theory, as I recall it, is that hasta velitaris orginally meant something like "flying spear", and denoted the pilum, or at least the "thin" socketed type of pilum. That helps explain Ennius' "hastati who throw hastae", if the pilum or one type of it was in the 3rd century widely termed as a type of hasta. The light infantry of 211 then use a lighter version of this hasta and eventually take their name from it.

Your suggestion that the velites' taking their name from the spear is unlikely in view of the etymology would be a stronger argument if we knew what the etymology of "velites" actually was! The two main candidates I've seen are "those who fight only in their clothing", presumably connected with vestis; and "swift ones", "fliers", presumably connected with velox. The latter, I presume, is the one Rawson had in mind.

In addition, the pilum had been around hundreds of years before the 'hastis velitaribus', as archaeology confirms...

But archaeology doesn't tell us what it was called!

...he says"Thereafter the Roman side was superior in cavalry also; (and) it was made the practice to have light-armed/velites in the legions ("Inde equitata quoque superior Romana res fuit; [et -depending on text version]institutum ut velites in legionibus essent" He is clearly describing an organisational change, not a weapon one; from then on, light infantry were legionary

Again, this is hard to take without a grain of salt, since accordin g to the organisational accounts given by Livy himself, light infantry (such as the rorarii) had always been "legionary", always been included in the organisation of the legions: the rorarii were as much "legionaries" as the hastati or principes.

Note that in Livy's description of the army circa 340 BC, it is the Legion's Hastati, who consist of youths in the first bloom of manhood (florem juvenem pubescentium in militiam) , but in Polybius' later description it is the velites, now part of the Legion, who are drawn from the youngest... I would therefore disagree that there was some sort of equipment change ( remembering too that 'amateur' shieldless javelin throwers ( servants and the like)had long since been superceded as skirmishers in Greek and Italian/Roman armies by 'professional' shielded peltasts, then thureophoroi and the like,) I would also argue that the rorarii(light infantry) of earlier Roman armies were more likely than not shielded javelin throwers, and possibly, on being incorporated in the Legions, may have had a name change...

You're handling Livy a little selectively here, aren't you: accepting what he says about the hastati, but ignoring the fact that he does not anywhere mention shields for the rorarii, the "leves" of VIII.viii, or any other light infantry?

Shielded peltasts may well have replaced unshielded javelinmen in Greece, but I think it would be hard to demonstrate such a change in Italy before 211.

And "the rorarii(light infantry) of earlier Roman armies ... being incorporated in the Legions, may have had a name change" - but they were always part of the legions!

Now, I'm happy to believe that the experimental force of 211 may well heve triggered a re-arming and name-changing of the rorarii, but I think part of that change is the invention of the hasta velitaris as it is known in the 2nd century, as an adaptation of the socketed pilum and perhaps borrowing its name; and that this incident and the subsequent re-arming was the first use of light infantry shields in the Roman army.

[Paullus Scipio]

Steven/Antiochus wrote:

Quote:
Do you suggest that a portion of the 'choicest' troops were left out of battle, while the elder Triarii took their place in the line?


I will back Polybius when he states two legions remained in the larger camp in order to attack Hannibal’s camp. I also believe the secondary camp was not manned during the battle, due to fourteen legions standing between it and Hannibal’s army.

...some misunderstanding here, I think. I agree with you that it is more likely that Paullus detailed two Legions etc to attack Hannibal's camp( see earlier post)......my quoted remark was intended in a general sense, to indicate that the 'elder' troops ( together with unfit for duty types) would generally be left to guard a camp, rather than 'choice' or 'prime troops', as a general rule. Unusually, Paullus wants to attack Hannibal's camp, and so details two legions etc to the task rather than 'the usual camp guard'

Duncan wrote:

If the source used the term hasta velitaris, would Livy know that an allusion to the pilum might have been meant?

...since he takes the trouble to describe the 'hastis velitaribus' in detail, a weapon not used in his day and hence unfamiliar to his readers, but not the pilum ( which was), I think it fairly clear that Livy knew the h.v. was not a pilum. If, as I think you mean 'pilum' may have been a generic term for all throwing weapons with long iron heads, and h.v. synonymous with this, then surely Livy would have said so.Instead he says it is a species of javelin(iacula) Livy's source obviously does mention the h.v., and may have described it too.Certainly Livy must have felt confident that he knew what this 'ancient' weapon of the 'special force', which replaced their 'normal pila', looked like to describe it in detail and say that the head was 'like that of the light troops'....which also matches Polybius' description of the Velites weapon. If ( and we don't know this for certain) the army Polybius described in his digression is that of the time, then the digression occurs at 217 BC and resumes at 216 BC, but Polybius does make the point that that he is digressing at this point in the narrative to describe the Roman Institutions (including the Military) at it's height....

But do we really know how long the socketed pilum was in the 3rd century?

I think we can be fairly certain .......archaeological specimens of socketed heads from Etruscan graves from Volci and dated 5th C BC, through to Imperial times, while varying individually, are consistently 70-80 cm (28-30 inches) long, with another group 28-35 cm(11-15 ins) corresponding reasonably well to Livy and Polybius' descriptions, of socketed pilum and h.v. respectively. Incidently, though I hesitate to mention it because I haven't verified it, John Gerson referred to an h.v. head, supposed to have been found on the battlefield of Telamon (225 BC) in issue no.109 of that August Journal "Slingshot", edited at the time by your illustrious self.... :wink:
If correct, that would demonstrate the weapon in use before the second Punic War.....

I'm a little confused here, so I'm going to edit this a little...In any case, Livy doesn't say that the weapon (of the picked force of legionaries) was a hasta velitaris, just that it was tipped like one agreed - "praefixa ferro quale hastis uelitaribus", as you quoted yourself. Whatever this weapon was ( of the picked force), therefore, it was not a hasta velitaris in the way that Livy (or Livy's source) understood the word. Hence the "not quite" of my original post - Livy does not say, as you implied, that the hasta velitaris was in use by the light infantry before this incident (or even during this incident, strictly!) Ah ! I see, you are saying that strictly speaking, Livy says "like hastis velitaribus", but does not specifically say that the h.v. is the weapon of light infantry ( though all translators treat it as such, as do lexicons)...but may be a generic piloum, as expressed by Rawson, but I don't find his idea at all convincing.)

Whatever this weapon was, therefore, it was not a hasta velitaris in the way that Livy (or Livy's source) understood the word.

That seems to be rather splitting hairs, especially given the individual variation in weapons.
Perhaps 'not quite identical' might be more appropriate....combining Livy's statement with Polybius' description,( and archaeological examples) they must be very alike, if not identical, and surely all are referring to the same weapon.

...and "swift ones", "fliers", presumably connected with velox.

I believe this is the more generally accepted derivation.....

light infantry (such as the rorarii) had always been "legionary", always been included in the organisation of the legions: the rorarii were as much "legionaries" as the hastati or principes.

...again, I don't think that is exactly what Livy says. His description referring to 'Rorarii' is specifically of the Roman Army (exercitus) lined up for battle, and not a description of a Legion.(Livy VIII.viii.9)That being so, it follows that 'leves' 'rorarii' and 'accenses' are probably not legionaries, who not only had to be full citizens, but of a certain wealth qualification to boot. ( and 'accenses' = attendants/slaves/servants are surely not qualified? ). In the light of Steven/Antiochus' last post, bearing in mind he has a thesis/book on this very subject, I'd be most interested to see his comments. He seems to be categoric that velites/light infantry only became part of the legions in 211 BC....

You're handling Livy a little selectively here, aren't you: accepting what he says about the hastati, but ignoring the fact that he does not anywhere mention shields for the rorarii, the "leves" of VIII.viii, or any other light infantry?

I don't believe so.Strictly speaking, in the paragraph[VIII.viii.8] describing the vexilla(Triarii,Rorarii and Accenses), making up the third line(ordo) he does not mention shields.So are they all shieldless? No-one doubts that Triarii had them though, not least because because he describes the Triarii kneeling beneath their banners (sub vexillis ) from which we may conclude he means all the vexilla/elements making up the third line(ordo) with shields leaning on their shoulders. Many scholars (e.g. Connolly, or Graham Vine in "Slingshot" no.116, again under your illustrious editorship ), therefore consider 'Rorarii' and 'Accenses' as Heavy Infantry with scuta, (Rorarii and accensi stand together in a line (Varro, l.c. from the Frivolaria of Plautus. ) or Peltast/thureophoroi-like, able to skirmish ( there are several references to this skirmishing - Livy , Festus and even Symmachus, in one of his epistles (VIII.47), draws an illustration from this source "tamquam levis armaturae miles Rorarios aemularis." etc

All somewhat confusing, I'll agree, and hence the on-going debate on the subject...as usual on subjects ancient, evidence is thin, and several interpretations are possible, such as the one you have put, but I believe on balance of probability.....'Rorarii' were essentially the Roman equivalent of thureophoroi....

Shielded peltasts may well have replaced unshielded javelinmen in Greece, but I think it would be hard to demonstrate such a change in Italy before 211.

The evidence is scanty, I would agree, and much must be deduced, but the 'rorarii' and possibly 'accensi' certainly sound to me in armament and role, much like their near contemporary Greek cousins, thureophoroi as a troop-type..... though the 'accensi', being mere attendants, may have been poorly armed as slingers and such-like - similar to the previous "5th class" troops.Even that agrees with contemporary practice elsewhere with mixed groups of javelinmen and slingers skirmishing. After all, in the whole Mediterranean world from Spain to Syria, shielded skirmishers seem to be the norm at this time.....

And "the rorarii(light infantry) of earlier Roman armies ... being incorporated in the Legions, may have had a name change" - but they were always part of the legions!

There is a curious link between rorarii and velites; the phrase "Rorarius velox" occurs twice in the fragments of Lucilius.....
...and as to them always being part of the legions, I strongly doubt that, for the reasons set out above regarding "army" rather than "legion", Livy's unambiguous statement [(and) it was made the practice to have light-armed/velites in the legions], Polybius' change of nomenclature corresponding to Livy's, and Steven/Antiochus' certainty about the matter !! D