Did Roman military use javelins more than swords ?

[sarevok2]

Hello, I have seen some arguments that Roman Legionnaires of various eras did not use swords as their main weapon. But instead used throwing javelins as their main weapon and they mainly acted as heavy skirmishers. With the sword acting as a backup weapon.

Apologies for using the broad term Legionnaries. I know the organisation varied a lot in various era. But lets say we are mainly considering late Republic/early Imperial era. I would mention specifics but I am not knowledgable about history much, deeply sorry about that.

I am just curious if the popular image of Romans as a sword based melee infantry seen often in movies and videogames is wrong.

[Isolder74]

Each Roman Legionnaire tended to carry only 2 Piliam into combat. This only gave them a few volley of the weapons which because of their designs was not a problem. The main use of the weapon was to damage and render an opponent's shield unusable in battle. Because it was designed to bend when it struck a target it had the potential to take any soldier hit by it out of the battle.

The sword was still very much the primary means of attack for a Roman soldier. Their most obvious major advantage over other armies was in the field of siege warfare. Ballistas, catapults and other siege engines would give the Romans a means to allow their men to put their swords into use.

[Zinegata]

The key word is "various eras" because the Roman Legion evolved over its many years of existence. Pre-Marian reform Legions had Velites, who were dedicated skirmishers.

The idea however that your "typical" early Empire Roman Legionnaire - one who has the big shield and heavy armor - acting as a "heavy skirmisher" is bluntly a contradiction in terms; and it's obvious those who propose this are divorced from physical realities.

Skirmishers throughout history are lightly armored or unarmored for a reason - men have a limited carrying capacity in battle. A skirmisher, whose object is to engage the enemy at range, is therefore best served by reserving most of his carrying capacity for ammunition. Wearing heavy armor and a large shield goes against the skirmisher's battlefield role, which is why Velites only had light armor and small shields making them a distinct type of infantry in the pre-Marian legion.

[PainRack]

Are you referring to PaRapppe or Crueldwarf argument on SB?

While Crueldwarf misused the term heavy skirmisher, he was trying to reach for a word to describe the Roman combat , which was more fighting at range(but very close) than thought. His argument was that Roman combat wasn't so much heavy infantry pushing and stabbing their way to victory, but instead capitalised on the use of pilums and etc at close range to deliver a ranged shock to the enemy, disrupting their attack and defences,enough that the Romans could finish them off with a charge into meelee....

More mobile And fighting at range than the classic phalanx

[Zinegata]

That's really not "skirmishing". It's melee infantry using a limited set of ranged weapons to disrupt enemy formations just before melee contact. It's not really uncommon - you had various armies using throwing axes for instance before melee contact for instance.

[Sea Skimmer]

Its kind of by definition not skirmishing if it involves your main force, no matter the actual tactics. The term has never been dependent on weapons choice.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How is this any different than Napoleonic shock tactics where you fire a couple of volleys and then charge with the bayonet? It isn't, and that wasn't skirmishing, either.

[Zinegata]

How is this any different than Napoleonic shock tactics where you fire a couple of volleys and then charge with the bayonet? It isn't, and that wasn't skirmishing, either.

Actually, Napoleonic armies in fact featured numerous skirmishers who were kept seperate from the main body of troops; whose purpose was to disrupt enemy main formations as much as possible by musket (and later, in the case of the Allies, rifle) fire.

Skirmishers not being part of the main body really is the best definition.

[Simon_Jester]

How does this contradict what Skimmer and Duchess said? You phrased it as though it did, and I'm confused.

These guys' shock tactics involving "shoot then charge," and that not being skirmishing tactics doesn't contradict "these guys did have skirmishers."

[Tribble]

Pre-Marian reform legions had the Velites, unarmored javelin-throwing skirmishers, who ran forward at the head of the Roman line of battle, expended their missiles to distract the enemy while the hastati advanced, and then quickly retreated through the lines to the rear. Post-Marian legions relied on allied Auxilia units.

[LaCroix]

Still, the point of "more javelins than swords" is that the javelins were the thing causing casualties, which is not the case. The javelins were to harrass and cover the advance, while rendering enemy shields inoperable, but most damage was done in close combat with swords. Both for pre and post Marian reforms. So the claim is wrong.

[Tribble]

Still, the point of "more javelins than swords" is that the javelins were the thing causing casualties, which is not the case. The javelins were to harrass and cover the advance, while rendering enemy shields inoperable, but most damage was done in close combat with swords. Both for pre and post Marian reforms. So the claim is wrong.

Well technically speaking the a Roman legionary carried two pila but only one glaidus, so they literally used more javelins than swords.

And yes, I agree with you that most damage was done in close combat with swords. Though of course the Romans were well aware of the need for combined-arms.

[Thanas]

It actually depends a lot on the legion and time period. Nowadays we look at a legion like we would look at a modern regiment - it has standard equipment, standard training and performs more or less the same in all terrains. But this is not the case for Rome.

For example, the legion in North Africa had archery training (desert fighting and skirmishes galore) for its soldiers. Another thing to consider are the auxillaries and sister legions they are paired with during battle. For example, if you can call on Mauri or Syrian auxillaries, the percentage of troops decked out as skirmishers would of course be lower.

Most Roman soldiers were supposed to be trained on multiple weapons anyway though - so the damage dealers in a legion would vary according to the specific enemy they would face. For example, the at least the front ranks of the legions in cappadokia would carry long spears if they were supposed to be fighting the cavalry-heavy alans, maces against the persian cataphrakts, javelins and swords against the tribes and bows and slings against a city or for defending one. In later time period the standard equipment would also include a few plumbatae, giving even more flexibility as these allowed the standard soldier to turn into a skirmisher within seconds.

So depending on whether the troops are veterans or rookies, the time period and the mission/enemy they were facing (the last two being the most important) the loadout of a legion would be very different.

And even if we look at the textbook example of Roman soldiers vs barbarians of the north in a setpiece battle, then one cannot assume X was the main weapon. For example, in a clash between infantry forces the swords would do the most damage after the javelins would disturb the enemy formation. But what if the enemy refuses to engage or the Romans do not feel the desire to engage themselves? Then trading Javelin shots and archery would continue for possibly several hours.

And that is ignoring the quick-setup Roman artillery. There is a famous battlefield excavated a few years ago in Northern Germany, where the Germans managed to surprise a Roman column. Despite this being an ambush situation, the Romans set up their artillery and archers and then defeated that ambush via those means - and created a killbox for the fleeing tribesmen.

Point being: Yes, in the most strictest of terms in an ideal situation, the sword was more important and more used than the pila. Outside of that? It depends.

And with the lack of setpiece battles and most fighting being skirmishes for over three centuries, I would wager more people actually got killed by distance weapons than by swords. Especially considering how important for the Romans it was to preserve the lives of their highly-trained soldiers.

[Zinegata]

How does this contradict what Skimmer and Duchess said? You phrased it as though it did, and I'm confused.

These guys' shock tactics involving "shoot then charge," and that not being skirmishing tactics doesn't contradict "these guys did have skirmishers."

I was agreeing with Skimmer's point that by definition skirmishers are soldiers who are not part of the main body; Duchess's definition, while applicable primarily to main body formations, was still ultimately a tactic that could also be done by very common Napoleon-era skirmishers.

[Simon_Jester]

Skirmishers were prone to charging the enemy with the bayonet?

[Zinegata]

Skirmishers were prone to charging the enemy with the bayonet?

If the enemy was already breaking and running why not? Napoleonic skirmishers still had bayonets.

Note also that pre-Napoleonic infantry skirmishers also carried melee weapons and flanked/harried enemy formations when they started routing. As Skimmer noted, the correct definition is not dependent on the specific tactic.

[Thanas]

One should note that "heavy skirmishers" (people who skirmish but were better armored and carried heavier weapons) were used by many ancient armies.

[Titan Uranus]

The Greek peltists come to mind in reference to that.

If I recall correctly, one of the five good emperors said something like "more battles are won by the (roman equivalent of the e-tool, which as I recall looked a whole lot like a mattock) than by the sword"
That may not be literally true, but that sort of focus on infrastructure and battlefield engineering is what set them apart from most of their enemies, except maybe the Persians and some of their early foes like the Carthaginians. After all, all of Rome's enemies had swords and javelins, and quite a few of their enemies had professional or semi-professional armies,but as far as I know the only enemies that the Romans ever faced which had the same emphasis on infrastructure and engineering were other Romans.

So I would argue that it would make more sense to say that the Romans fought primarily with the mattock-equivalent (except maybe in the desert) than anything else, no matter what that particular legion's ratio of infantry-cavalry-skirmishes was.

[Sea Skimmer]

Roman infrastructure provided a big advantage creating an economy of force strategically and in many major operations, but its tactical importance would be far more variable. The road system for example tactically stops mattering if both sides are already on the battlefield, and already rested. Fortifications could be a tactical disadvantage, because they consume considerable garrisons even when not on the proper avenue of approach to actually fight, allowing a defeat in detail, but of course the grand advantage is they simply rule out major enemy operations in other areas of operation completely. I really don't think its useful to say they fought with the mattock though, the Romans were not able to subdue major enemies simply by taking over the countryside with fixed fortifications which is what that implies to me. They didn't have the level of dominance needed to do THAT, it has be done on smaller scales by other folk, they still had to go out and fight open field battles.


As far as 'heavy skrimishers' vs normal ones goes, that idea is probably as old as organized warfare, and still present today in most armies, which place small numbers of main battle tanks in forward reconnaissance units. It is a logical concept to place a limited force of superior troops forward. This thinking provides the strength to operate independent of the main body which a mere screening and skrimishing force would not have, and while still retaining a mobility advantage over the main body via being physically smaller in number. Other thinking calls for that independent strength to be in a formal vanguard force, which can make sense or not in any level of technology or armament. Killing is good at making itself a lot more complicated then it strictly needs to be, pesky human urge for survival at work.

[Sea Skimmer]

Speaking of this, has anything changed in the past twenty years on what we actually know about early Medieval army operations and training? All the sources I've ever had on that and give up trying on severla years ago, were 20-30 years old and all concluded that almost nothing of value survived, probably because the documents and manuals were constantly being replaced and the hell if anyone was going to store that stuff in shifting Kingdoms. Discovering details of weapons and equipment is just easier, because they sometimes physically exist. But, yeah not sure if this has changed or not?

[Thanas]

Roman infrastructure provided a big advantage creating an economy of force strategically and in many major operations, but its tactical importance would be far more variable. The road system for example tactically stops mattering if both sides are already on the battlefield, and already rested.

True, though I would argue that rivers were at least as important as roads and probably way more important for logistics reasons - except in areas where shipping was dangerous or impossible.

That being said, the Road system (and the system of Mansiones and provisions centered on them) was able to achieve quicker concentrations of forces, without the Roman Empire would not have been possible to exist. I mean, they defended and pacified Western Europe, the Balkans, Northern Africa and a huge chunk of the middle east with a total army that was smaller than the Iraqi Security Forces during operation Iraqi Freedom.

Fortifications could be a tactical disadvantage, because they consume considerable garrisons even when not on the proper avenue of approach to actually fight, allowing a defeat in detail, but of course the grand advantage is they simply rule out major enemy operations in other areas of operation completely.

I don't think this is quite true, because:
a) They could be emptied and the garrisons assembled if need be - and this was standard procedure, for example even in the first century we have garrisons from Syria fighting in Germany
b) logistics. The Roman Army nearly always assembled as large a Force as was logistically possible to support, thus additional manpower would have been impossible to resupply.
c) As the troops need something to do in peacetime, might as well use them for garrison troops.

I really don't think its useful to say they fought with the mattock though, the Romans were not able to subdue major enemies simply by taking over the countryside with fixed fortifications which is what that implies to me.

Actually this approach was always a major piece of Roman strategy and it was very succesful. Domitian was the first to use this against the Germanic tribes and he won that war. During the late Empire, this tactic was even more pronounced. In fact, some of the success in the campaigns of Julian against the Alamanni is explicitly credited to the Romans building fixed fortifications inside Alamanni territory from which they ruled the countryside.
Cf Ammianus Marcellinus XVII:

[...]with eager haste they repaired a fortress which Trajan had built in the territory of the Alamanni and wished to be called by his name, and which had of late been very forcibly assaulted. There a temporary garrison was established and provisions were brought thither from the heart of the savages' country. When the enemy saw these preparations rapidly made for their destruction, they quickly assembled, dreading the completion of the work, and with prayers and extreme abasement sent envoys and sued for peace.

Later campaigns made extensive works of such fortifications and in the east, the strata diocletiana pretty much controlled all the countryside from Roman Arabia into Syria.