Spear of Destiny?

[Doubt]

Okay, so it's Easter again.

One of the things that show up in the crucifixion was the idea that a Roman solider finished off Jesus with a spear. That would be the "Spear of Destiny".

My knowledge of what Roman soldiers were carrying at the time suggests that such a spear would be unlikely. But since my knowledge is incomplete I could be wrong.

Real spears were a primary weapon (not as a throwing weapon) in the Roman army during the early years of the Republic. Those spear using troops were copying Greek tactics. But after Hannibal and friends trashed a few legions on the Italian peninsula the Romans decided they needed a better way to fight and switched to using short swords and slightly more open formations.

They did still have a form of spear in use called the pilum around the time of the biblical era. But the pilum was not the kind of weapon they would be carrying on guard duty. They were used in the opening stages of a fight to weaken the enemy by throwing them in large numbers. They were designed to bend and buckle if they hit something hard so that they could not be thrown back. That something hard would have included things like a human rib bone.

A "one use" weapon like the pilum would just be dead weight for a guard. Poking anything with it would likely bend the tip and result in a useless weapon.

Using Google I could not find much on auxiliary weapons that would indicate serious spear use by them.

So did thing spear really exist?

Some possibilities:

1.) No such spear existed and the whole thing is made up.
2.) Somebody writing the bible did not know what roman soldiers really carried but had heard that Jesus was finished off by a stabbing and made up more details.
3.) Roman troops, most likely auxiliaries, carried different weapons than standard legions.
4.) Some guy with a pilum was really careful and missed all of the hard bits inside of Jesus when he stabbed him.

So, does anyone know better? Is the spear story plausible?

[devnull]

this is like asking if its plausible that superman wore cotton.

[Doubt]

this is like asking if its plausible that superman wore cotton.

Not really. We have a claim that a guy on a cross got stabbed with a spear. We don't appear to have evidence of spears being in use at the time by the Romans.

A relevant analogy would be would be like asking if US troops in WWI were using muskets.

[Sledge]

I think this thread would be better off in the History forum. The question isn't really anything to do with religion, it's a simple "What weapons did Roman soldiers, and specifically guards at crucifixions, carry around the time 0 AD?" Posting it here is only likely to get the thread sidetracked with religious discussion.

[Doubt]

I think this thread would be better off in the History forum. The question isn't really anything to do with religion, it's a simple "What weapons did Roman soldiers, and specifically guards at crucifixions, carry around the time 0 AD?" Posting it here is only likely to get the thread sidetracked with religious discussion.

I considered putting it there. But it is a religious question as well as a history one. Is the bible correct on this? But if it gets moved, I would not have a problem with it.

[Denver]

The only gospel where the spear is mentioned is the gospel of John, which is generally less 'historical' and more 'interpretative' than the synoptic ones.

But a roman at that time with a spear is also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (23:23):

"And he called for two centurions, saying, “Prepare two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at the third hour of the night;"

The fact that they had spears and not swords in this quote seems to really add nothing theologically, and I don't see why they would have needed to make up or guess at 200 spears. And Acts is also (if I recall) thought to have been written by the same author as the gospel of Luke: which as noted, was less interpretative than John.

Based on this, it seems reasonable to believe there could have been spears present.

[Michael Redman]

It's possible this one Roman, assigned to watch over cruxifictions, carried a long, sharp stick for just such duty. Who knows?

The question of whether Romans carried spears is interesting, but it doesn't really say anything definitive about the bible either way, in my opinion.

[Sledge]

It's not really a religious question until you've got an answer. If the guards of the time wouldn't have been carrying spears, then it leads to the question of whether the Gospel of John is correct. As it's something mentioned in only one Gospel, I'd speculate that it's not and is a detail made up by whoever wrote that Gospel.

[geni]

Well in theory Jesus was on a cross at the time which means that a sword wouldn't be practical.

Auxiliaries were at the time in the process of having their equipment standardised there were also rather a lot of them so their use as guards would be posible. They were also not issues with pilum but with more conventional javlins.

[geni]

2.) Somebody writing the bible did not know what roman soldiers really carried but had heard that Jesus was finished off by a stabbing and made up more details.

Given when the bible was written that would be somewhat unlikely.

[Sledge]

Really? When was the Gospel of John written?

[David Henson]

Jesus was already dead when the spear was used.

Dr.*Jacques Bréhant, in Medical World News for October 21, 1966, reported: "The crurifragium, breaking the legs of the crucified man, made it impossible for him to raise himself to breathe. . . . The Jews asked that the legs of all three of the condemned be broken and that they be taken away. The soldiers accordingly broke the legs of the thieves. But when they came to Jesus, the soldiers could see that He was already dead." John 19:31-37.

At John 19:34 the Greek word logkhe is used. Since it was a Roman soldier who jabbed Jesus' side it was probably the pilum, a weapon that was about 6 ft (1.8 m) long and had a barbed iron head which extended halfway down the length of the wooden shaft.

Is it plausable? I think you did a good job of evaluating the evidence. Good post, by the way.

[Sledge]

You must have missed the bit about why a pilum wouldn't have been used.

[devnull]

so there you have it. Superman wears cotton!

[Doubt]

You must have missed the bit about why a pilum wouldn't have been used.

Not only that, if the cross puts the person so high up that you need a spear to stab the heart, breaking the legs is not going to be all that easy. The spear would have been more merciful than taking overhead swings in an attempt to break both legs.

[geni]

Really? When was the Gospel of John written?

Towards the height of the roman empire.

[geni]

You must have missed the bit about why a pilum wouldn't have been used.

But there were auxileries around with more conventional javlins which covers that issue.

[Doubt]

Well in theory Jesus was on a cross at the time which means that a sword wouldn't be practical.

Auxiliaries were at the time in the process of having their equipment standardised there were also rather a lot of them so their use as guards would be posible. They were also not issues with pilum but with more conventional javlins.

How high up were crosses? From a practicality stand point, they would not need to be very high. Getting somebody up there would be a bit of work. Keep their feet just above ground and they die at the same speed as being high up. But then, if you are trying to warn the masses it may be a good idea to put them high up.

I can see where the auxiliaries would get stuck with a job like this. Stand around for hours and watch somebody die. Not good duty. Better to get the guys trying for Roman citizenship rather than the more valuable legion troops.

[Doubt]

Towards the height of the roman empire.

Even today the average person does not know what current soldiers really carry as weapons. I doubt somebody not having served in the Roman military would know the difference between a pilum and a javelin.

Something else that might be worth looking into was who were the Romans using as auxiliaries around that area in that time.

[McHrozni]

Okay, so it's Easter again.

One of the things that show up in the crucifixion was the idea that a Roman solider finished off Jesus with a spear. That would be the "Spear of Destiny".

My knowledge of what Roman soldiers were carrying at the time suggests that such a spear would be unlikely. But since my knowledge is incomplete I could be wrong.

Real spears were a primary weapon (not as a throwing weapon) in the Roman army during the early years of the Republic. Those spear using troops were copying Greek tactics. But after Hannibal and friends trashed a few legions on the Italian peninsula the Romans decided they needed a better way to fight and switched to using short swords and slightly more open formations.

Actually Romans switched to javelins/swords in their two main battle lines about a century before Punic wars. They used a Greek Hoplite army until approximately 338 BC, then made the change following defeats at the hands of the Gauls.

They did still have a form of spear in use called the pilum around the time of the biblical era.

Pilum was a javelin, not a spear. It could be used as a spear, and it was one of the tactics used when they were facing horsemen, but it indeed wasn't as effective as a true spear was, and you might be right and it wouldn't be used by a guard. That is not impossible, though, a spear is useful in denoting a guard and gives him a measure of authority, and allows him to put some weight off his legs during the long hours.

So did thing spear really exist?

That being said, a standard Marian mule was hardly the only troop type the Romans at the time used. An early imperial army would have a wide variety of auxiliaries, possibly also mercenaries, and many of those would use the cheap but highly effective spears. Around this time, Tacitus recorded that the number of auxiliaries matched the number of legionnaires, empire-wide.
The older depiction of a Roman auxiliary had him using a short spear in combat. Newer depictions disagree and say they were equipped similar to the standard legionnaires, although with slightly simpler weapons and shields. Some say that the auxiliaries used spear-javelins, that could be thrown or used in close combat. Considering the fact legionnaires were doing just that with their javelins, I don't find this unlikely at all.

Horsemen would also be using spears in combat (and for almost 2000 years since), and it could be borrowed for such a task.

Some auxillia reenactors:
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/romans/images/soldiers/auxgroup.jpg

In short, a spear-equipped guard in Roman service in Judea in 1st century AD is not impossible, but plausible.

McHrozni

[Moss]

There's the auxiliaries possibility, the possibility (though unlikely) that the soldier actually had a hasta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasta_%28spear%29) or that a legionary used his standard issue pilum (you know, those can actually be hammered back into shape, just not in battle).

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Didn't they just leave people to suffer? Why would they have a guard on the dying prisoners?

[McHrozni]

Didn't they just leave people to suffer? Why would they have a guard on the dying prisoners?

Because it's fairly easy to take an unguarded crucified man off the cross.

Injuries sustained during crucifixion, even if the person was nailed and not tied to the cross, weren't lethal and indeed, weren't supposed to be lethal, perhaps not even incapacitating.

McHrozni

[garethdjb]

The Vulgate uses 'lancea' as the translation for the Greek 'logkhe'. This would indicate a lighter spear than a hasta. Though the translator could just be using it as a generic term for 'spear'.

The grave stele of a contemporary Auxilia armed with hasta, 'Annaius Daverzus' of the 4th Dalmatian cohort, can be seen here. (http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,15/Itemid,94/) (click an image to zoom)

[RobRoy]

Even today the average person does not know what current soldiers really carry as weapons. I doubt somebody not having served in the Roman military would know the difference between a pilum and a javelin.

Exactly. Even today, the US military personnel use some privately procured equipment to supplement their regular issue. They also use equipment for things it wasn’t initially intended for: chicken-wire or fencing on Hummers and tanks to explode RPGs before they hit the body of the vehicle. I recall when families were sending troops body armor, because they weren’t being issued, or the standard issue was below what could be procured. General George Patton famously carried ivory-handled Colt .45 Peacemakers, which were obviously not standard issue.

So a historian, or chronicler, or disciple of Jesus recording the events or transcribing them later may be mistaken about what they saw, or would simply refer to the weapon as a spear, whether it was actually a javelin, a pilum or a sharp stick.

Something else that might be worth looking into was who were the Romans using as auxiliaries around that area in that time.

Hasta (long spear for thrusting), verutum (light javelins), and pilum (heavy javelins) were all in use around this time. The Hastati (first line) and the Principes (second line) were rearmed with the two javelin types, while the Triari (third line) retained the hasta until the Late Empire period.

Again, though, knowing the difference would more likely be a matter of having served in the Roman army, being a weapon maker, or some such.

[David Henson]

You must have missed the bit about why a pilum wouldn't have been used.

I didn't miss it, it was right there with the possibility that it was used. I think the likelihood that it could have been used far outweighs the notion that it absolutely couldn't have been. It was acknowledged that the pilum was used at that time but not likely for guard duty. I would like to think that if there were need of it there is likely to be an exception, like if there were a hostile crowd or if you had to reach up with something to poke a man on a pole.

Doubt didn't make the assumption that you did he gave the benefit of the doubt. That is called integrity and fair and balanced reporting.

[McHrozni]

I think the likelihood that it could have been used far outweighs the notion that it absolutely couldn't have been.

By definition, I think ;)

McHrozni

[Delvo]

Even if he didn't carry a spear normally, he could have gotten one, or used any other sort of stick with a point on the end that would get the job done. (The job was to verify whether the person on the cross was dead or not by the appearance of the liquid that comes out; this requires stabbing in the right place, which is a lung, so which might have been out of reach from the ground with a shorter weapon.) Even if he didn't think there was anything that was particularly important about this execution with the crowd gathered around over it and plan ahead for death-verification and thus bring a spear in the first place, he could have decided sometime after Jesus was up there that it should be checked, and then just gone and gotten one.

Since it's implausible to think that the local area had no spears for him to get at all, and no other tools that could have been used enough like one for this task or reworked a bit to serve this purpose, there's really no issue here.

[Hokulele]

Strong's also notes that "hyssop" (used to lift the vinegar-soaked sponge in John) may be a mangling of "spear", indicating that a spear might have featured even more prominently in that gospel.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Geeze! If you want to see the Spear of Longinus, just go to Castle Wolfenstein! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_of_Destiny_%28video_game%29)

[Brainache]

All of this is very interesting, but what has it got to do with the thing that Chalemagne held and declared to be a talisman? This is the thing that is supposed to be held by anyone who claims to rule Europe isn't it? IIRC Napoleon and Hitler were supposed to be nuts about it.

Is it still in some German museum?

[CurtC]

I would like to wish everyone a happy Zombie Awareness Day, and remind everyone to AIM FOR THE HEAD. Let us not forget the story of the Roman centurion who forgot this most important of rules. His gut-shot blunder during the small zombie outbreak in Jerusalem around 30 CE led to millions more deaths throughout the centuries that followed. If you don't AIM FOR THE HEAD, your zombie may go on to found a major religion, and we already have more than enough of those.

[lionking]

Given that there's no compelling evidence that Jesus existed at all, the OP is moot.

[McHrozni]

All of this is very interesting, but what has it got to do with the thing that Chalemagne held and declared to be a talisman? This is the thing that is supposed to be held by anyone who claims to rule Europe isn't it? IIRC Napoleon and Hitler were supposed to be nuts about it.

Is it still in some German museum?

No, it's in Austria, state museum of Vienna, if I recall correctly.

I saw a documentary on it where they used non-invasive methods to date it, and it was dated to 6th century, so it's fake. There was a piece of older metal in the blade however, so it's possible a piece of an older weapon was used in it's creation.
Knowing this more accurately would require tearing it apart, so for now we have to resort to ignorance.

McHrozni

[Doubt]

The main reason for looking into this was to see if it was another case of the bible getting it wrong. And leaving aside the question as to the existence of Jesus. The end result appears to be inconclusive thanks to the presence of auxiliaries, but at least I did learn something new about tactical changes in the Roman army.

I did check and see that McHrozni is correct about when the switch away from the hasta spears started. The hasta was on the way out by 300 BC and not apparently in use at all by the end of the Punic wars.

Although the timing of the change seems odd for one reason. Manipualr formations, which are somewhat open and rely on short swords are going to need a lot of training to be effective. Hoplite formations with spears do not need a lot of training to get the basics right and would be an easy choice for a part time army. Although it would take a lot of drill to keep hoplite formations from drifting to the left thanks to the interlocking shields. The Romans were not using professional troops for the legions until the Punic wars which makes the timing of the change look odd.

The use of a pilum as a guard weapon would have made about as much sense as eating soup with a fork. Wrong tool for the job in more ways than one.

So we are left with a case where if the crucifixion happened, it was not a 100% accurate recording of events. And later people (like Charlemagne) tried to retrofit their ideals onto a flawed "history". The most likely weapons would not be ornate or fancy and were effectively rounds of ammo rather than weapons that would be preserved for any reason.

[McHrozni]

The main reason for looking into this was to see if it was another case of the bible getting it wrong. And leaving aside the question as to the existence of Jesus. The end result appears to be inconclusive thanks to the presence of auxiliaries, but at least I did learn something new about tactical changes in the Roman army.

I'd say it's not inconclusive. The events described (leaving resurrection and such aside) are possible. This is a conclusive result :)
You can't say the record is right based on this, that is true, but the description of events corresponds to how they could occur in reality.

Although the timing of the change seems odd for one reason. Manipualr formations, which are somewhat open and rely on short swords are going to need a lot of training to be effective. Hoplite formations with spears do not need a lot of training to get the basics right and would be an easy choice for a part time army. Although it would take a lot of drill to keep hoplite formations from drifting to the left thanks to the interlocking shields. The Romans were not using professional troops for the legions until the Punic wars which makes the timing of the change look odd.

Why is it odd? The change from a hoplite army took place after Rome suffered a significant defeat against infantry armies of the Celts (Gauls), and the change was one that made Roman troops highly effective against infantry. Javelins were used to break the charge of the infantry and thin their ranks somewhat, and short swords in the hands of agile infantrymen are the death sentence of unarmored spearmen.

There was another reform around the time of the Hannibal, but that saw mainly saw different classification of recruits (experience rather than wealth) and slight differences in armor and weapons, nothing as drastic as the shift from hoplites to legionnaires.

While it is true that the training Romans had exceeded that of many other nations, keep in mind that this was a army of farmers, who had up to six months a year to train.

The use of a pilum as a guard weapon would have made about as much sense as eating soup with a fork. Wrong tool for the job in more ways than one.

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p135928-Rome-Swiss_Guard.jpg

A polearm gives the guard a sense of authority. I see nothing wrong with a guard using a spear.

The most likely weapons would not be ornate or fancy and were effectively rounds of ammo rather than weapons that would be preserved for any reason.

That's fairly true. However it is not claimed the said spear wasn't modified at a later date. It was given wings, typical to 7th century although the spear itself is about a century older, and a scabbard. That weapon is fake, although it is possible some earlier weapon was embedded into it. What that was is a mystery.

McHrozni

[catsmate1]

General George Patton famously carried ivory-handled Colt .45 Peacemakers, which were obviously not standard issue.
Nitpick: Patton carried a Peacemaker (in .45 Colt); his second revolver, when carried, was a Smith and Wesson Model 27 (in .357 Magnum). He also carried, on occasion, a "pocket" pistol, either a Remington Model 51 or a Colt-Browning M-1908 (both in 9mmK)...........

A polearm gives the guard a sense of authority. I see nothing wrong with a guard using a spear.Exactly. Still done today, on some ceremonial occasions polearms care carried.

[I Ratant]

so there you have it. Superman wears cotton!
.
Really, that is a question for the ages!
Supe's mom sewed up his costume from his swaddling clothes.
The suit is apparently impervious to everything.
How'd she cut it out of the clothes?
Kryptonite scissors and needles to sew it up?
And have the tighty whities on the -outside-?
Inquiring minds need to know!

[Manopolus]

As I understand it, poking the guy on the cross with a spear was something that was done to make sure they were actually dead before taking the body down, to avoid taking down some nearly dead guy who might accidentally revive after the "body" was given to the relatives, perhaps. If this is so, maybe the spear was particular to crucifixions, and was more a tool for the specific duty, rather than normal military gear. They needed something long in order to reach the guy on a cross.

I'm not saying that there was ever any such person as the Jesus of The Bible, I'm only relating the history as I understand it.

[I Ratant]

As I understand it, poking the guy on the cross with a spear was something that was done to make sure they were actually dead before taking the body down, to avoid taking down some nearly dead guy who might accidentally revive after the "body" was given to the relatives, perhaps. If this is so, maybe the spear was particular to crucifixions, and was more a tool for the specific duty, rather than normal military gear. They needed something long in order to reach the guy on a cross.

I'm not saying that there was ever any such person as the Jesus of The Bible, I'm only relating the history as I understand it.
.
Didn't work, that poke, did it? :)

[Brainache]

.
Didn't work, that poke, did it? :)

Because the soldier poked him in the side, missing the God organ by at least 30cm.

[Manopolus]

.
Didn't work, that poke, did it? :)

I think the theory was that they'd react if they were still alive, not that it would kill them. Crucifixion was meant to be a long, torturous death.

IMO, Jesus and his crucifixion was a fictional story to begin with, however. I have no clue if they have the details of crucifixion correct, but might assume that they would, since the Romans actually did crucify people 200 or so years later when that particular work of allegorical fiction called Luke was written.

(added) Although, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that it was a different book that mentioned the spear, Luke was the first one. I'm not sure exactly how much the author of the later work knew about or researched crucifixion, but I don't automatically doubt any of it as to the process by which crucifixion was conducted.

[Doubt]

Why is it odd? The change from a hoplite army took place after Rome suffered a significant defeat against infantry armies of the Celts (Gauls), and the change was one that made Roman troops highly effective against infantry. Javelins were used to break the charge of the infantry and thin their ranks somewhat, and short swords in the hands of agile infantrymen are the death sentence of unarmored spearmen.
Odd because, as previously stated, it takes a lot more training to fight with short swords as a primary weapon rather than the locked shields and spears.


While it is true that the training Romans had exceeded that of many other nations, keep in mind that this was a army of farmers, who had up to six months a year to train.

And how much time did they really spend on training? The generally tendency would be to neglect such training until there is a crisis. And I am writing this from the perspective of a former member of the national guard who watched lots of training timed get consumed with things that were not really training.


A polearm gives the guard a sense of authority. I see nothing wrong with a guard using a spear.


That is great if the reason is for ceremony. If you want to be effective at guarding something it is helpful if you can put up a fight. Pole arms were intended to be used by groups rather than function as individual weapons. Unless the individual guard has really great skills or is defending a narrow opening, he will end up outmatched by somebody with a shorter more maneuverable weapon.

The pilum in particular was designed to be a missile. The easily bent tip would make it a poor choice if the guard really needed to fight somebody. An incidental strike on any hard surface reduces it to a stick. The stick would then be dropped in favor of the sword, which now requires the extra actions taken to draw it when already into a fight. A guard would be better off with just a sword.

[Minarvia]

I just thought it was a simple thing like "hmmm...is this thing dead?" Poke it with something and see if it moves. Spear, pike, stick, pitchfork, whatever. Simple.

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Not really. We have a claim that a guy on a cross got stabbed with a spear.

Excuse me, but I think devnull was on the right track in comparing this to Superman.

Because we do NOT have a
"a claim that a guy on a cross got stabbed with a spear. "

There is no CLAIM that such a thing happened.

All that we have is some BOOKS that describe someone being crucified. Anonymous stories. Lifted from the Tanakh, then changed and adapted and expanded.

But not one specific claim from any identifiable person that it actually happened in history.

Sure, people LATER believed and asserted it was true history, but that's not the same.


K.

[Ferguson]

I'd say the spear part is the most plausible part of the whole story!

[Minarvia]

I'd say the spear part is the most plausible part of the whole story!

I agree. It definitely is! :)

[MG1962]

Well going from the Wiki entry on the subject there has been at least one set of crucified remains found. The wood used was from an olive tree, which they presume means the victim was at eye level

[Doubt]

Gday,



Excuse me, but I think devnull was on the right track in comparing this to Superman.

Because we do NOT have a
"a claim that a guy on a cross got stabbed with a spear. "

There is no CLAIM that such a thing happened.


Yes, we do have that claim. Those who claim the bible is literally true believe that is what happened.

[Doubt]

For those that think this is like investigating superman, I think you have it wrong.

Nobody, with the possible exceptions of some people who should be on medication believe Superman was ever real. So the details regarding superman are not of real interest.

Some people do believe in ghosts. They use a lot of wrong ideas and come up with proof for ghosts by claiming things about EM fields and orbs. These details surrounding belief have been investigated and are worth investigating since otherwise normal people who should know better have chosen to believe in them.

Some people not only believe in god but also believe the bible is the inerrant word of god. The details of such beliefs are worth investigating for the same reasons as orbs and "ghostly" EM fields.

If you regard investigating this minor claim as worthless, feel free not to waste your time reading or replying.

[garethdjb]

Why is it odd? The change from a hoplite army took place after Rome suffered a significant defeat against infantry armies of the Celts (Gauls), and the change was one that made Roman troops highly effective against infantry. Javelins were used to break the charge of the infantry and thin their ranks somewhat, and short swords in the hands of agile infantrymen are the death sentence of unarmored spearmen.



It is more likely that the change from the hoplite-style army to the Manipular one was inspired not by the Celts but by the Samnites. From the Ineditum
Vaticanum:

‘. . . the Samnite oblong shield was not part of our national equipment, nor
did we have javelins, but fought with round shields and spears . . . But when
we found ourselves at war with the Samnites, we armed ourselves with their
oblong shields and javelins . . . and by copying foreign arms we became
masters of those who thought so highly of themselves.’

The oval Scutum and heavy javelins were both Samnite weapons. The Samnites would have used a formation more suited to the rocky and uneven ground where they lived. The greater flexibility of the manipular formation would make it far superior to a hoplite formation. More well-known examples of this can be seen in the Romans' own experience fighting Macedonian-style phalanxes. Such formations were impossible for the Romans to deal with frontally on even ground. It was where the flanks of the formation could be exploited or where uneven ground broke up the tight formation that the Romans prevailed.

A brief analysis of the development of Roman arms in the 4th century BCE can be found here:

LINK (http://www.digressus.org/articles/romanizationpp060-085-burns.pdf)

[McHrozni]

It is more likely that the change from the hoplite-style army to the Manipular one was inspired not by the Celts but by the Samnites. From the Ineditum
Vaticanum:

Yes, the troops were inspired by the Samnites, but I was saying the defeat at the hands of the Celts catalyzed the change. :)

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Odd because, as previously stated, it takes a lot more training to fight with short swords as a primary weapon rather than the locked shields and spears.

I still don't see what the problem is. Yes, it takes more skill, but not as much as to make such an army impossible, or even extraordinarily difficult.

And how much time did they really spend on training? The generally tendency would be to neglect such training until there is a crisis. And I am writing this from the perspective of a former member of the national guard who watched lots of training timed get consumed with things that were not really training.

Wouldn't you say that would depend primarily on society and culture? A more militaristic culture would have men spend more time on training, no? :)

That is great if the reason is for ceremony. If you want to be effective at guarding something it is helpful if you can put up a fight. Pole arms were intended to be used by groups rather than function as individual weapons. Unless the individual guard has really great skills or is defending a narrow opening, he will end up outmatched by somebody with a shorter more maneuverable weapon.

What makes you think the said guard wouldn't wear his sword sheathed at his side?

The pilum in particular was designed to be a missile. The easily bent tip would make it a poor choice if the guard really needed to fight somebody.

No. It was meant to be a missile that could also be used in melee. Didn't you catch earlier that the pila were also used as spears to counter cavalry charges?

An incidental strike on any hard surface reduces it to a stick. The stick would then be dropped in favor of the sword, which now requires the extra actions taken to draw it when already into a fight. A guard would be better off with just a sword.

The bending part of the Roman pilum was an iron shaft about 7 mm thick. That's slightly more than 1/4 of an inch. You'll need a lot more than than an incidental strike on any hard surface to bend that. As stated before, these same weapons could be used to deflect a cavalry charge - and by cavalry I mean Cataprachts, not by some light, unarmored scouting cavalry.
Spears used by auxiliaries were simpler, and didn't contain a bendable portion, so the point is moot if we accept it could've been an auxiliary guard.

Thirdly, most of the time these guards wouldn't be expected to fight. Rather their mere presence would be enough.

McHrozni

[garethdjb]

Yes, the troops were inspired by the Samnites, but I was saying the defeat at the hands of the Celts catalyzed the change. :)

McHrozni

I disagree. I think it more likely that difficulties encountered while fighting the Samnites motivated the change. Livy doesn't ascribe defeat to the Gauls to the hoplite system, rather poor preparedness and bad deployment.

On this business of spears at the alleged crucifixion. It is, I'm sure, possible for a legionarius on guard duty to take a hasta rather than a pilum for the purpose.

[dafydd]

Given that there's no compelling evidence that Jesus existed at all, the OP is moot.

The very same thought struck me.

[McHrozni]

I disagree. I think it more likely that difficulties encountered while fighting the Samnites motivated the change. Livy doesn't ascribe defeat to the Gauls to the hoplite system, rather poor preparedness and bad deployment.

Hm. As far as I'm concerned, it could've easily been both. I did some checking and given that the change from hoplites to maniples took place essentially during the Second Samnite war gives considerable credence to this theory. You're probably right in that difficulties in fighting the Samnites were the main reason for the change. That said, I'm sure the defeat and sacking of Rome by Celts played a part as well. It was, after all, one of the worst strategic defeats for some 600 years since, as they actually sued for peace.

On this business of spears at the alleged crucifixion. It is, I'm sure, possible for a legionarius on guard duty to take a hasta rather than a pilum for the purpose.

Not if you're Doubt it seems. Apt name, by the way.

McHrozni

[devnull]

Nobody, with the possible exceptions of some people who should be on medication believe Jesus was ever real.

Fixed.

[McHrozni]

Fixed.

The name Jesus and it's variants were fairly common in 1st century A.D. Judeia, and so were various prophets. I don't find it exactly unlikely that one of the prophets was also called Jesus. Romans were also quite keen to crucify threats to their authority (see Spartacus for one contemporary example), and I don't see why I'd need medication to believe a prophet named Jesus was crucified by the Romans in that time.

The resurrection part is another thing, obviously, but we aren't discussing that. You're essentially claiming that anyone who believes that a man with a common name, doing a relatively common thing and was given a common punishment by the rulers of his land, needs medication. Do I need to explain to you why that is false, or can you see it yourself?

McHrozni

[Beerina]

Perhaps front-line legions didn't use polearms anymore (is that true? I thought they'd be very effective against rushes. Then you could switch to your sword later.) But they would be quite useful against unarmed, unarmored mobs in places you occupy.

You'd need a serious historian to know if occupying, day-to-day, police-like troops carried a polearm. Especially at "events" where there would be (and would be intended to be) mobs present.

[Doubt]

I still don't see what the problem is. Yes, it takes more skill, but not as much as to make such an army impossible, or even extraordinarily difficult.

I take it you have not been in the military then. Certainly not infantry. Individual skills can be retained for quite a while. Team skill such as maintaining spacing, keeping an eye on your fellow soldiers to your left, right, front and back are rather difficult. A professional army can be expected to maintain these skills. Keeping such skills is not something you can do well unless you do it regularly.

To use one modern example, there is a tendency for spacing to break down when converging on an objective. Normal spacing for US infantry would be to keep soldiers about 5 to 10 meters apart depending on terrain. But as troops close on an objective such as a hill top they start getting closer and closer together unless they practice a lot. This happens because the keep looking for where their squad and team leaders are. If they are looking left to see their leaders they tend to move left. The end result is the start running out of viable cover since they have few choices moving forward and become easier targets for grenades and automatic weapons. If you ask guys why they are shifting, they will say it was the other guy and not them. The shifting is not perceived by the soldiers doing it. Take the situation from firing blanks in a training exercise to a live fire range and the problem can get worse unless the range is laid out so every move is predefined.

In a manipualr formation, the Romans cannot allow for much variation in spacing at all. If you drift a little left, you impinge on your own space and that of the man on your left, limiting what you can do without hurting each other. You also open up space on your right making both you and the man on the right vulnerable. Fail to maintain situational awareness and the spacing falls apart. Maintaining situation awareness is rather difficult even when somebody is not trying to kill you.


Wouldn't you say that would depend primarily on society and culture? A more militaristic culture would have men spend more time on training, no? :)

Not having a full time army is a sign of a less militaristic culture.


What makes you think the said guard wouldn't wear his sword sheathed at his side?

He would have it sheathed. Drawing the sword requires time and hands the advantage to the opponent.


No. It was meant to be a missile that could also be used in melee. Didn't you catch earlier that the pila were also used as spears to counter cavalry charges?

Yes


The bending part of the Roman pilum was an iron shaft about 7 mm thick. That's slightly more than 1/4 of an inch. You'll need a lot more than than an incidental strike on any hard surface to bend that. As stated before, these same weapons could be used to deflect a cavalry charge - and by cavalry I mean Cataprachts, not by some light, unarmored scouting cavalry.

Dimensions of pilum vary. Often lighter and heavier ones were issued to be used at different ranges. Also designs changed over time. This example matches your description:

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=fa4b8daed31c9edeeab2bd7322386ffd

These things bend for two reasons. The iron is soft and the shaft is long. If your guard has a tight grip on the wood and an assailant hits the front end with any force it will bend. They will even bend under their own weight if sticking out of an enemy shield. It is a poor choice for single combat. It would be used against cavalry not because it is a great weapon for the job but because it is there. Also that tactic stuck around until gun powder caused pikes to become outdated.


Spears used by auxiliaries were simpler, and didn't contain a bendable portion, so the point is moot if we accept it could've been an auxiliary guard.

True, unfortunately.


Thirdly, most of the time these guards wouldn't be expected to fight. Rather their mere presence would be enough.


That would depend greatly on the local conditions.

[Doubt]

Not if you're Doubt it seems. Apt name, by the way.

McHrozni

Do we have any evidence that hastas were still in use by the Romans at that time? Foot soliders are not going to carry weapons they don't need. Baggage trains have their limits as well when animals are involved instead of trucks and trains.

[Doubt]

Perhaps front-line legions didn't use polearms anymore (is that true? I thought they'd be very effective against rushes. Then you could switch to your sword later.) But they would be quite useful against unarmed, unarmored mobs in places you occupy.

You'd need a serious historian to know if occupying, day-to-day, police-like troops carried a polearm. Especially at "events" where there would be (and would be intended to be) mobs present.

One of the tricks used with the manipular formation was to get as close as possible to the enemy and jab away with the short sword like a boxer working a speed bag. No hacking with the edge. When fighting against Germanic tribes this worked nicely because the Germans liked long swords. Get in close and tight and they could not swing at you. The Romans were taught to watch the enemy to their right and see if he raised his sword for an overhead blow.

Raised arms exposed the armpit, which was not likely to have any protection. So the Roman would make an oblique thrust at the armpit which was likely to slice an artery and kill the opponent rather quickly.

[BenBurch]

Pilum; http://www.caerleon.net/history/army/pilum.htm

[garethdjb]

One of the tricks used with the manipular formation was to get as close as possible to the enemy and jab away with the short sword like a boxer working a speed bag. No hacking with the edge. When fighting against Germanic tribes this worked nicely because the Germans liked long swords. Get in close and tight and they could not swing at you. The Romans were taught to watch the enemy to their right and see if he raised his sword for an overhead blow.


It's probably worth clarifying that the Roman Army of early 1st century CE Palestine is very different from the 'Manipular/Polybian' legion of 3 centuries before.

When you use the term 'manipular' here, I immediately think of the 3 line hastati/principes/triarii formation which is probably not your intention. The majority of conflicts with 'Germanic' tribes occurs after the Gaius Marius' reforms.

I think this discussion probably belongs in history, as analysis of the development of the Roman Army is hardly likely to lead us any closer to explaining who some guy with a pointy weapon may or may not have been, at an event which may or may not have happened.

[McHrozni]

I take it you have not been in the military then. Certainly not infantry. Individual skills can be retained for quite a while. Team skill such as maintaining spacing, keeping an eye on your fellow soldiers to your left, right, front and back are rather difficult. A professional army can be expected to maintain these skills. Keeping such skills is not something you can do well unless you do it regularly.

To use one modern example, there is a tendency for spacing to break down when converging on an objective. Normal spacing for US infantry would be to keep soldiers about 5 to 10 meters apart depending on terrain. But as troops close on an objective such as a hill top they start getting closer and closer together unless they practice a lot. This happens because the keep looking for where their squad and team leaders are. If they are looking left to see their leaders they tend to move left. The end result is the start running out of viable cover since they have few choices moving forward and become easier targets for grenades and automatic weapons. If you ask guys why they are shifting, they will say it was the other guy and not them. The shifting is not perceived by the soldiers doing it. Take the situation from firing blanks in a training exercise to a live fire range and the problem can get worse unless the range is laid out so every move is predefined.

In a manipualr formation, the Romans cannot allow for much variation in spacing at all. If you drift a little left, you impinge on your own space and that of the man on your left, limiting what you can do without hurting each other. You also open up space on your right making both you and the man on the right vulnerable. Fail to maintain situational awareness and the spacing falls apart. Maintaining situation awareness is rather difficult even when somebody is not trying to kill you.

You're right, I haven't been in the military, but you haven't been reading on the kind of maneuvers performed routinely by the said armies, either.

Romans actually swapped the entire front row of soldiers every few minutes. Their ranks were typically eight men deep, and the command came regularly for the second rank to rush forward and the front rank to withdraw to the rear, taking the place of the eight rank (which would now be seventh). It was a major tactical advantage in the time where other soldiers would rush fight to exhaustion, and stamina was critical. This was done as there were men in front of them trying to kill them, as you put it.

This was done in addition to the entire maniples making an organized withdrawal, with every other centuria in the maniple (they were divided in posterior and anterior) rushing behind the other centuria in it's maniple, then the whole line withdrawing behind the line that stood behind them. That line was a mirror image of the front line, left open spaces where the front line would need to withdraw, then closed the formation in the same way, to present the opponent with a solid line. It's called quincunx formation by modern historians.
That checkered pattern wasn't just for show, you know. It performed a valuable function in the Roman military tactics.

Seeing that, I really don't see how maintaining good marching order and the distance between soldiers would be problematic, as they performed a much wider variety of difficult maneuvers. Yes, these citizen-soldiers would have to practice all that regularly. So?

Not having a full time army is a sign of a less militaristic culture.

Considering that the Marian legions were one of the if not the the first full time standing army in history, and certainly the only professional standing army on such a scale until 19th century or so, I fail to see your point.

It's kind of like saying the German Empire of 1914 wasn't all that militaristic, because it lacked an air force.

He would have it sheathed. Drawing the sword requires time and hands the advantage to the opponent.

So does dodging a javelin.

Yes

So why do you maintain it couldn't be used as a spear?

Dimensions of pilum vary. Often lighter and heavier ones were issued to be used at different ranges. Also designs changed over time. This example matches your description:

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=fa4b8daed31c9edeeab2bd7322386ffd

This is the standard heavy pilum as we believe was used in the period. It was also the one that could be used as a spear, I believe.

These things bend for two reasons. The iron is soft and the shaft is long. If your guard has a tight grip on the wood and an assailant hits the front end with any force it will bend. They will even bend under their own weight if sticking out of an enemy shield. It is a poor choice for single combat. It would be used against cavalry not because it is a great weapon for the job but because it is there. Also that tactic stuck around until gun powder caused pikes to become outdated.

It is a poor choice for single combat, once an opponent is nearby. That's what the sword is for. That doesn't mean a pilum can't be used, and used well, though.

I did explicitly say the purpose of a polearm in this case is to give the man a sense of authority, didn't I? Why do you just ignore that possibility? Polearms are still sometimes used in this way, after all.

Secondly, Roman combat tactics didn't just dictate that the weapon was to be used offensively. The shield was an important part in the melee. It had a heavy metal center part (somewhat similar to a buckler), which would be used to strike at the enemy in an effort to destabilize him or even throw him to the ground to make him an easier target. Do you still think discarding the javelin and drawing a sword would hand a significant advantage to the enemy?

True, unfortunately.

Why unfortunately? Why can't you accept that this particular part of the Bible isn't impossible?

That would depend greatly on the local conditions.

I'd be willing to wager that if riots were expected, there would be a much larger number of soldiers present. This makes any notion that a pilum would be a poor choice of weapon moot. So yeah, it depends on local conditions, but the ones we were examining are most favorable to your point anyway.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Do we have any evidence that hastas were still in use by the Romans at that time? Foot soliders are not going to carry weapons they don't need. Baggage trains have their limits as well when animals are involved instead of trucks and trains.

Hasta as a name for a particular spear went out of use almost 150 years prior to the event. As was explained to you numerous times:
- heavy javelins were used as spears
- auxiliaries used spears
- cavalry used spears (until at least 1939, I might add)
- some mercenaries would use spears, if they were present

I'd like to point out that only the mercenaries are questionable. Auxiliaries were present in the province, and so was cavalry.

The lowly spear was the most widely used weapon in history. It was probably used by more soldiers than any other weapon prior to the gunpowder era. Why do you think it would be impossible for a Roman soldiers to use one?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

It's probably worth clarifying that the Roman Army of early 1st century CE Palestine is very different from the 'Manipular/Polybian' legion of 3 centuries before.

Not in terms of how the troops were equipped. Marian mules were equipped very similar to the Principes. Some changes did take place, especially in the (rather critical in this debate) javelins, but any man serving in the Roman heavy infantry in 180 B.C. would recognize the standard equipment of the Legionnaire of 50 A.D. The most significant difference in personal equipment that I can think of is the use of lorica segmentata, or banded mail, instead of chain mail (lorica hamata) by a large portion of legionnaries (some units retained the chain mail throughout the history of the Empire), which is unimportant for this debate.

The procurement of weapons and the composition of the army changed, tactics improved and so on, but the basic equipment of a soldier was quite similar.

When you use the term 'manipular' here, I immediately think of the 3 line hastati/principes/triarii formation which is probably not your intention. The majority of conflicts with 'Germanic' tribes occurs after the Gaius Marius' reforms.

This debate has currently branched. One one side Doubt doubts that a Roman soldier could be using a spear when guarding a site of crucifixion in 1st. century A.D. Judea, and on the other side he finds the Roman military reforms of 315 B.C. "problematic". That's where the manipular organization comes in :)

ETA: Ah, I saw the full post you were quoting, you're right in your comment, sorry :)

I think this discussion probably belongs in history, as analysis of the development of the Roman Army is hardly likely to lead us any closer to explaining who some guy with a pointy weapon may or may not have been, at an event which may or may not have happened.

You're right, the thread should be split, with one bit moved into history.

McHrozni

[I Ratant]

Because the soldier poked him in the side, missing the God organ by at least 30cm.
.
Understandable.
Frog yards didn't exist in 33 AD.
The distance may have been 30 centicubits.

[I Ratant]

I just thought it was a simple thing like "hmmm...is this thing dead?" Poke it with something and see if it moves. Spear, pike, stick, pitchfork, whatever. Simple.
.
I did that to a snapping turtle.
I knew it was alive, but the way it leaped into the air and snapped at the stick cured me from ever getting close to one of those things ever again!

[Moss]

.
Understandable.
Frog yards didn't exist in 33 AD.
The distance may have been 30 centicubits.

I think the actual question should be "30 cm up or 30 cm down?"

I have no idea how, but given the Roman predilection for depicting their legionaries, might we be able to find memorials or similar images of this period and region?
As for crowd control and all that: a club/cudgle might have been more useful, but a spear certainly adds a bit to the size and impressiveness of a theoretical guard.
Also interesting to note that we all tend towards a very standardised weaponry used by the Romans.

[Minarvia]

.
I did that to a snapping turtle.
I knew it was alive, but the way it leaped into the air and snapped at the stick cured me from ever getting close to one of those things ever again!

And my uncle was one of those people who decided to poke at a yellow jacket nest.

Who knew a man in his 70's could run that fast? :D

[devnull]

The resurrection part is another thing, obviously, but we aren't discussing that. You're essentially claiming that anyone who believes that a man with a common name, doing a relatively common thing and was given a common punishment by the rulers of his land, needs medication. Do I need to explain to you why that is false, or can you see it yourself?


I assume you are trying to be funny. Of course, I claim that there is no evidence that Jesus as described in the bible existed, and anyone who believes such nonsense needs medication. Stop equivocating.

[Ducky]

Oh thank FSM. I thought this thread would be about the ridiculously terrible "Librarian" series with Noah Wylie.

Carry on.

[DevilsAdvocate]

The question is: If there was a person named Jesus crucified by the Romans around 1 AD, is it possible that Jesus was stabbed with a spear by a Roman soldier to hasten his death on the cross?

I’m no expert on the history, but it seems plausible, possible, and even perhaps probable.

Romans crucified people. Romans had spears. That makes it plausible.

I don’t think that looking at the standard-issue weapons of the day is the way to go. The soldiers carry out crucifixions quite likely did not use the same tools used by front-line soldiers. Maybe they did, or maybe they used what was handy, or maybe they made their own spears specifically for the use of ending crucifixions.

I have read numerous accounts that it was common practice to break the legs of the crucified victim or stab the victim with a sword or spear to hasten the death. I could not readily find any ancient texts that confirm or deny this claim. But I assume there are people that know about these things, and I have never heard anyone call the stabbing practice into doubt.

If it can be established that stabbing was a common practice to hasten death in crucifixions at the time, then the story is possible and even probable. If it can be established that this was NOT a known practice at the time, then the claim in John 19:34 that Jesus was stabbed by a spear can be called into question—although, even then, it would still be possible.

Did it happen? I’d give it a maybe. Considering that it was not mentioned in the synoptic gospels and only in John, it was most likely a literary embellishment. It may well be an embellishment that was likely to have happened, but it was probably pure conjecture on the writer’s part.

I don’t think that this can be called out as a certain or even likely untruth in the Bible.

[McHrozni]

I assume you are trying to be funny. Of course, I claim that there is no evidence that Jesus as described in the bible existed, and anyone who believes such nonsense needs medication. Stop equivocating.

No, actually. You said anyone who believes Jesus existed needs medication. This would amount to saying what I paraphrased in the part you quoted.

Now for the Biblical story as a whole, however, that's a different story altogether.

McHrozni

[Darat]

Couple of posts moved to AAH, please remember your Membership Agreement, especially Rule 0 and Rule 12.

[Darth Rotor]

Do we have any evidence that hastas were still in use by the Romans at that time? Foot soliders are not going to carry weapons they don't need. Baggage trains have their limits as well when animals are involved instead of trucks and trains.

True, but the Roman units were doing occupation/garrison duty in Judea, weren't they? You bring different equipment to pacification/mil governance missions than you do field/combat missions, then as now.

DR

[Doubt]

Hasta as a name for a particular spear went out of use almost 150 years prior to the event. As was explained to you numerous times:
- heavy javelins were used as spears
- auxiliaries used spears
- cavalry used spears (until at least 1939, I might add)
- some mercenaries would use spears, if they were present

McHrozni

I am aware of all that but people keep bring up the hasta. I suspect most of them have not read the whole thread.

[Doubt]

You're right, I haven't been in the military, but you haven't been reading on the kind of maneuvers performed routinely by the said armies, either.

Wrong assumption on your part. But not really important. We do have a disconnect in how we are communicating.

The idea of using Such tactics and keeping in them in times of peace before developing a professional army appears odd because it does require a lot of training. That training is likely to suffer unless those responsible for it are professionals. Yes, it is possible that they could learn and maintain the skill during peacetime. It is also possible that the average person could learn to juggle 5 balls. But is also unlikely in both cases because it is a lot of work with no short term gain. In the absence of an immediate threat, people tend to slack off a lot. Militia forces tend to end up more like private clubs rather than armies.

A phalanx formation, OTOH, does not really require a lot of training to achieve reasonably good results in most cases. The other cases being where terrain does not allow for it or facing a much better trained force.

The concept of non-professional troops with pole arms showed up again by the time the Renaissance started and lasted until practical firearms were developed. The complex tactics of using short swords with complex maneuvers appears to have died with the empire.


Why unfortunately? Why can't you accept that this particular part of the Bible isn't impossible?


What is unfortunate is that we do not appear to be able to narrow things down the possibility any more than we have already done here.

[McHrozni]

I am aware of all that but people keep bring up the hasta. I suspect most of them have not read the whole thread.

Hm, okay. If you take hasta as a generic name for a spear, then the answer to your question is yes, definitely.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Wrong assumption on your part. But not really important. We do have a disconnect in how we are communicating.

The idea of using Such tactics and keeping in them in times of peace before developing a professional army appears odd because it does require a lot of training. That training is likely to suffer unless those responsible for it are professionals. Yes, it is possible that they could learn and maintain the skill during peacetime. It is also possible that the average person could learn to juggle 5 balls. But is also unlikely in both cases because it is a lot of work with no short term gain. In the absence of an immediate threat, people tend to slack off a lot. Militia forces tend to end up more like private clubs rather than armies.

This is probably exactly why Romans kept the Greek phalanx in use for so long, and why it took them several long and bloody wars and at least one major defeat to adopt tactics used by their opponents.

Romans weren't unique in using the manipular formation - in fact, they weren't even the first. For all your talk about difficulty we have at least two cultures (admittedly, neighboring and constantly fighting with each other) who adopted it. Yes, I don't doubt it was difficult, especially at first, but seeing how Rome was able to conquer the Western Mediterranean and inflict severe defeats to the major empires of the Eastern Mediterranean with it's militia army, I would say the effort they put into it was well worth it, and that the Roman army didn't end up as a private club.

A phalanx formation, OTOH, does not really require a lot of training to achieve reasonably good results in most cases. The other cases being where terrain does not allow for it or facing a much better trained force.

Property used Macedonian Phalanx formation (which Romans never used) can produce almost wonders in many cases. If the terrain is reasonably flat and without major obstacles, a charge by the wall of spears is all but unstoppable.

However it is also a lot more difficult for the general to use appropriately. Outflanked phalangites are vulnerable, so they require strong mobile infantry to cover them. They were also used alongside heavy cavalry in a hammer and anvil tactics, where the phalanxes would pin the enemy down, and the heavy cavalry would crash repeatedly into their backs. Nasty, but requires extreme coordination between units. In the time before radio communication, where all you had were primitive instruments and messengers to signal what to do next, it required an extremely skilled general to pull off properly. Phalanxes are also all but useless when the terrain does not allow them to move freely, and the enemy is able to dodge their attack to the side.
This essentially caused their downfall, since there were very few generals and armies that were capable of such feats.

It's possible to force men to drill repeatedly, even in peacetime, but it's not possible to improve coordination between units if you have no means to do so. That's why maniples eventually defeated phalanges.

The concept of non-professional troops with pole arms showed up again by the time the Renaissance started and lasted until practical firearms were developed. The complex tactics of using short swords with complex maneuvers appears to have died with the empire.

The short sword was on the way out, starting around the 4th century. Not so much because of training it required, but because Rome was increasingly facing armies which relied much more on horsemen, and the empire consequently needed more spearmen. The second, and arguably more important reason, was because Western Roman Empire relied more and more on barbarian auxiliaries, because their economy essentially broke down.

What is unfortunate is that we do not appear to be able to narrow things down the possibility any more than we have already done here.

That's probably because the Romans barely feature in the Bible.

McHrozni