Oh, and the reason the Marian reforms were a big change was that they revolutionized not only the Legion’s equipment, but also its composition. It wasn’t a patriotic, citizen-soldier, do-your-duty kind of thing anymore ; it became a professional fighting force. So it stopped being divided by social castes, and along with that went the necessity to pay for one’s own gear.
So basically at that point the rich just stopped fighting (except as officers and similar political postings) and instead were tasked (and taxed) to subsidize the poor shmucks who got to do the dying in their stead, along with their equipment.
At which point it became easier to standardize, and the principe’s chainmail won out because it’s easier to churn out, repair and size than the triarii’s heavier gear ; and ever so much better than just a couple square feet of metal attached to the chest by a couple of strings 
I imagine their role was to hold the line as best they could so that the rest of the army could either regroup or leg it. And as I said, they were often old veterans. Think Volksturm old.
Originally they were veterans from earlier wars, back when the entire army (including hastati and principes) were spearmen. Set in their ways. You know old codgers :). As well there was a strong element of traditiioooon, i.e. “sure we’ll try a new system but if and when that fails, we oughta go back to the tried and true”. Romans put a lot of store in the “old ways”.
Plus I mean, if two separate lines of swords have failed, maybe swords aren’t the way to win that one, yeah ? 
Number 2 may be a reason not to put the triarii up front, so I guess I’ll buy that, but I don’t actually agree with number 1.
See, I don’t know about this. Sure, in our society, the rich and the powerful usually won’t be found anywhere near the front lines in a war. That didn’t really seem to be the case in the Roman Republic, though. Staying away from the action wasn’t the ideal. As far as I can tell, rich and powerful aristocrats got themselves killed in battle quite a bit. A ton of them were wiped out in the Punic Wars, for instance.
Well, sure, maybe, but by the time you get towards the end of the Polybian era, those guys would have to be waaaaay old for that to be relevant. Basically functionally immortal. Which I don’t think was the case.
True, that sounds like a Roman way of thinking. But, as I said, you’d think the triarii would have needed to train/fight as spearmen at some earlier time in their campaigning careers for this to make sense. Maybe that’s why they disappear with the Marian reforms: The whole concept wasn’t really a functional thing in practice. And Marius, obviously, wasn’t a guy who gave that many hoots about tradition if something wasn’t working in practice.
Anyway, I dunno, I’m just throwing thoughts at the wall. I’m just sort of wondering if we’re missing something.
Instead of having 3 echelons, using the hastati then if that doesn’t work, the principes then if that doesn’t work, the triarii, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a longer battle line that uses the additional numbers to flank the enemy?
So that instead of having battle lines that look like this (E=enemy, H=Hastati P=Principes T=Triarii)
EEE
HHH
PPP
TTT
You have this:
EEE
HHPPTT
Yeah, you’d think, wouldn’t you? Why not, generally speaking, be a bit more creative with your troop deployment, at least in certain situations? And, as I touched on earlier, the Romans did apparently get there eventually: Scipio Africanus was certainly known for doing just that sort of thing, which was apparently considered revolutionary at the time. And with the later legions, the now standardized cohorts could be shuffled around more, and used for all sorts of maneuvers.
To be honest, I’m a little bit :dubious: about how strictly the triple line battle order was ever followed, even pre-Scipio. I’m guessing it would depend on the commander. But I’m no military historian, just a guy who dicks around on the internet, so take that for what it’s worth.
Too late for edit:
That said, one concept built into the triple line system was certainly sound enough, and something that the Romans did stick with: Having reserves. Keeping fresh troops back, to feed into the battle when and where they were needed the most, could certainly be a battle-winning strategy.
Poorly constructed sentence on my part. I should have said:
“Actually, I had the impression that the Principes were more spear-oriented originally, but over time ended up being more similar to somewhat heavier armored / more experienced Hastati toward the end of their run, as by Polybius’ time, both the Hastati and the Principes were both armed with pila and gladius, just like the later legionaries.”
On a different note, here’s an interesting link re: Principes and spears.
Ah, right. I’m with you.
Actually, it was also poor parsing/comprehension of what you wrote originally on my part, so sorry about that.
Besides the Romans with the gladius, what other armies could boast most of their soldiers fought with a type of sword? Scythians? Don’t know, just asking.
Not so, modern HEMA practitioners pretty much universally regard going up against a spear with a sword as very hard.
A 6-7 foot spear is hard to beat. Rapiers are regarded as the epitome of non-firearm dueling weapons, and are essentially wearable spears.
edit: swords are very overrated by entertainment/hollywood.
First, I’m confused by how a rapier is a ‘wearable spear’? Aren’t rapiers one-handed, well-balanced, and fairly light (for speed), designed for one-on-one duels against unarmored, unshielded individuals? Kind of the exact opposite of a phalanx’s spear?
But again, back to the OP, there can be discussion about the advantages of a long spear versus a sword, and more particularly about a group of spearmen versus swordsmen; but there’s no question that tactically, a phalanx is very different from a gladius-armed legion.
But I don’t think anyone has said that tactically, a group of swordsmen would be used any differently than a group of axe/club/short spearmen with similar armor/shield and discipline. The swordsmen would be better, but used the same way.
So, I don’t think swords significantly changed warfare on a tactical level.
I was implying that the two huge advantages of the spear is built into a rapier (hard to see thrust and reach) and so it has a huge advantage over other swords just like a spear has over all swords.
This was in reply to a post claiming swordsman can somehow easily beat a spearman in a closer fight. Nevermind that the spear user can just choke up on his grip as the distance demands.
Real rapiers are dedicated thrusting weapons that must be sufficiently stiff for that purpose, with the blade often 41" or more. They aren’t exactly light compared to many other single handed swords.
You must be thinking about the flimsy bladed smallswords that are wiggled around in films like the 3 musketeers…
My point remains. Generally spears > swords in most outdoor fights, group vs group or one on one.
But then he’s swinging the rest of the length around behind him. He’s working more for less maneuver of the business end.
Still a viable strategy and far from leaving him helpless. Of course a smart spear user wouldn’t just willingly hang out where he doesn’t have the advantage. A step or more backwards and he regains the upper hand again.
Watch the video, it’s good. He teaches historical fencing and speaks from experience.
Well, when I said “later”, I meant more along the lines of 6th-10th century Western Europe- Vikings, Saxons, Normans, and so forth. It’s pretty conclusive that they DID fight in shield walls, or so I thought.
No one really knows about say… Romano-British soldiers of the 5th-6th century BC, although everything I’ve read implies they likely tried to fight like the Romans had, because they likely considered themselves Romans.
There’s actually a Roman expression *Rem ad Triarios rediss *or ‘It’s down to the Triarrii’ which is cognate with our own ‘It’s down to the wire.’
I do not agree.
Rapiers are fine weapons, for a particular time and place. They are not universally better than other swords. I certainly would not have taken one to the battlefield, and indeed no one really did. It was a civilian weapon of self defense, not really a weapon of war.
It’s pretty useless against someone with armor, where as a longsword of the period, or early would have been a much more versatile weapon.
I agree that the Spear > the sword. There are quotes from fencing masters of the period that attest to this.
I’m not sure what the origin of “Triarrii” is, but the Latin cognate of “wire” is “viere” which does not look anything like “Triarrii”. Furthermore the phrase “down to the wire” is a reference to the finish line of a race being marked by wire. Nothing to do with the reserves of an army bring deployed.
So, the phrases are idiomatically equivalent, but not cognates.
Agreed. Rapiers were hardly the apex of sword technology. In the Napoleonic Wars, for example, officers carried the heavier cavalry sabers. By the end of the 18th century the rapier had seen it’s day and was replaced.
Agreed that it was a poor choice for a weapon of war, especially against armor.
It would still be my first choice over any other swords in a one on one duel though, even though I like other, earlier designs more.
And now I wait for someone to post, “But bigger swords can snap a rapier in half!”.