Broad Differences Between the Equipment of Hoplites and Roman Legionaries

I recently answered a question on Quora about the difference between the equipment of Greek hoplites and Roman legionaries. The answer was so involved that I thought I’d get a little more mileage out of it by posting it here.

It is a hard question to answer briefly because of the length of time during which hoplites were the usual infantry of the Greek city states— perhaps 300 years, and because of the time during which Rome had legionaries— perhaps 700 years. During that time, things changed, particularly for the Romans.

Broadly, the thing to know is that the classical Greek hoplite fought in a close formation called a phalanx, and stood side by side and shield to shield with his neighbors in a formation usually eight deep. He took his name from a round dished shield of wood about three feet in diameter called a “hoplon.” He passed his forearm through a band near the middle and gripped the shield at its edge with his hand. Because it was so broad, it extended to the left of the hoplite, and each hoplite could protect himself with this own shield and, partly, by covering himself a bit with the edge of his neighbor’s shield to his right.

He wore a helmet, usually of bronze in any number of different styles. Nowadays they have names such as “Attic,” “Thracian,” “Corinthian,” “Beotian,” and so on. His body armor might be a cuirass of bronze plate, but was more often made up of layers of glued canvas. Such a cuirass was lighter and cheaper and still very protective. It was called a “linothorax,” and is commonly shown on Greek vases. You spot them by looking for the broad shoulder pieces that were tied down on the chest; often they are shown springing up in scenes where the soldier is arming himself and hasn’t tied them down yet. He also wore thin bronze greaves, like shinguards that extend up to protect the knees.

His principle weapon was a spear about seven feet long, and he carried a short sword as a secondary weapon.

The Roman legionary that most people think of is probably the soldier that served in the legions from about the time of the First Punic War until about the time of the Military Anarchy of 235 AD, a period of about five hundred years. During the time the legionary’s equipment changed in detail, but was broadly the same. He carried a large oblong (in later times a rectangular) curved shield called a “scutum” that covered much of the body. He held it by a single grip mounted in the center of the shield, so it is clear he used it much differently than a hoplite used his. The Roman may have punched his oponents with it, or rested it on th ground before him when he wasn’t fighting.

Roman Legionaries shown on the Column of Marcus Aurelius. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Roman legionary wore an open helmet called a “cassis.” The bowl and neckguard were made of a single piece of bronze (later iron), and large cheekplates were hinged to either side. At times a reinforcing bar was rivetted across the front. There were a number of styles and, depending of the classification system, they have different modern names, such as “Montefortino,” “Gallic Imperial,” and so on. They were broadly similar, though.

The legionary usually wore metal body armor (though there is evidence of leather or fabric armor), and this was probably most commonly chainmail. Armor of overlapping scales (iron or bronze) was also popular, and an elaborate armor of overlapping iron straps was used from about the time of Augustus up until the middle of the 200s AD. There was no uniformity though, as in a modern army. The different armors would have been mixed in the same legion.

The Roman soldier of classic period fought with a short sword (the “gladius”) that he carried in a scabbard on his right, and he began combat by throwing, at short range, a heavy javelin (the “pilum”) with a long iron shank and a pyramidal head. This was meant to pierce the shield of opponents and disorder them. The shank was meant to bend so that the javelin could not be thrown back. After throwing the javelin, the Roman soldier would continue to fight with his sword, thus their formations seem to have been, at least at times, much more open than a hoplite phalanxes. This was quite a different approach than that of a hoplite, whose principle weapon was the spear.

In fighting, the Roman soldier fought in a block of his fellows. In the earlier times it was in a maniple of of, nominally, 120 soldiers, and later in a cohort of about 450. These blocks could move independently, and this mobility was useful from a tactical standpoint and probably accounts for Roman equipment, particularly the open helmet that gave clear vision, and a long shield that covered much of the body.

The Roman soldier’s equipment and weapons changed at about the time of the Military Anarchy, as I explained in another answer on Quora: the helmet changed to a quite different pattern that was easier to make, the shield became elliptical (though still large), the gladius was replaced by a long sword called the “spatha,” and the legionary was equipped with a spear instead of a heavy javelin. In some way, Roman tactics had changed. It is generally supposed that the infantry was fighting in a more defensive way, so perhaps cavalry and light infantry had become more important tactically.