Roman Pilum Throwing - Javelin & Shield Roman Army Style

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36NMCLbf_7o&feature=youtu.be

of interest and bound to spark debate....

[RichT]

That is of interest, especially the lack of bend. Has the bendiness of the pilum been overstated? I'm thinking of some Peter Connolly illustrations where the pilum bends likes a piece of spaghetti. Any thickness of iron is going to be hard to bend significantly. And is it really desirable to have a weapon that can only be used once? OK the enemy can't throw it back, but everyone would have to be re-equipped after every battle or skirmish or fight, which doesn't sound very practicable.

[Imperial Dave]

I have often wondered about the whole bendy pila question. It strikes me that if the pilum shank is long fairly stiff and barbed then it is more likely to penetrate armour and shields alike. If the plum goes through the shield it will be a bugger to pull out in the heat of battle regardless of whether it bends or not

[nikgaukroger]

I rather think that any bendyness of pila is an incidental result of the design and not a primary focus - which as Holly says is to be able to penetrate shields and armour. For some reason some have become rather fixated on bendyness.

[Imperial Dave]

completely agree. I think any bendiness could be attributed to manufacturing flaws and not a design parameter (a bit like bendy celtic swords)

[aligern]

I'm not so sure Dave. The pilum is mentioned as being  designed to incapacitate shields . It would be possible to take the temper out of a point on the head and make it more liable to bend. Caesar speaks specifically in the battle against the Helvetii of them being unshielded by the volleys of pila. Now later on the Nervii are seemingly killed in numbers by Roman thrown weapons which are presumably pila, so we can be happy that they kill and I like the idea that the  extended nature of  the head, a lengthening that takes place over time , makes the weapon more deadly to the target, but it does not seem right to lessen its primary purpose  of unshielding the enemy.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

its a thought Roy re the 'evolution' of the weapon as you suggest. A lot more investigations of the nature of the video are required methinks...!

[RichT]

OK, so pila, bendiness thereof. What have we got - I'm aware of:

Polybius 6.23
"Some of the pila are thick, some fine. Of the thicker, some are round with the diameter of a palm's length, others are a palm square. The fine pila are like moderate sized hunting spears, and they are carried along with the former sort. The wooden haft of them all is about three cubits long; and the iron head fixed to each half is barbed, and of the same length as the haft. They take extraordinary pains to attach the head to the haft firmly; they make the fastening of the one to the other so secure for use by binding it half way up the wood, and riveting it with a series of clasps, that the iron breaks sooner than this fastening comes loose, although its thickness at the socket and where it is fastened to the wood is a finger and a half's breadth."

Plutarch, Marius 25.1-2
"When these things had been reported to the Cimbri, they once more advanced against Marius, who kept quiet and carefully guarded his camp. And it is said that it was in preparation for this battle that Marius introduced an innovation in the structure of the javelin. Up to this time, it seems, that part of the shaft which was let into the iron head was fastened there by two iron nails; but now, leaving one of these as it was, Marius removed the other, and put in its place a wooden pin that could easily be broken. His design was that the javelin, after striking the enemy's shield, should not stand straight out, but that the wooden peg should break, thus allowing the shaft to bend in the iron head (καμπὴν γίνεσθαι περὶ τὸν σίδηρον) and trail along the ground, being held fast by the twist at the point of the weapon."

Caesar BG 1.25.3
"It was a great hindrance to the Gauls in fighting, that, when several of their bucklers had been by one stroke of the (Roman) javelins pierced through and pinned fast together, as the point of the iron had bent itself (cum ferrum se inflexisset), they could neither pluck it out, nor, with their left hand entangled, fight with sufficient ease; so that many, after having long tossed their arm about, chose rather to cast away the buckler from their hand, and to fight with their person unprotected."

Vegetius 1; 2
"As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches or a foot long, and were called piles. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty."
...
"They had likewise two other javelins, the largest of which was composed of a staff five feet and a half long and a triangular head of iron nine inches long. This was formerly called the pilum, but now it is known by the name of spiculum. The soldiers were particularly exercised in the use of this weapon, because when thrown with force and skill it often penetrated the shields of the foot and the cuirasses of the horse."

Anything else I've missed?

Nothing in Polybius about bendiness, quite the contrary, they are made to be strong. Marius' innovation is to make the pilum bend at the joint (which would be unnecessary if they already bent at the shaft). Caesar's pila may be of Marian construction? Vegetius adds nothing new (and says nothing of bendiness).

Looking at Plutarch's comment on the Marian innovation - kampen ginesthai peri ton sideron - and Caesar's description - cum ferrum se inflexisset - they do seem to me to be describing the same thing, which is not 'the iron bent' but 'the pila bent at or with the iron'.

A pilum going through a thin shield like a Gallic or Roman scutum would tend to hang down under its own weight, without the iron needing to bend, In the video the pilum is sticking through a thick archery boss, so it sticks out straight, but it would rotate in a thin shield and hang down, once it had gone though. Marius' innovation would accentuate this by also bending at the joint.

I'm inclined to think the bendy iron of the pilum is a fantasy and that the unshielding effect came from the overall weight of the weapon and perhaps the breakable joint (but not of course before Marius' day, as Polybius makes clear). I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[aligern]

Rich, you could  add Agathias' description of the Franks using angons and, the head having pierced the shield, treading on the shaft to pull the shield down.  The angon is not quite like a pilum , it is often hooked which would aid this tactic, but a pilum penetrating a shield and then hanging down would give an opportunity to drag down the shield as the Franks did.
Roy

[RichT]

Thanks Roy - I can't find a translation of Agathias but Wikipedia's angon page offers:

Agathias 5.2.4 (?)
"Suppose a Frank throws his angon in an engagement. If the spear strikes a man anywhere the point will penetrate, and neither the wounded man nor anyone else can easily pull it out because the barbs which pierce the flesh hold it in and cause terrible pain, so that even if the enemy is not fatally hit he still dies as a result. And if it sticks in the shield, it fixes in it at once and is carried around with it, the butt dragging on the ground. The man who has been hit cannot pull out the spear because the barbs have gone in, and he cannot cut it off because of the iron that covers the shaft. When the Frank sees this he quickly treads on it with his foot, stepping on the ferrule [iron finial on the butt of a spear or other pole weapon] and forcing the shield downwards so that the man's hand is loosened and his head and breast bared."

Nothing here about bending either - this just sounds like the pilum. So pilum/angon as a means of unshielding yes, but doing it through use of bendy iron no, unless there is anything else out there.

[Erpingham]

Richard just beat me to it, but here is a slightly longer version

The argons are spears which are neither short nor long; they can be
used, if necessary for throwing like a javelin, and also, in hand to
hand combat. The greater part Of the angon is covered With iron and
very little wood is exposed. Above, at the top of the spear, on each
side from the socket itself where the staff is fixed, some points are
turned back, bent like hooks, and turned toward the handle. In bat-
tle, the Frank throws the angon, and if it hits an enemy the spear is
caught in the man and neither the wounded man nor anyone else
can draw it out. The barbs hold inside the flesh causing great pain
and in this way a man whose wound may not be in a vital spot still
dies. the angon strikes a shield, it is fixed there, hanging down with
the butt on the ground. The angon cannot be pulled out because the
barbs have penetrated the shield, nor can it be cut off with a sword
because the wood of the shaft is covered with iron. When the Frank
sees the situation, he quickly puts his foot on the butt of the spear,
pulling down and the man holding it falls, the head and chest are left
unprotected. The unprotected warrior is then killed either by a stroke
of the axe or a thrust with another spear (as quoted in Bernard S.
Bachrach, "Procopius, Agathias and the Frankish Military," Specu-
45 (1970): 436).

We might note that Agathias' explanation seems to suggest the main function of a long iron shaft is not to bend but to be impossible to cut away.  I do wonder though whether bending may have been a function of a long thin bit of iron being dragged about, rather than a deliberate design feature. 

Add : Incidentally, for those old enough to remember , the Funcken Arms and Uniforms Ancient Egypt to the 18th Century (p.63) shows a Roman legionary dispatching a Cimbri warrior by stepping on the pilum in his shield and hacking him with the gladius.  This dramatic vignette was later used for a trophy presented by the Society of Ancients for some purpose (can anyone remember what the trophy was for and what became of the trophies - there were I recall a sword and a persian Helmet and probably others).

[RichT]

I do wonder though whether bending may have been a function of a long thin bit of iron being dragged about, rather than a deliberate design feature. 

That could be, bendiness as a bug not a feature. But even fairly thin iron is quite hard to bend. Going back to the video starting this thread, it took an off-straight throw to bend the shaft only a little bit, and that's throwing into an archery boss which is a lot thicker and stiffer than most shields or armour or human bodies. I would imagine that an iron shaft which went through a thin shield would rotate about the point of penetration rather than bending the shaft, which would require a greater degree of resistance to rotation. It's a difficult thing to test. At any rate I haven't yet seen any literary evidence for bendiness.

[RichT]

Well let's add:
Pol. 6.22.4
"The spear (grosphos) of the velites has a wooden haft of about two cubits, and about a finger's breadth in thickness; its head is a span long, hammered fine, and sharpened to such an extent that it becomes bent the first time it strikes, and cannot be used by the enemy to hurl back; otherwise the weapon would be available for both sides alike."

Has this account of the grosphos been wrongly applied to the pilum (hussos)?

And Plutarch Camillus 41.4
"Finally, when Camillus led his men-at-arms (hoplites) to the attack, the enemy raised their swords on high and rushed for close quarters. But the Romans thrust their javelins (hussois) into their faces, received their strokes on the parts that were shielded by iron, and so turned the edge of their metal, which was soft and weakly tempered, so much so that their swords quickly bent up double, while their shields were pierced and weighed down by the javelins (hussoi) which stuck in them."

Which is evidence for bendy Celtic swords, not bendy Roman pila (hussoi).

From a bit of casual Googling (Ecosia-ing) there are lots of people asking 'are bendy pila a myth?' and a lot of answers quoting secondary sources, but the only primary source seems to be Caesar BG 1.25.4 and that doesn't look to me like a description of the iron bending.

This RAT thread discusses the subject:
https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thread-30085.html

I've not read Bishop's book or Connolly's article, but I've seen enough to be convined that yes, bendy pila are a myth.

[RichT]

Just to go on a bit more:

Appian, Gallic War 1
"Afterwards the Boii, the most savage of the Gallic tribes, attacked the Romans. Gaius Sulpicius, the dictator, marched against them, and is said to have used the following stratagem. He commanded those who were in the front line to discharge their javelins, and immediately crouch low; then the second, third, and fourth lines to discharge theirs, each crouching in turn so that they should not be struck by the spears thrown from the rear; then when the last line had hurled their javelins, all were to rush forward suddenly with a shout and join battle at close quarters. The hurling of so many missiles, followed by an immediate charge, would throw the enemy into confusion. The spears of the Gauls were not like javelins, but what the Romans called pila, four-sided, part wood and part iron, and not hard except at the pointed end. In this way the army of the Boii was completely destroyed by the Romans."

The translation seems a bit off - I don't think the last sentences are about 'the spears of the Gauls', but the spears of the Romans ("what the Romans call hussoi" - which of course is not what Romans called them, but what Greeks called them!)

These hussoi are "soft apart from the point (aichme)"

This looks like the origin of the 'deliberately soft iron' theory of pilum construction.

From the RAT thread, Alexandr K (#10) says:

"Metallographic analysis of pila from Smihel showed that they really were made from soft steel, only the point, could be harder (thus confirming Appian's account). At the same time, however, it showed, that hardness of steel of the pila was very similar to that of swords found with them, which certainly weren't designed to bend. Also some arrowheads were made the same way (hard point and the rest soft). (Kmetič, D., Horvat, J. & Vodopivec, F., 2004. Metallographic examinations of the Roman Republican weapons from the hoard from Grad near Šmihel. Arheološki vestnik, 55, 291-312.)"

This seems to be evidence that the point was specially hardened (for obvious reasons), not that the shaft was specially made soft.

OK I'm done.

[aligern]

No you are not!
This is from Arrian's order of battle against the Alans, translated by van Dorst I think.

'Deployed to their front must be the two hundred Apulians and a hundred of the Cyrenaicans, in order that the heavy armed are a bulwark for the javelineers, they can hurl their javelins overhead from the high ground. The Fifteenth Legion's infantry should hold the entire right center above the middle of the whole area, because they are by far the most numerous: the infantrymen of the Twelfth Legion should hold the remaining space on the left filling it up to the point of the left flank. They should deploy in eight ranks and their deployment should be close ordered. And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies near them, they can thrust the ironpoints of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third an fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness. The following ranks should be of the javelineers. The ninth rank behind them should be the foot archers, those of the Numidians, Cyrenaicans, Bosporans and Ityraeans. Artillery pieces must be deployed on each flank to fire at the advancing enemies at maximum range, and behind the whole battle formation. '

You might like to elucidate?
Roy😉