SoA Forums

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

of interest and bound to spark debate....

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...!

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.

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

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.

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).

Quote from: Erpingham on March 02, 2020, 10:07:59 AM
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.

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.

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.

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😉

I was wondering who would be first to mention that :)

The trouble with Arrian's passage is it is so unclear what sort of weapons he is talking about:

"And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen [kontophoroi, kontos-carriers], whose spearpoints [kontois] 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 iron points of the spears [konton] at the breast of the horses in particular... Those standing in second, third and fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears [kontous] ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear [kontou] stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness." (Arrian, Ektaxis 16 f.)

What does Arrian mean by 'kontos'? Familiar to us all of course as a cavalry lance, probably here a general word for spear, maybe referring to a Roman pilum, but then why use kontos? Why not hussos, or akontion? So is Arrian describing pila, but using strange terminology, or is a describing some different weapon, perhaps one devised for use in this formation? And anyway what is the point of the bending iron of the kontos - what is gained by it being bendy when it is thrust? It might be a description of Romans using pila for thrusting and throwing, but it's not certain.

So I don't think this passage helps greatly - it is at best unclear and not a definite description of bendy pila. (Caesar BG 1.25.4 is, reading it again, quite strong evidence for bendy pila so I don't want to just explain it away completely, but at best I think it is ambiguous).

Incidentally Arrian's 'bending' is the verb from my old chum, epikampios.

Arrian's 'bending' is problematic for a contos, if contos means the barge -pole  lance...why would that bend and if it did why would that be beneficial. I suggest that the bending is useful because the Sarmatians  are  shieldless, but heavily armoured and having a weighty spear hanging from your armour of  lamellar/ scale is highly inconvenient.
I suggest that 'thrusting' might happily include throwing at someone very close. The description of what the ranks do can be usefully be paralleled with the duties of ranks in a foulkon  formation where the front ranks are geared to stopping a charging mounted opponent, whilst the rear ranks throw spears overhead at the attackers.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on March 02, 2020, 10:38:42 PM
Arrian's 'bending' is problematic for a contos, if contos means the barge -pole  lance...why would that bend and if it did why would that be beneficial. I suggest that the bending is useful because the Sarmatians  are  shieldless, but heavily armoured and having a weighty spear hanging from your armour of  lamellar/ scale is highly inconvenient.

Which is true, but a weighty spear going through your armour and sticking into you is contra-indicated by all the best medical authorities  ;)

In addition, the text of that section of Arrian is apparently quite uncertain: see http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/arrian.htm

We might also note that slighty further on in the passage, Arrian gives a slightly different version

And the expectation is that the Scythians will not get close to the infantry battle formation because of the tremendous weight of missiles. If they do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders and receive the charge as strongly as possible in the most closely ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause.

The fact that in this, the receiving formation only stabs with the first rank weapons doesn't imply, to me at least, we are dealing with long spears.  That said, this isn't entirely contradictory.  A three rank brace to take the impact and rank four puts in a contact volley , then ranks 2-4 are ready to get in there and thrust if the horsemen manage to break past rank one. 

Whether we are dealing with the classic long pilum or the shorter headed version which later (according to Vegetius) is called a spiculum, I wouldn't know.

Interesting article, Duncan. Not sure I agree about a topos (what topos?), or the fourth taxis, but certainly Arrian's text is unreliable.

I struggle to see any point (ha) in a spear of any sort that bends when you poke someone with it. For what benefit? For the throwing pilum it's supposedly so it can't be thrown back, or to encumber the shield; but a thrust weapon?

Also it's a reminder of how maddeningly imprecise Greek (and Latin) writing could be - the whole taxis (and ordo) thing drives me crazy (just look at Herodotus' uses of taxis for examples).

On bendy thrusting spears, I am reminded (because I read an article about it yesterday) of Grasitha, the spear of Sturla Sighvatsson, ancient but not strong, which he had to keep straightening with his foot as it bent with each thrust.  This was probably a long bladed spear, rather than a long shanked one, and likely suffering from "bendy sword" type issues.

So, a long bladed spear might be indicated by Arrian.  Menaulion anyone :)

Yes the bending may be another bug not feature, and Arrian just makes a big deal of it.

Here's a slightly more literal translaiton of the important bits:

16-17
And they should be drawn up in eight, and the formation should be close order. And the first four ranks (taxeis) should be kontophoroi, whose large kontoi have light iron points. And the front rank (protostai) should hold them projecting forward, so that when the enemies get near, they can better thrust the iron of the kontos at the breast of the horse. The second rank (deuterostatai) and the third and fourth ranks (taxeis) holding forward their kontoi for thrusting when possible, wounding the horses and killing the riders, fixing the kontos in the shield (thureos) and armour (thorax) and making the rider useless through the awkwardness of the bent iron. The following ranks (taxeis) should be lonchophoroi.

26-7
If they do close in, the first three ranks (taxeis) should draw together their shields and press their shoulders and receive the charge as strongly as possible pressed together in closest order. The fourth will throw over their lonches and the first will throw their kontoi unceasingly at them and the horses.


The three main problems seem to me to be:
- the bending of the iron (hard to see what Arrian is getting at)
- the four ranks of kontophoroi of 16-7 seem to have become three at 26-7. Possibly the explanation of taxis being used in a different sense is correct, but I'm more inclined to believe Arrian (or a copyist) just made a mistake (maybe at 26 he meant to say 'those behind the fourth').
- the 'throwing' (akontizein) of kontoi at 27. Up until then it has made perfect sense with thrust kontoi and thrown lonches. This looks like another mistake.

I don't think this is a descripton of pila at all - I think the first three or four ranks are a phalanx of spear-armed infantry, backed by four (or five) ranks of javelin (or possibly pila) throwers. 

Quote from: RichT on March 03, 2020, 10:31:48 AM
- the 'throwing' (akontizein) of kontoi at 27. Up until then it has made perfect sense with thrust kontoi and thrown lonches. This looks like another mistake.

A spear suitable for both thrusting and throwing would hardly be nonsensical*, but I'm a bit troubled by the "unceasingly" bit - how many are they supposed to be carrying? Could the second "throw" be a copyist's error for "thrust"?


* Relevantly or not, Arrian's description of bunching up to resist a charge reminds me of the Strategicon, where different ranks are to either throw or thrust with their spears.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 03, 2020, 12:25:33 PMRelevantly or not, Arrian's description of bunching up to resist a charge reminds me of the Strategicon, where different ranks are to either throw or thrust with their spears.

Philip Rance's article (https://www.academia.edu/35840787/_Maurice_s_Strategicon_and_the_Ancients_the_Late_Antique_Reception_of_Aelian_and_Arrian_in_Philip_RANCE_and_Nicholas_V._SEKUNDA_edd._Greek_Taktika._Ancient_Military_Writing_and_its_Heritage_Gda%C5%84sk_2017_217-255) (and his earlier foulkon article) suggest it's very relevant indeed, in that Strategikon 12.A.7 is a reworking of Arrian.

Rance also quotes Plutarch's Antony as another exemplar of similar tactics

However, as the Romans were descending some steep hills, the Parthians attacked them and shot at them as they slowly moved along. Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them. The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof, affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it. [3] The Parthians, however, thinking that the Romans dropping on one knee was a sign of fatigue and exhaustion, laid aside their bows, grasped their spears by the middle and came to close quarters. But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout. Antony, 45 (2, 3)

Note this is actually similar to the Strategikon foulkon, with a kneeling front rank and shields over the front rank, which are not mentioned by Arrian.  However, again the 3-4 rank outer shell with shooters behind.  In (3), we have javelin thrusting again (Greek word unknown).

Looking at Rance pp. 246-7 and n. 84 I think the text may be just hopeless.

I see incidentally that the 'thrusting' of the kontoi in the original translation (and mine) is actually akontismos, javelin-throwing. So throwing of the kontoi does seem to be a thing (but ceaselessly? After the cavalry have closed to contact? Stabbing certainly makes more sense in the context).

It has to be said that neither the Taktika nor the Ektaxis fill one with awe at Arrian's depth of knowledge or clarity of expression.

Plutarch, Antony 45.2-3
"Then the shield-bearers wheeled about" - thureophoroi  (Greek for Romans, scutum-carriers)
"The Parthians ... grasped their spears" - kontoi (!)
"But the Romans ... thrusting with their javelins" - hussoi (Greek for pila)

kai tois hussois paiontes ek cheiros - 'striking with the pila by hand'

Is Arrian evidence of thrown spears or thrust pila? Or both? Or neither? And are they bendy?

I evidently need to re-read the Rance piece. But one wonders if Maurice had a better version of Arrian's text than we do.

The Plutarch passage is also interesting in describing Parthian horsemen armed with both bows and spears/lances, which you'd look for in vain in many army lists.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 03, 2020, 03:40:14 PM
I evidently need to re-read the Rance piece. But one wonders if Maurice had a better version of Arrian's text than we do.

Reading the newer Rance paper, there is some doubt whether Maurice saw Arrian's text at all but worked from an intermediate source. 

I do worry, Richard, that you have decided that pika  are not bendy and are fitting the evidence around tgat belief...which is not your normal methodology.
Many years ago it was taken by some that the passage in Arrian was evidence that later legionaries had moved to using long spears  and indeed a friend showed me a PB ( how apt) Minifig that ported such a spear. I recall that lately the conclusion became tgat Arrian was misusing the word contos  ( or should  I say held to be misusing it by fellows who had decided it had only one meaning and that  a long spear) and tgat later legionaries had throwing shafted weapons and could use them as dual ourpose when closing up to  cavalry.  That was good because it disposed of the idea that late legionaries formed blocks of long spear men and were secondary to the new cavalry.

Incidentally, thinking of the menaulion doesn't the same  ( 10th century? ) Byzantibe source have rear rankers throwing long spears at charging cavalry?
Even so, I don't think there is supporting evidence for legionary long spears in Arrian's time and thus we ought to conclude that his back rankers are throwing pika which stick in the Sarmatians' armour and bend, thus discomfiting them.

Roy

QuoteI do worry, Richard, that you have decided that pika  are not bendy and are fitting the evidence around tgat belief...

Pika are bendy, yes, but sooo cute:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/American_pika_%28ochotona_princeps%29_with_a_mouthful_of_flowers.jpg/1200px-American_pika_%28ochotona_princeps%29_with_a_mouthful_of_flowers.jpg)


But now, back to pila. To be fair to me, as I try to be, I did say above that Caesar BG 1.25.4 taken in itself might be thought good enough evidence that pila were bendy. Also, until three days ago it was my firm belief that pila were bendy, as that's what I've always heard. It's just that since looking into it in the course of this thread, prompted by watching that video (thanks Dave) I don't think the evidence for bendiness is very strong.

I don't know what weapons Arrian is referring to - if he meant pila it would have helped us all so much if he had said so. I don't see how his formation works with the pila/spears/whatever he describes being thrown. and above all, I don't see the benefit of the pila/spears bending when they hit the enemy - what's the point? Is it a feature or a bug? As I said at the outset, I'm happy to be persuaded. (Have at it).

what have I started.....!

great debate though and like Rich I assumed the 'status quo' on pila bendiness until i watched the video. Its not by any means a slam dunk but it is a physical manifestation of the tools of the trade so to speak. Ancient written sources, like modern ones, are subject to a whole set of paradigms and influences not least of which is the writer himself. What modern reconstructive 'archaeology' can do is flesh the bones out of accounts and give us a mechanism for saying whether something is, on balance, likely or not 

So, what have we learned?  The bendy Roman pilum may have been overstated in modern writing.  While some pila seem to have bent, and some may have bent by cunning application of metallurgy, the real concensus is that the pilum is a good weapon against shields and armour because it penetrates and can't be easily removed.  You could, I'm sure, draw a developmental line from the strong pilum of Polybius to an observation that some pila recovered after battles had bent, to Marius trying to make that more certain with the wooden peg trick, to legionary armourers developing a weapon with a hard point and a slightly softer shank.  Or maybe the shank is just regular unhardened iron to which no fancy hardening process has been applied.

Richard's point at the beginning - that these weapons must have been reusable rather than disposable - sort of points me to the latter idea.  This would seem to fit with the one bit of metallurgy we have had reported.

agreed.....that point (ahem) alone regarding re-use pushes me more in the camp of non intentionally bendy pila (at least during part of their development and use)

Tempering is not a fancy process, it is the standard means of producing a hardened edge to a weapon. It would  be interesting to see if there is any evidence that hardening several inches of the pilum head creates a point where the hard metal meets the soft that liable  to bend?
As to re-use, it cuts both ways. You would wish to pick up pila  after the battle and recycle them, but during the fight it would  not  suit you to be receiving them back from enemy hands, so if they threw and bent it would be beneficial.

The history of the pilum commences with weapon that  has a much shorter metal section and progressed from there to having a longer iron and adding weight just in front of the hand grip.  The longer iron might be copying the function of a soliferreum , enhancing the penetrative power by increasing the pressure on the point as it struck. The bending of the iron  shaft or the  Marian idea of unequal pinning could well be ways to enhance another function from early times as a weapon that disabled the shield and rendered the enemy an easy victim. Proving that pila had one function does  not disprove the other.
Richard, you are missing Arrian's point. The front ranks stand solid to halt the advancing  cavalry. When these either halt  or attempt to push into the formation the back ranks have at them with pila, thrust or throw. If the pila hit and penetrate the armour, having them bend and hang in there rather than drop out inconveniences the rider or horse.
I really don't think that you can  make a conclusive case against the pilum as a weapon that disables itself whilst incommoding  its target, whether by bending or a pin breaking.
Roy

please excuse my ignorance on the 'development' timeline of the pila so treat my proposal with caution...!  :)

weapon and armour development is very much trial and error plus a healthy dose of 'arms race' elements so......

- early pila developed used as a heavy throwing weapon/thrusting weapon
- later development could include lengthening of pila iron shank when in turn could highlight some issues with bendiness when hitting targets
- observation that this disables or has positive impact on shields/armour of enemy
- however this is not efficient (for want of a better word) as it means recovery on the battlefield afterwards is time consuming and includes a lot of rework
- Roman engineering adapts to utilise this unforeseen benefit of the weapon in disabling enemy but cleverly introducing shear pins that allow both the benefit and retrieval/reuse of the weapon post battle.

again if I have the development aspects incorrect please correct me

QuoteAs to re-use, it cuts both ways. You would wish to pick up pila  after the battle and recycle them, but during the fight it would  not  suit you to be receiving them back from enemy hands, so if they threw and bent it would be beneficial.

But this is, according the source survey above, only recorded of the grosphos, not the pilum.  It may not be significant, and it would certainly follow from Marius' experiments, but I think we are in the throws (that one is for Dave :) ) of  popular narrative which possibly stretches the evidence (bit of a Richard speciality).

returning fire is always a possibility on the battlefield although I am unsure as to the 'volume' achieved during melee. After all throwing pila (or any hand hurled weapon) is best done before impact/close melee so are we discussing stand off and/or charging throws or continual throws after full melee/contact is commenced? Just a question to add context to the discussion...thoughts welcome

https://opus.uleth.ca/bitstream/handle/10133/3499/Doberstein_William_MA_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Interesting, but does not take the debate on the origins of the pilum far enough down into the specialised tactics that such a very specific item of equipment must involve.
Roy

Quote from: Holly on March 04, 2020, 02:08:25 PM
returning fire is always a possibility on the battlefield although I am unsure as to the 'volume' achieved during melee. After all throwing pila (or any hand hurled weapon) is best done before impact/close melee so are we discussing stand off and/or charging throws or continual throws after full melee/contact is commenced? Just a question to add context to the discussion...thoughts welcome

Depends whether we are talking about pilum skirmishing or not :)  It is a reason why we might expect this to be recorded of the weapon of the skirmishers, though.

I don't know if this paper (https://www.academia.edu/27962186/Hasta_Velitaris_-_The_first_edge_of_the_Roman_army) on the hasta velitaris is any help to us?

Quote
Richard, you are missing Arrian's point. The front ranks stand solid to halt the advancing  cavalry. When these either halt  or attempt to push into the formation the back ranks have at them with pila, thrust or throw. If the pila hit and penetrate the armour, having them bend and hang in there rather than drop out inconveniences the rider or horse.

Not quite - "the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause" where "stab at" translates 'akontizein', javelin-ing.

Why is the rider or the horse more inconveienced by a bent pilum sticking into them than by a straight pilum sticking into them? I'd have thought both would have been pretty inconvenient. Why would the pilum bending make it less likely to drop out? And if a pilum thrown into an archery boss or the ground doesn't bend (usually), why would it when thrown into a man or a horse? I don't understand the physics of it.

Quote
I really don't think that you can  make a conclusive case against the pilum as a weapon that disables itself whilst incommoding  its target, whether by bending or a pin breaking.

I wouldn't try to make a case against the pilum incommoding its target - it's clear that that is its function. I would suggest: best outcome for pilum - penetrate shield, armour and man, and wound or kill; second best case - penetrate shield and cause shield to become unusable. I don't see how the iron bending helps in either case.

As for making a case against the pilum disabling itself - I don't want to, I'm just asking for some evidence that this was the intention (through having bendy iron), and so far haven't found any.

Anyone got Bishop's Osprey The Pilum? Bits of it are on Google Books and he has a blog entry here: https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/the_pilum/
His 'treading flat' suggestion is interesting, and the more general point he makes is also a good one: "one of the characteristics of written sources: they tend to favour the unusual over the mundane." This applies to a lot of things - we are doing history by anecdote, taking specific statements about a particular battle or some event or factor that was important (perhaps only in one person's opinion, in one case), and exrapolating freely from it - perhaps too freely.

Agreed Richard. We are inclined to both write about and call out (and when reading) the unusual rather than the usual or mundane

Quote from: RichT on March 04, 2020, 02:36:56 PM
Why would the pilum bending make it less likely to drop out?

If the pilum remains straight, the weight of the haft would tend to make the point rotate upwards, from which position it should relatively easily drop out. If the pilum bends, the point would tend to remain roughly horizontal, and gravity pulls laterally rather than outwards.

Quote from: Holly on March 04, 2020, 02:46:50 PM
Agreed Richard. We are inclined to both write about and call out (and when reading) the unusual rather than the usual or mundane

Part of the issue is the way Romans did military history.  In order to distinguish battles, they focussed on the stratagems of the commanders, assuming everyone knew (or perhaps didn't need to know) what the standard drill was. 

BTW, the Klejnowski paper I mentioned above may have another bendy javelin reference

Lucan Pharsalia 7. 140

This revolves around how one translates "tunc omnis lancea saxo erigitur".  Klejnowski sees this as a reference to straightening with stones whereas the Loeb thinks it refers to sharpening on a stone.  Over to the latin speakers .....

Quote from: Erpingham on March 04, 2020, 03:06:13 PM
BTW, the Klejnowski paper I mentioned above may have another bendy javelin reference

Lucan Pharsalia 7. 140

This revolves around how one translates "tunc omnis lancea saxo erigitur".  Klejnowski sees this as a reference to straightening with stones whereas the Loeb thinks it refers to sharpening on a stone.  Over to the latin speakers .....

Literally, "then every lancea was erected with (a) stone". I guess an erect spear is a straight one but not necessarily a sharp one.

Quote
If the pilum remains straight, the weight of the haft would tend to make the point rotate upwards, from which position it should relatively easily drop out. If the pilum bends, the point would tend to remain roughly horizontal, and gravity pulls laterally rather than outwards.

Yes I see that would be so - though in the case of sticking into a person or horse, the effect of the point rotating upwards would surely be a greater inconvenience than whether or not it drops out. I still don't see what forces could cause such bending on armour or body penetration (though, I'm happy to say, I haven't thought about it very deeply).

Quote
tunc omnis lancea saxo erigitur

LSJ offers all sorts of 'raising, erecting' meanings for erigitur. From the context (battle preparation):

They trust no sword until its deadly point
Glows on the sharpening stone; no lance will serve
Till straightened for the fray; each bow is strung
Anew, and arrows chosen for their work
Fill all the quivers;

straightening and sharpening would both work. But note this is the lancea (longche) not the pilum (hussos, xuston, kontos?). Plus, it's poetry...

QuoteBut note this is the lancea (longche) not the pilum (hussos, xuston, kontos?). Plus, it's poetry...

Indeed and. in fairness, the author was applying it to the hasta velitaris, which was apparently a grosphos, which we know bent.  But, for completeness, thought it was worth a mention.

From a poetical perspective, one might think it'd be more appropriate if four different weapons were readied for battle in four different ways than if spears and swords were both sharpened. But maybe our poet was a dullard who couldn't think of anything else.

Re the sources mentioning the 'unusual rather than the mundane' I don't agree. There are mentions of tactics and weaponry in Roman sources that are very likely there because they are reassuringly ' usual' Marius with his men pushing the Teutones down the slope. They do not need  to be the told this, it is a matter of the barbarians coming on in the same old way . Thus Caesar mentions the shields of the Helvetii being pinned together by pila, whereas he does not do the sane for the action against  Ariovistus Why? well because in the first instance it is a matter of telling his militarily educated audience something comfortingly familiar, whereas to repeat this for  other battles would be poor style and declaimed classical histories are very concerned about style. 
So, often the mundane statement is there to how traditional, correct and bathed in virtus the writer is.

A while ago someone listed in Slingshot the casualties on either side in ancient battles . It was striking that the claimed kills in Roman  versus Roman  battles were generally light on the winning side . Now both sides will have been throwing pila , so if the pilum was a devastating weapon that punched through the shield and into the man then wouldn't the winner suffer equally in the interchange because it occurs before hand to hand and pursuit? These pila are about as effective as Richard's favourite  small furry animals. Of course, if the opponent is Roman and you destroy his shield then he is going to be replaced, (harder for a Gaul) , but if the pilum is really a killer and a legion is throwing 8000 of them one expects to see a lot more dead than one does.
Roy

Ih, and if the point of the sword glows on the grinding  wheel tgen it will lose its temper and curl over when it meets steel. Or maybe Romans did not temper swords??
Roy

Roy - I expect we are just talking past each other.

Quote
so if the pilum was a devastating weapon that punched through the shield and into the man then wouldn't the winner suffer equally in the interchange

I don't think anyone is proposing that the pilum is more or less devastating than other weapons, except to a small degree. All that I have been questioning is the oft-repeated claim that the pilum was deliberately made with a soft iron shank SO THAT it would bend on impact (with enemy shield or body) SO THAT it would hang down and cause an encumbrance and ALSO SO THAT it couldn't be thrown back.

I think it is more likely that the pilum was designed the way it was in order to penetrate shields and armour and kill the man. This doesn't mean it did so every time - no weapon is perfect. If it just penetrated the shield but not the man, but encumbered the shield and perhaps made it useless, so much the better. If it hung down after penetrating the shield, either under its own weight, or because it had a breakable joint (after Marius), so much the even better.

Quote
Re the sources mentioning the 'unusual rather than the mundane' I don't agree.

Well I strongly disagree with your disagreement. :)  All the 'mechanics of combat' discussions we have here, and like-minded saddos have elsewhere, about flank attacks and cavalry charges and line relief and durations of combat and othismos and all the rest, we would not need to have if any ancient source ever spelled these things out clearly.

Quote from: aligern on March 04, 2020, 04:51:24 PM

A while ago someone listed in Slingshot the casualties on either side in ancient battles . It was striking that the claimed kills in Roman  versus Roman  battles were generally light on the winning side . Now both sides will have been throwing pila , so if the pilum was a devastating weapon that punched through the shield and into the man then wouldn't the winner suffer equally in the interchange because it occurs before hand to hand and pursuit? These pila are about as effective as Richard's favourite  small furry animals. Of course, if the opponent is Roman and you destroy his shield then he is going to be replaced, (harder for a Gaul) , but if the pilum is really a killer and a legion is throwing 8000 of them one expects to see a lot more dead than one does.
Roy

so are you saying the Romans developed a weapon that was primarily used to disable an opponent and not kill him? That doesnt sound right if I'm honest. The primary role of a weapon (in this case a type of javelin) is to kill/maim an opponent so it would be designed to do so. Any claimed (sub) benefit of mangling an opponents shield is very much lower down the scale of importance. Low (reported) figures for Roman v Roman casualties could be attributed to a desire NOT to overstate Roman loses in a civil war (which is bad for morale anyway) 

There is, of course, a school of thought that wounding an enemy is better than killing him, because an injured man is more of an encumbrance to his side than a dead one. This could be an argument for minimizing the amount of rotation inside the wound of a javelin head.

I doubt the Romans practiced this particular species of ruthlessness however; it's a bureaucrat's rationality rather than that of a soldier (who'd be more interested in the enemy being definitely unable to hit back right now), and I don't think bureaucrats had very much say about the design of legionary equipment.

Low casualty numbers are I think beside the point. Winners' (reported) losses in ancient battle are almost always very low*, no matter what the losers were armed with; the conclusion can hardly be that no ancient weapon was designed to be a "killer".

* One exception would be Thermopylae 480 BC, where Herodotus claims 20,000 Persian dead. But even this is low compared to the claimed size of the army; about 1%.

I have to disagree Dave.

You are treating each piece as a full stop.  If you consider the entire Roman equipment as a package, it becomes clearly greater then the sum of its parts.

The large shield with unusual grip and the shorter sword with unusual position and draw and the unusual heavy spear and the distinctive narrates all make more sense as a full package designed to deliver a short range volley quickly followed up by the shout and the formation charge and the short sword to the belly as a single piece of combat.
Reduce shield effect, add noise shock to increase discomfort, and charge and then sword to belly with shield bash that helps expose that target of the penetrative pila didn't expose enough.

Throwing a longer range spear has less value because not only is it less likely to travel with enough penetration power, and is more easy to deflect, but there is also more time to recover before a follow up charge hits.

Throwing to kill is much harder anyway, as shields basically work. 

It's comparable to discussing Zulu spears without reference to the shield bash they were designed to work with... missing the whole by only looking at the part.

Roy's comments of course open us to a whole lot of discussions about what we really know about casualty causation or even in tactical use (was every available pilum thrown - the cunning strategem of getting ranks to kneel after throwing so they can throw from all four ranks suggests not in normal circumstances).  At one of the Cremona battles in 69AD, two legions didn't even throw pila at each other - they just closed with swords.

I will mention again that some well-known authors think pila were used for skirmishing and softening up.  I don't know whether I believe this was the standard tactic (back to whether the ordinary or extraordinary gets mentioned in Roman history) but here Roy's comments about professional regular Romans would come into its own - Cassius gets pilum through shield, centurion hits him with vine stick, tells him to (expeletive deleted) fall out and get it (even more colourful expletive deleted) sorted and tells Brutus to take his place.  This swap over is not going to happen if a barrage of pila is followed by a rampaging mass of swordsmen.  The barbarians aren't organised in a way that would expedite this (a front rank warrior doesn't yield his place over the trivial matter of losing a shield, even if it kills him).

Another possibility is Romans, knowing how to use pila to kill people, also had a better idea of how to avoid being killed by them.  All that armour may have helped, as may dynamic use of that big shield.   

Quote from: Erpingham on March 05, 2020, 10:31:04 AM
Roy's comments of course open us to a whole lot of discussions about what we really know about casualty causation or even in tactical use (was every available pilum thrown - the cunning strategem of getting ranks to kneel after throwing so they can throw from all four ranks suggests not in normal circumstances).  At one of the Cremona battles in 69AD, two legions didn't even throw pila at each other - they just closed with swords.

I will mention again that some well-known authors think pila were used for skirmishing and softening up.  I don't know whether I believe this was the standard tactic (back to whether the ordinary or extraordinary gets mentioned in Roman history) but here Roy's comments about professional regular Romans would come into its own - Cassius gets pilum through shield, centurion hits him with vine stick, tells him to (expeletive deleted) fall out and get it (even more colourful expletive deleted) sorted and tells Brutus to take his place.  This swap over is not going to happen if a barrage of pila is followed by a rampaging mass of swordsmen.  The barbarians aren't organised in a way that would expedite this (a front rank warrior doesn't yield his place over the trivial matter of losing a shield, even if it kills him).

Another possibility is Romans, knowing how to use pila to kill people, also had a better idea of how to avoid being killed by them.  All that armour may have helped, as may dynamic use of that big shield.   

I concur and also recognise the good points made by Mark. as well previously.

Also if the pilum was (exclusively?) used for a last minute throw before charging in with the sword, then the whole 'throwing it back' thing is even more moot (which makes it very moot indeed).

I can't offhand think of any weapon (edit: pre-20th C) that is designed to be non-lethal (maybe caltrops and things like that, though arguably they aren't weapons as such). Clearly encumbering the shield was a highly desirable effect but I still think it's an added bonus.

Nobody knows (because nobody ever saw fit to write it down) exactly how Romans used their pila, or whether they did it the same way every time, or what.

correct and astutely put Rich. We can only surmise and hypothesise and use the rule of probability ie is it more or less likely on balance to be true 

another useful few videos on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvOmttn0bU8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8UyLF2oWE

Thanks to Mark for explaining the point about pila in more detail. It is not a matter of being deliberately designed not to injure, it is a matter of the pilum having a place in a system in which the sword does the killing.

One can debate the actual level of the winner's and loser's casualties , but most would agree that  the relative levels are meaningful and winner's casualties are always much less than loser's and I take  it as a truth universally acknowledged that most casualties are caused in the route. That explains the discrepancy, but it also means that thousands of missiles are being expended for relatively little  effect. Where there are casualties from thrown weapons, such as the Sambre,  one wonders if the reason for the lethality  is that the opponents are losing their shields to one pilum and their lives to another. There is an oft cited  example of long duration javelin/ pilum conflict at one of Caesar's Spanish fights where two Roman forces fight each other. However, they are both sending in replacement cohorts and the conflict is only ended when the Caesarians go in with the sword. Interestingly Teias, Ostrogothic king, has several javelins in his shield and it is not his first shield when he exchanges it and gets caught out. Were pila effective as killers? Well, if they were then how come the Romans do not devastate pike phalanxes frontally?  Its the same as their lack of lethal effect on other Romans. The job of the pilum is to render an opponent unshielded.

If the pilum is not deadly  then all that effort that effort using three times the amount expensive iron  and lead weight and accepting a shorter range must be for something and it is for removing an opponent's  main defence.   If being a bit bendy helps to make it harder for a warrior to disencumber his shield then that would help in the main focus iof the weapon, particularly  in light of the alleged Marian replacement of a metal pin with dowel.

As to lethality Richard, consider World War 2 . Huge volumes of bullets were expended on keeping an enemy pinned down whilst the LMG section worked a flank, then it would expend bullets  that were effectively non lethal whilst the rifle section moved forward until grenades could be used.  Or consider the bayonet, which was designed to deter cavalry from charging in or opposing infantry to run away from a charge, or even a volley in Napoleonic warfare which was designed to shock an enemy rather than shoot them, because we know that mass casualties did not generally result from shooting.
Interestingly I used to own a Japanese cavalry sword. Its handle, guard and scabbard were painted green as camouflage. The blade, however was chrome plated.  It was not sharp, about as much use as hitting someone with an iron bar, but its job was to shine when it was drawn and convince the opposing line that they were going to receive a cavalry charge with cold steel. One could design a much more lethal weapon such as the British  08 pattern, but the job of that Japanese sword was to terrify and put to flight, not to kill.
Roy

It seems to me that you're applying different standards to pila and swords - the latter didn't decimate phalanges either, so by the criterion you're applying to the former, they're not effective as killers either.

Caesar's Spanish fight hardly proves anything about the relative lethality of pila and swords, no more than the decisiveness of bayonet charges proves they were more lethal than musket balls.

I don't think the World War 2 analogy is very helpful either. To fit better with what you are arguing, WW2 machine guns should have fired soft sponge bullets that made an especially loud bang so as to maximise their frightening effect. In reality, the suppressive effect of gunfire is because of its lethality, not instead of or despite it.

In practice not many bullets kill because the targets take cover - in the ancient world, not many pila killed because the targets had shields, or had armour, or dodged, or parried. That's not an argument for pila being intended to not kill.

Also keep in mind that the model of Roman infantry combat that Mark sets out is, AFAIK, just that - a modern model, plausible perhaps, but not based on much in the way of ancient evidence - cases where this is clearly not what happened are well known.

The evolution of the pilum appears linked to the various reforms in fighting equipment, formations and tactics from around the 5th Century BC through to the Marian reforms. warfare with the Celtic tribes in the north and Samnites in the South promoted a move from phalanx based armies to more fluidic ones where emphasis was placed on exchanging of missile fire to wear down an opponent before the coup de grace charge. A multipurpose (heavy) throwing javelin that combined elements of a throwing spear (with all the kinetic energy that delivers just prior to contact) a javelin (which is a slightly longer distance missile with the ability to kill/maim/weaken formations) and a spear (for stabbing/fencing with) is a very versatile weapon. To relegate it to a secondary and fixed usage doesnt appear to add up. Also consider the mechanism of the use of missiles and the period just prior to contact. If you have a thrown weapon that is able be used in a variety of ways ie punch through shields to the body of the person holding it, to break up the formation of the enemy and be used in close combat if/when required, its a mighty powerful tool.

The evolution of its design and use could eventually move to support a more bladed driven mode of close combat all fine and good but I wouldnt say that those masters of adaptation, the Romans, would be satisfied with a weapon that just existing, primarily, to disable the shield of an opponent

Unless, Dave, disabling the shield was part of the plan and not the end of itself.

Consider non pila.  Have longer range, probably more accurate, certainly cheaper.

But shields work, helmets work.  The further you are from the thrower, the better they work too.

So, if you know they work, and design something to pierce them, at the cost of distance, cost and weight, you would not be likely to persist with them for centuries (including other equipment changes) if they could be countered by just holding the shield further out from the body - which is where Patrick would usefully come in with that quote, BTW.

But if the purpose was not to kill with this new spear, but to set up the kill with the main weapon ... then it's retention makes sense.

Polybios- primarily a swordsman.

I cant remember what timeframe on the 2nd video I posted is but the chap demonstrates that the long iron shank can pass through the shield and into the body of the holder even if its at arms length.

In essence there is nothing vastly incompatible with the 2 view points of pila designed to penetrate and kill and swordsmen in close combat if we consider that bendy pila is sometimes an added bonus ie if it doesnt kill, it may help to disable the opponent's ability to resist the swordsman

     

Quotewhich is where Patrick would usefully come in with that quote, BTW.

Yes, this was some of his favourite stuff and he could usually turn up a quote or two. 

yes, same here. Whether you agreed with his ideas or not, his ability to come up with sources and quotes was exemplary 

The pilum as a shield defeating weapon does make sense to me.  Its long iron shank will pass through the hole made by its wider point, whereas a wooden spear tends to thicken after head.  That length will allow it to penetrate the body of a person holding a body shield tight in and, if not, leave them with a big spear hopelessly tangled in their shield, whether it bends or not.

As to "Chuck & Charge", we've discussed before and it really is hard to say it is universal.  The Romans seemed to delight in not doing the universal.  So, sometimes they are exchanging missiles, sometimes they deliberately don't use pila, sometimes they elect to receive a charge rather than deliver one and sometimes they volley and charge.

Quote from: aligern on March 05, 2020, 06:31:09 PM
Were pila effective as killers? Well, if they were then how come the Romans do not devastate pike phalanxes frontally? 

One might also ask why pilum use was pretty much confined to Romans?  I mean, pikes went out of use with the last of the successors, but subsequently became all the rage in the 15-17^th centuries.

(Yeah, I know about angons, Prussian throwing axes and the like, but these were all a bit niche and no one tried using them against the Swiss.)

I would suggest, Nick, that by the tome the successors had dumped the pikes, there wasn't much of anyone else around apart from Romans to produce a state arsenal

QuoteOne might also ask why pilum use was pretty much confined to Romans?

1. They were pretty resource intensive.  To operate this system you needed the metal for the pilum (which you threw away) and a good sword.  Disposable expensive weapons are better with centralised supply systems, as Mark says.
2. Others did not feel it was actually the weapon was critical, especially as some did use close combat spear chuckers, like the Spanish - the lonche/lancea sufficed.
3.  It's good for infantry war, less wonderful if facing cavalry.  The Romans found they need to add more, longer ranged, missiles like the lancea and the bow into their infantry formations to adapt.  This need may have restricted adoption in some areas.

Mark and Antony comments make my point, although it is worth noting that lack of centrally organised arms production has never hindered the manufacture of technologically advanced and effective weapons.  For example, both Saxons and Japanese produced good quality swords.

I suggest that the pilum was not so useful that it has been spontaneously and independantly discovered by several pre-gunpowder armies, unlike the pike.

QuoteFor example, both Saxons and Japanese produced good quality swords.

I see this as reinforcing my point.  It's not the inability to master the tech.  It's the availability of the resource.  A Saxon sword was treasured and rare, each Roman was issued one.  If you were a barbarian lucky enough to own the iron to make a pilum, would you be rich enough to throw it away without getting it back?     Whereas, in a state driven system, you throw away your pilum and the system of retrieval and remanufacture gives you another one in time for the next battle.

Doubtless the soldiers of the winning side picked up the pill. Catulus' soldiers pointed out that their pila had done the killing at Vercellae because the name of their general was carved in the haft.

If the plum is not primarily a weapon for unshielding the enemy then why the passage in Plutarch's Life of Marius: It is said that, against this battle Marius first altered the construction of the Roman javelins. For before at the place where the wood was joined to the iron it was made fast with two iron pins; but now Marius let one of them alone as it was, and pulling out the other, put a weak wooden peg in its place, thus contriving that when it was driven into the enemy's shield, it should not stand right out, but the wooden peg breaking, the iron should bend, and so the javelin should hold fast by its crooked point and drag. '

Rich, the suppressive effect of gunfire is because of its potential lethality. No one doubts that a bullet could kill, but for a vast expenditure of bullets relatively few men die. The point of the bullets is more than just killing, it is mostly  suppression. Similarly, a British Napoleonic unit that gives a volley and a shout and then charges is not primarily killing Frenchmen, it is breaking their morale.  The volley might be lethal, research on Napoleonic shooting shows it most likely is not.  The volley is frightening because it is loud, close and potentially lethal.

A nice point about lethality of swords Andreas, but in actuality its the sword that does the killing. When Roman legionaries want to get the job done they drop the plum and rush in with the sword.

Now, no one doubts that a pilum could be lethal or very much spoil someone's day, but its place in the sequence of combat is that it is used first on a shielded enemy with the objective of removing the cover of the shield.  If the opponent had no shield then the plum would be a killing weapon, however, against shielded opponents javelins and pila are  just not that lethal.

QuoteA nice point about lethality of swords Andreas, but in actuality its the sword that does the killing.

I believe Andreas' point is that you can't say that winners' casualties were low proves pila weren't good at killing but at the same time claim swords were good on the basis of the same data.  We can't tell the proportion of kills down to each weapon but we can tell neither were hugely lethal.  Frankly, it doesn't help much.

The modern profligate use of ammunition is a function of an industrial age, which makes undreamed of volumes of ammunition available along with weapons capable of dealing death rapidly.  It really is hard to parallel this with a Roman with his issue pilum or his German opponent with a couple of fire hardened javelins.

The British volley and charge is probably a better parallel but, even then, longer exchanges occurred.  What evidence do we have that Romans usually beat opponents with a rapid attack, rather than they fought a longer battle, counting on their better training, stamina and ability to employ reserves? (Sorry, leading the witness :) ).

Quote from: aligern on March 06, 2020, 12:58:27 PM

If the plum is not primarily a weapon for unshielding the enemy then why the passage in Plutarch's Life of Marius: It is said that, against this battle Marius first altered the construction of the Roman javelins. For before at the place where the wood was joined to the iron it was made fast with two iron pins; but now Marius let one of them alone as it was, and pulling out the other, put a weak wooden peg in its place, thus contriving that when it was driven into the enemy's shield, it should not stand right out, but the wooden peg breaking, the iron should bend, and so the javelin should hold fast by its crooked point and drag. '

in which case, if the wooden peg was put in there specifically, the iron doesnt bend, the weapon becomes unusable because the metal shank partly detaches from the wooden haft. It could be viewed that the iron specifically doesnt bend but that there is some additional benefit to making the weapon to 'break' after impact. Roman iron was obviously very strong. One of the videos I posted shows that the pilum with a wooden peg does 'break' at the shank/haft interface BUT that it also still allows the weapon to pierce a shield and pierce it deeper thus allowing for disabling shield and holder alike potentially

I suppose too that if Marius was only concerned to stop them being thrown back, rather than a pun designed to bend the pila he would have chosen something that dropped the pointy bit off entirely.

Piercing and remaining awkwardly fixed seems to disable a shield before it prevents return serves.

I guess the other question is how much time would someone receiving a pilum have to be able to remove it and chuck it back (if unbent and reuseable). If we look at the 'system' approach of arms proposed, notably Roy, then is it more likely that the pila would be hurled just before impact and resorting to swords or a stand off approach of chucking ranged weapons at each other and then charging when that finished?

it could make a difference such that if the reliance on the sword is paramount as suggested, then you wouldnt want to hang around too long if the opposite side are chucking their own flavour of javelins at you and/or have long pointy things waiting to receive a charge. It would potentially make more sense if we follow the proposal that an immediate follow up with swords would be preferred once chucking of the pila had finished. In that case, it is potentially less critical that the pila bend/break (etc) in the shield as the receiving person will be up against sword armed opponents seconds afterwards. The combination of disabling shields (if the pilum punches through the shield there is not likely going to be enough time to remove the pila from the shield or indeed chuck it back) and/or the person holding said shield (a long narrow iron head can have enough momentum and length to punch through shield and into the holder as well) will be devastating in this case 

This link may be usefull, many know it but perhaps many not.

https://www.roma-victrix.com/summa-divisio/armamentarium/pila-hastae-et-sagittae/pila-iv-sec-a-c-v-sec-d-c.html

Captions are in italian but simple to traduct, in the test are reported the same things writed in the previus posts.
The photos are important.

My notes:
Archeological evidence suggest many different version of this weapon
This weapon was in used for over seven century against different enemy.
So, is without sense give a single sentence about the use of the pilum, but we have to
consider its use in each individual case:
against hoplon, against pelta, against scutum, against cataphract, against other cavalry...........
but also against all the different  troops that are so organized......but also in different time and place
  and with different pila.
The only real certainty is that start up as an offensive weapon, a volley of pila followed by a charge
against a static enemy was devastanding.
The roman army took  always  the offensive.
I have some bewilderments about its use as a defensive weapon:
in the late imperial age.,when the roman empire went on the defensive ,was discarded.
Some year ago I saw a documentary on History Channel about an unfortunate, probably prevously  wounded,
british warrior  that was finished off with a trust from a pila in the head just breaking
both parietal bones: so no doubts about the perforating capacity of the pilum.

thank you Mariano, much appreciated for the comments and link

Nice to hear from you again mariano.  Hopefully, the Covid 19 lockdown isnt causing you too much grief.

We love you pictures of pila Mariano, particularly the bendy ones😉.  Many do have the look of bending where the temper could have been taken out of the point. If they bent in the shield then removing the 6 ft plus (2m) weapon woukd be a nightmare. Given the profile of many of tge heads , if tgey remained straight tgen extraction woukd be fairly easy, though its a bet on how fast a Roman swordsman can cover 30 yards. (30m) .
Roy

Quote from: aligern on March 06, 2020, 04:45:06 PM
If they bent in the shield then removing the 6 ft plus (2m) weapon woukd be a nightmare. Given the profile of many of tge heads , if tgey remained straight tgen extraction woukd be fairly easy, though its a bet on how fast a Roman swordsman can cover 30 yards. (30m) .
Roy

OK, back to basics.  Here is Caesar, the apparent source of bendy pilum stories

"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."

This does not sound like "chuck and charge".  It sounds like Gauls are being hit over a period of time, during which they are suffering shield attrition.  Eventually, no doubt, there is a charge when sufficient of the Gallic front has had its fighting abilities degraded.  This is not to say chucking and charging didn't happen but there may have been some time between phases.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 06, 2020, 05:15:15 PM

Quote from: aligern on March 06, 2020, 04:45:06 PM
If they bent in the shield then removing the 6 ft plus (2m) weapon woukd be a nightmare. Given the profile of many of tge heads , if tgey remained straight tgen extraction woukd be fairly easy, though its a bet on how fast a Roman swordsman can cover 30 yards. (30m) .
Roy

OK, back to basics.  Here is Caesar, the apparent source of bendy pilum stories

"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."

This does not sound like "chuck and charge".  It sounds like Gauls are being hit over a period of time, during which they are suffering shield attrition.  Eventually, no doubt, there is a charge when sufficient of the Gallic front has had its fighting abilities degraded.  This is not to say chucking and charging didn't happen but there may have been some time between phases.

I totally agree.
No problem with Covid , I am only  very busy with my  battle project, in the right section some news soon.
(Covid is only a little more than an ordinary influence, it's not the black death or the Spanish influence)

glad to hear it Mariano.

re the Caesar passage, is it the tip, the shaft or the base of the iron head of the pila that is observed to bend and more importantly how many of these (which in itself is admittedly a nebulous question as we are unlikely to know)

Quote from: Holly on March 06, 2020, 05:54:24 PM
re the Caesar passage, is it the tip, the shaft or the base of the iron head of the pila that is observed to bend

What seems clear is that it is the iron that bends, and not the iron-wood joint as in the design Plutarch attributes to Marius. Which supports Mariano's point that there was many types of pila - but also raises the question how useful the wooden-peg design really was.

On a different point, Caesar seems to be saying that the Gauls only lost their shields when several were pinned together by a single pilum; presumably some shields must have been pierced individually, but apparently their owners weren't thereby discomfitted enough to cast away them. If so, the shield removal would only work when the enemy formation is very dense, and/or their shields very large.

(Would a pilum penetrate a metal-faced Macedonian shield at all?)

also do we known when the wooden peg 'disappears' from the pila ie is it just a Marian experiment?

IIRC Connolly concluded that there was no archaeological evidence that the wooden peg was ever used. And AFAIK there is no written source other than the Marius one, so it's a short-term experiment at best, total fiction at worst.

thanks Duncan, I was under the impression it was short lived (if ever actually implemented)

There is too little evidence to say that the wooden peg in the pilum  is long lasting or even more than a tale. The value of the piece is that it supports the idea that pila are for wrecking shields bt piercing them and making them useless for defence.
In the Caesar story he does not need to tell his audience that pila bend,  its a commonplace, or I suppose that having their shield penetrated does not kill the Helvetians as they fight on, but that three shields are pierced together which shows what close order the Gauls  are in.  Now they are driven back a considerable distance by Caesar's men and this occurs after the pila have been thrown. Hence the Romans have  thrown their pila , so the driving back must presumably be by the Romans making repeated assaults with the sword
Roy

Lets put down the passages from Caesar describing tge battle against the Helvetii;
Chapter 24

Caesar, when he observes this, draws off his forces to the next hill, and sent the cavalry to sustain the attack of the enemy. He himself, meanwhile, drew up on the middle of the hill a triple line of his four veteran legions in such a manner, that he placed above him on the very summit the two legions, which he had lately levied in Hither Gaul, and all the auxiliaries; and he ordered that the whole mountain should be covered with men, and that meanwhile the baggage should be brought together into one place, and the position be protected by those who were posted in the upper line. The Helvetii having followed with all their wagons, collected their baggage into one place: they themselves, after having repulsed our cavalry and formed a phalanx, advanced up to our front line in very close order.

Chapter 25

Caesar, having removed out of sight first his own horse, then those of all, that he might make the danger of a11 equal, and do away with the hope of flight, after encouraging his men, joined battle. His soldiers hurling their javelins from the higher ground, easily broke the enemy's phalanx. That being dispersed, they made a charge on them with drawn swords. It was a great hinderance 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, 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. At length, worn out with wounds, they began to give way, and, as there was in the neighborhood a mountain about a mile off, to betake themselves thither. When the mountain had been gained, and our men were advancing up, the Boii and Tulingi, who with about 15,000 men closed the enemy's line of march and served as a guard to their rear, having assailed our men on the exposed flank as they advanced [prepared] to surround them; upon seeing which, the Helvetii who had betaken themselves to the mountain, began to press on again and renew the battle. The Romans having faced about, advanced to the attack in two divisions; the first and second line, to withstand those who had been defeated and driven off the field; the third to receive those who were just arriving.

Chapter 26

Thus, was the contest long and vigorously carried on with doubtful success. When they could no longer withstand the attacks of our men, the one division, as they had begun to do, betook themselves to the mountain; the other repaired to their baggage and wagons. For during the whole of this battle, although the fight lasted from the seventh hour [i.e. 12 (noon) 1 P. M.] to eventide, no one could see an enemy with his back turned. The fight was carried on also at the baggage till late in the night, for they had set wagons in the way as a rampart, and from the higher ground kept throwing weapons upon our men, as they came on, and some from between the wagons and the wheels kept darting their lances and javelins from beneath, and wounding our men. After the fight had lasted some time, our men gained possession of their baggage and camp. There the daughter and one of the sons of Orgetorix was taken. After the battle about 130,000 men [of the enemy] remained alive, who marched incessantly during the whole of that night; and after a march discontinued for no part of the night, arrived in the territories of the Lingones on the fourth day, while our men, having stopped for three days, both on account of the wounds of the soldiers and the burial of the slain, had not been able to follow them. Caesar sent letters and messengers to the Lingones [with orders] that they should not assist them with corn or with any thing else; for that if they should assist them, he would regard them in the same light as the Helvetii. After the three days' interval he began to follow them himself with all his forces.

Internet Classics archive.
It does read very like disruption using volleys of pila followed by  a charge=with the sword .
Roy

QuoteIt does read very like disruption using volleys of pila followed by  a charge=with the sword .

Read together, I have to say, it looks like standing on the defensive and bombarding the enemy with missiles, then charging them when they are sufficiently broken up. Not a single volley and in with the sword.

I suspect that the translation might be misleading too. 
His soldiers hurling their javelins from the higher ground, easily broke the enemy's phalanx. That being dispersed, they made a charge on them with drawn swords.

To me, to break a phalanx would rout it, which doesn't seem to apply - the infantry has to attack hand-to-hand and force it back.  Can the word broke mean split or broke up?  Also, they clearly didn't disperse the phalanx - the usual English meaning of disperse is to scatter or spread out and the context shows this didn't happen.  Could the word sought be disrupt/disordered/broken up?  Over to the Latinists again.
Anyway, I feel we are drifting off bent pila into wider Roman tactics.  If we are to do so, I might suggest revisiting that collection of Roman v. Barbarian passages (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=679.0) Patrick assembled elsewhere on the forum some years ago, which showed a wide variety of Roman infantry tactics.

it is fascinating stuff and maybe we are drifting off but maybe not as Roy's proposal has us taking the tactics of the whole and the issue of the pila (bendy, breaky or straight) fits into this hypothesis.

Quote from: Holly on March 07, 2020, 09:04:39 AM
it is fascinating stuff and maybe we are drifting off but maybe not as Roy's proposal has us taking the tactics of the whole and the issue of the pila (bendy, breaky or straight) fits into this hypothesis.

And there was I thinking it supported what I said :)  Actually, I think bendy pila could fit either because both involve it being a weapon to overcome big shields.  I just think the evidence in this passage does not suggest a quick "one volley and charge" . 

One could counter with the passage from the civil wars where, recognising each other as veteran legionaries, both sides dropped their pila and just went at it with swords.

Or the earlier but where they halted a charge to allow the enemy pila to drop short, expecting to gain the advantage by avoiding being pila-ed and the pila-ing unopposed (and which was spotted and countered).

One case out of the ordinary is no basis for an argument.

QuoteOne case out of the ordinary is no basis for an argument.

Agreed.  What we lack is a base line for ordinary.  Roman tactics from our sources either emphasise the "out of the ordinary" (which Roy would reject and Richard espouse) or tactics were quite varied.

The two sides just using swords is from 1st Cremona.  Tacitus says the two sides didn't throw pila but went straight to hand to hand.  As both suggested models involve throwing pila, just one over a longer timescale than the other, this tells us nothing decisive.

I think the other quote is from caesar's civil war and perhaps needs a fuller source quote to bring out what was going on.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 07, 2020, 08:58:26 AM
I suspect that the translation might be misleading too. 
His soldiers hurling their javelins from the higher ground, easily broke the enemy's phalanx. That being dispersed, they made a charge on them with drawn swords.

To me, to break a phalanx would rout it, which doesn't seem to apply - the infantry has to attack hand-to-hand and force it back.  Can the word broke mean split or broke up?

The word's perfregerunt, with meanings like "to break through, to break into pieces, to shatter". Acc'd Lewis and Short, this particular instance is an example of the sense "to break or burst through, to force one's way through", but I'm not sure this makes sense - the subject is "soldiers", while any forcing into the enemy phalanx at this stage is done by the pila.

QuoteAlso, they clearly didn't disperse the phalanx - the usual English meaning of disperse is to scatter or spread out and the context shows this didn't happen.  Could the word sought be disrupt/disordered/broken up?

The word's disiecta, which of a military formation ought mean "scattered, routed". The basic meaning is something like "torn into pieces".

So it seems to me Caesar is telling us the pila were enough to rout the Gauls, and the charge with swords was a pursuit of already fleeing enemy.

Nevertheless, they reform about a mile away, so if one is inclined to read between the lines, one might suspect that rather than routing, they concluded that standing and getting pelted from above is a bad idea, and performed a more-or-less orderly withdrawal, and the Roman charge was really them following at less than precipitate speed.

Anthony, with reference to the 'ordinary' , Pompey's orders at Pharsalus are based upon there being a standard modus operandi for legionaries which he seeks to exploit. He is expecting Caesar's men to advance and at a certain distance throw pila . By stopping his men during their advance he hopes that the Caesarians will release their pila into thinnair and that the Pompeians can then loose into the advancing and now pila derived Caesarians.  If legionary tactics are mostly a matter of variation approved on the day then the order would be meaningless .
Caesar's men stop of their own accord when they see their opponents stop and then resume their attack, a matter of them choosing to deviate from the standard system.
I think I am right that in the battle against Ariovistus Caesar's troops drop their pika  and run in with swords because they are so eager to get to the foe. Does this indicate that theybare not going to dicker around with thrown weapons, but to get stuck in with the sword...the decisive weapon.
Roy

QuotePompey's orders at Pharsalus are based upon there being a standard modus operandi for legionaries which he seeks to exploit.

I'm actually inclined to agree here, Roy.  I think this is a good example of being told the exception rather than the rule but in this case, we can perhaps see more clearly what the rule was.  Legion v. legion in an open fight, close to volley distance, exchange pila, into sword work.  But also clearly we see that this is not always what happens in other fights.  In these fights are generals making it up as they go along (there seems a strong tradition of lauding a general's clever stratagems) or were there a range of options available?  The more I see of Roman tactics, the less rigid and more adaptable an army comes into view.

The Ariovistus case I'm less familiar with but, as with the 1st Cremona, it could be that they had just dispensed with any softening up exchanges and went straight to hand to hand, so not decisive about what "standard" tactics in the situation were.

(Going back a page or so). Since the argument seems to be between 'the pilum was designed to kill but was also useful for disabling shields' and 'the pilum was designed to disable shields but could also kill', there is not really sufficient space between the sides to allow for any decisive attacks (or exchanges of pila).

For every 'devastating volley of pila' you can find a 'threw pila with no effect'. For absolute clarity (again), my argument is not that the pilum was a uniquely deadly and devastating weapon (anything but). It is the much smaller argument that the pilum was a weapon intended, as most weapons are, to harm the enemy, and if it also disabled his shield, frightened him, rendered itself unreturnable etc, that was a bonus.

Roy:

Quote
The value of the [wooden peg in the pilum story] is that it supports the idea that pila are for wrecking shields bt piercing them and making them useless for defence.

To my mind, the fact that pila were in use for some 300 years (maybe more) before anyone came up with the wooden peg idea, rather than supporting the 'wrecking shields' argument, fatally undermines it. What can I say? Same evidence, diametrically opposed interpretations. Either pila were already effectively disabling shields (by being bendy?) in which case why bother with the peg, or they weren't primarily meant to disable shields, and doing so (more effectively than they already did) was a bonus.

Roman tactics - my conclusion is that 'chuck and charge' could happen; other things could also happen. Which is more decisive, the pilum or the sword? Which piece of string is longer? It depends how long the pieces of strings are. I would say the sword was the primary weapon and the pilum was a useful secondary weapon, but I don't see how that alters what we have been talking about.

Here are a few more pilum passages to chew on, make of them what you will.

Caesar BG 1.52 (Romans v. Germans)
"Accordingly our men, upon the signal being given, vigorously made an attack upon the enemy, and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the pila at them. Throwing aside [therefore] their pila, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords."

Caesar BG 7.62 (Romans v. Gauls)
"At the first onset the enemy are beaten and put to flight in the right wing, where the seventh legion stood: on the left wing, which position the twelfth legion held, although the first ranks fell transfixed by the pila of the Romans, yet the rest resisted most bravely; nor did any one of them show the slightest intention of flying."

Plutarch, Pompey 32.6-7 (Romans v. Pontics - this is a fun one)
"For the Romans came to the attack with the moon at their backs, and since her light was close to the horizon, the shadows made by their bodies were thrown far in advance and fell upon the enemy, who were thus unable to estimate correctly the distance between themselves and their foes, but supposing that they were already at close quarters, they hurled their javelins (hussoi) to no purpose and hit nobody. The Romans, seeing this, charged upon them with loud cries, and when the enemy no longer ventured to stand their ground, but fled in panic fear, they cut them down, so that many more than ten thousand of them were slain, and their camp was captured."

Livy 32.17 (Romans v Macedonians)
"For the Macedonians who formed the garrison, numerous and picked men, thinking that it would be a most noble exploit to defend the city with arms and valour rather than with walls, in close array, strengthening their formation by increasing the number of ranks within it, when they saw the Romans scaling the ruins, thrust them out over ground that was rough and admitted no easy retreat. The consul [Flamininus] was enraged ... and sent out cohorts, one after the other, under their standards, to pierce, if possible, with their attack the formation of the Macedonians - they themselves call it the phalanx. But in addition to the limits of space, only a little of the wall having been destroyed, the enemy had the advantage in character of weapons and in tactics. When the Macedonians in close order held before them spears of great length, and when the Romans, hurling their pila to no purpose, had drawn their swords against this sort of testudo, closely-fashioned with shields, they could neither approach near enough to engage hand to hand nor cut off the ends of the spears, and if they did cut off or break any of them, the spear shaft, the broken part being itself sharp, helped, along with the points of the undamaged pikes, to make a sort of wall [vallum]. Moreover, the parts of the rampart that still stood protected the two flanks, nor was it possible either to retire or to charge from a distance, a manoeuvre which usually throws the ranks into disorder."

found this excerpt from another website discussing the same self issue of bendy pila

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.)

also have been thinking about the reference to several shields being pinned together (the Helvetii in Caesar's account). IF the pila bent easily then surely several shields wouldnt be capable of being pinned together. ie the iron shank must have been fairly robust to pierce several shields?

Good point Dave, but......When the pilum hits the shield it is descending at 45% . The shields  are raised forming a roof at 45% to the ground . Thus the pilum hits the shield at an incidence of 90%. The  stress is along the head of the pilum is straight down the thin iron rod that forms the length of the head. That is unlikely to bend the shaft at the point of impact.  The bending takes place when the pilum is hanging from the shield or when the recipient is trying to pull the head out when lateral stress is applied to the thin soft iron rod.. Let"s remember that all this is happening in close proximity to an aggressive  foe so there is no time for two Gauls to   hold the shields whilst  another pulls on the wooden section, it will be one  man  struggling with the dangling haft. I do buy the idea that the pilum comes through the shield and delivers its point some distance in from  penetration and that is unlikely if it is too soft and bends merely upon impact.
Roy

That is a good point Dave - which is why I made it with that exact quote on page 1 of this thread!

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4298.msg55582#msg55582

:)

I should have bent my post so you couldn't throw it back.

Roy

Quote
When the pilum hits the shield it is descending at 45%

Says who?

Quote
The shields  are raised forming a roof at 45% to the ground .

Says who?

Quote
The bending takes place when the pilum is hanging from the shield or when the recipient is trying to pull the head out when lateral stress is applied to the thin soft iron rod.

Says who?

Quote
Let"s remember that all this is happening in close proximity to an aggressive  foe so there is no time for two Gauls to   hold the shields whilst  another pulls on the wooden section, it will be one  man  struggling with the dangling haft.

Well yes, with the 'chuck and charge' model the Romans are at most 30 metres away when they chuck so will be in sword contact about five seconds later. If the bending effect depends on the recipient standing still, putting down his weapon (?), grabbing the pilum, trying to tug it out (sideways), failing, then I don't see how you can fit that into the available time anyway.

I'm not just being difficult (I am being difficult, I'm just not just being difficult). I do urge a bit more evidence-led argument.

sorry Rich.....take it as a compliment that I subliminally absorbed your argument from page 1 and regurgitated it as my own thought a week later  8)

I also agree re the whole 45 degree bit. It's a nice to have if you have the time to do it plus if you are moments away from impact then a flat(ish) throw is more likely as you will want to hit your potentially opponent in front of you.

OK Richard what angle does the pilum come down at? What angle is the shield held at?
In answer to all your questions 'Sez Me' because it looks to be a commonsense  answer.
Well actually its based on how shields are held in a foulkon and how pila are likely to be descending, because if their trajectory is too flat then they will fall short and the ranks behind the front rank have to angle it over the heads of the front rank and if the trajectory is too high then the pila  will be landing on the Romans as they advance!
Roy

QuoteThat is a good point Dave - which is why I made it with that exact quote on page 1 of this thread!

Possibly because the only metallurgical analysis on pila anybody seems to be aware of comes from Smihel.  It also turns up in the Italian material Mariano sent us.

On angles and shield walls, Roy is clearly advancing a model which is clear in his head but has not all made the page, as most of us do.  I think the barbarians are envisaged "foulkon style" with closed shields and a second and subsequent ranks of shields angled overhead, hence the 45 degree shields.  It is possible that the barbarians do attack in this ponderous style on occassion.  On others "the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the pila at them".  Difficult to do this in locked shield order. (Incidentally, that quote is quite a good one for multiphase combat - how do the Germans form phalanx while fighting hand to hand?  Have they bounced off and are now reverting to forming a shieldwall to sustain a long fight?)

[[add : this "crossed in the post" with Roy and he does confirm the "foulkon" in his newer post.]]

Given Roy's clear intent that all pila were discharged before the charge, I was reminded of this quote from Appian earlier produced by Richard

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.

Another cunning general's stratagem, which makes no sense if the "regulation" drill was to throw all the pila in the unit at once and charge.  The implication is that Sulpicius has thought of a way to use the missile potential of his units to bring all four ranks into play because the rear ranks couldn't normally throw for fear of hitting those in front.

Quote
OK Richard what angle does the pilum come down at? What angle is the shield held at?

On this particular occasion or in general? On this particular occasion I have no idea. In general, I believe circumstances varied.

I guessed you assume the Gauls were in a foulkon/testudo - is this ever attested elsewhere? Are Gallic shields suitable for this? It does provide some explanation for the otherwise curious phenomenon of two shields being pinned together, which would require a very close order indeed. But it is probably a red herring and best left for another time. At any rate if they are in a foulkon, and assuming they weren't always (as Anthony says, it's incompatible with a rapid advance) that would answer our 'typical or exceptional' question for this event.

I also guessed you have a 'mass volley' model in mind where the whole Roman formation throws their pila all in one go and charges in en masse. Other models are of course available eg the Zhomodikov continuous throwing model FWIW, which maybe is not much, but at any rate, the 'everyone throws, everyone charges' model might have been all there was once, but it is worth considering the possibility that other models have their plus points too.

That leaves us with the main problem with your explanation - I believe you are now saying that the pilum doesn't bend on impact, it bends when the recipient tries to pull it out of the shield, or it bends under its own weight while it is sticking out of the shield. But we don't have evidence of people stopping to pull pila out of their shields (Caesar refers to them waving their arms to try to free the pilum), and it seems 'common sense' to me that if someone had a pilum sticking out of their shield they a) wouldn't have time to try to remove it if the pilum thrower was now bearing down on them, sword drawn, and b) if they did try to remove it, and they tried to do it by hand rather than by waving their shield arm, they would grab the shaft at the point where it penetrated the shield and pull outwards, which wouldn't bend the shaft (and might not remove the pilum, depending on the physical details). I also have serious doubts whether any iron shaft, however untempered, would really bend under the weight of the pilum alone, particularly when, depending on the nature of the shield penetrated, it could just rotate in the hole without bending at all. (And if it did bend then what was the purpose of Marius' invention, or are we hand-waving that away now?)

Anyway we are going in circles and I suspect we will just need to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote from: RichT on March 09, 2020, 10:49:51 AMI guessed you assume the Gauls were in a foulkon/testudo - is this ever attested elsewhere? Are Gallic shields suitable for this?

"the shields of the Gauls though long were not broad enough to cover their bodies, and being flat also afforded poor protection."
"Scuta longa ceterum ad amplitudinem corporum parum lata, et ea ipsa plana, male tegebant Gallos."
Livy 38.21

So not all Gallic shields were suitable for overlapping in testudo, at least. Perhaps Helvetian shields were broader than others?

Pila hitting at 45º would mean either at they're near maximum range or thrown with less than maximum force, either of which ought be bad for de-shielding and killing alike, as well as increasing the time the enemy has to recover before any subsequent charge hits home, so I doubt it was the norm.

Do we know of any ancient equivalent of "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes"?

I have always thought that bit about the Gallic shields problematic. Certainly some  shields shown on Etruscan  big, so are shields on the Pergamene frieze. The arch if Orange shields appear neither small nor particularly narrow and the statue of an armoured Gaul leaning on his shield has a large shield. Perhaps what is meant is that the Gallic shields are not dished like to Roman shield and so do not provide a wraparound protection.

I do believe that the Gauls and Germans form phalanxes with overlapped shields, hence two or  three  Helvetian  shields pinned together. The  implications of this description of the battle against Ariovistus are that the Germans are in a very tight formation that that they form quickly a la foulkon.


' 52 Caesar appointed over each legion a lieutenant and a questor, that every one might have them as witnesses of his valor. He himself began the battle at the head of the right wing, because he had observed that part of the enemy to be the least strong. Accordingly our men, upon the signal being given, vigorously made an attack upon the enemy, and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the javelins at them. Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above. Although the army of the enemy was routed on the left wing and put to flight, they [still] pressed heavily on our men from the right wing, by the great number of their troops. On observing which, P. Crassus, a young man, who commanded the cavalry,—as he was more disengaged than those who were employed in the fight,—sent the third line as a relief to our men who were in distress. '

Roy

Quote from: aligern on March 09, 2020, 12:56:20 PM
I have always thought that bit about the Gallic shields problematic. Certainly some  shields shown on Etruscan  big, so are shields on the Pergamene frieze. The arch if Orange shields appear neither small nor particularly narrow and the statue of an armoured Gaul leaning on his shield has a large shield. Perhaps what is meant is that the Gallic shields are not dished like to Roman shield and so do not provide a wraparound protection.

Livy says that the Gallic shields are not broad enough and are flat, so it's not just the dishing. Plutarch says the same thing of the Celtic-derived Greek thyreoi - too narrow to protect the body.

The Vacheres armoured warrior is relatively late - a recent suggestion (here  (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA1725&lpg=PA1725&dq=warrior+of+vacheres+augustan&source=bl&ots=p1Zxgfwr-L&sig=ACfU3U1RXdgMnc8isoDPFeEEa8JrNOjz1g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_hviBvo3oAhXFi1wKHenIC9UQ6AEwDnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=warrior%20of%20vacheres%20augustan&f=false)for instance) is that he's Augustan. I wonder if Gallic shields tended to get bigger over time, perhaps because of Roman models; or if it is just that they varied a lot (and/or the Helvetii used particularly big ones). Or maybe it's just that Celtic fighitng styles involved standing face-on to the enemy, not sideways.

Here for comparison is Cassius Dio's rendering of the battle against Ariovistus.
I tend to think that CD is dressing up Caesar's account, but then Caesar is editing a whole battle down.
I certainly reinforces the idea of very close order, though in this case in a defensive tactic.

49 The Romans on seeing them ( the Germans) advancing from their tents did not remain quiet, but rushing forward, gave them no chance to form strictly in line, and by attacking with a charge and shout prevented them from hurling their javelins, in which they had especial confidence; 2 in fact, they came to so close quarters with them that the enemy could not employ either their pikes or long swords. So the barbarians pushed and shoved, fighting more with their bodies than with their weapons, and struggled to overturn whomever they encountered and to knock down whoever withstood them. 3 Many, deprived even of the use of their short swords, fought with hands and teeth instead, dragging down their opponents, and biting and tearing them, since they had a great advantage in the size of their bodies. 4 The Romans, however, did not suffer any great injuries in consequence of this; they closed with their foes, and thanks to their armour and skill, somehow proved a match for them. At length, after carrying on that sort of battle for a very long time, they prevailed late in the day. For their daggers, which were smaller than the Gallic daggers and had steel points, proved most serviceable to them; 5 moreover, the men themselves, accustomed to hold out for a long time with the same sustained effort lasted better than the barbarians, because the endurance of the latter was not of like quality with the vehemence of their attacks. The Germans were accordingly defeated, though they  p305 did not turn to flight — not that they lacked the wish, but simply because they were unable to flee through helplessness and exhaustion. 6 Gathering, therefore, in groups of three hundred, more or less, they would hold their shields before them on all sides, and standing erect, they proved unassailable by reason of their solid front and difficult to dislodge on account of their denseness; thus they neither inflicted nor suffered any harm.

50 1 The Romans, when their foes neither advanced against them nor yet fled, but stood immovable in the same spot, as if in towers,12 had likewise put aside their spears at the very outset, since these were of no use; 2 and as they could not with their swords either fight in close combat or reach the others' heads, where alone they were vulnerable, since they fought with their heads unprotected, they threw aside their shields and rushed upon the foe. Some by taking a running start and others from close at hand leaped up as it were upon the tower-like groups and rained blows upon them. 3 Thereupon many fell immediately, victims of a single blow, and many died even before they fell; for they were kept upright even when dead by the closeness of their formation. 4 In this way most of the infantry perished either there or near the waggons, back to which some had been driven; and with them perished their wives and children. Ariovistus with a few13 horsemen straightway left the country and set out for the  p307 Rhine. 5 He was pursued, but not overtaken, and escaped on a boat ahead of his followers; of the rest some were killed by the Romans who advanced into the river, while others were seized and borne away by the river itself.
Roy

Cassius Dio book 38. CD largely takes Caesar's accounts, sexes them up a bit, and applies some Thucydidean style. Which is maybe why this is a really good clear description of othismos. :o

Interesting vocabulary too - the 'pikes' of the Germans are kontoi.

Quote from: RichT on March 09, 2020, 03:37:39 PM
Which is maybe why this is a really good clear description of othismos. :o

I'm with Joseph Conrad on that one....!  :P

QuoteCassius Dio book 38. CD largely takes Caesar's accounts, sexes them up a bit, and applies some Thucydidean style.

Has CD got an independent source here, or is he padding/interpreting from his literary knowledge of how barbarians and Romans fight?  I see we have the superiority of Roman short swords and daggers to long barbarian weapons, the superiority of Roman armour over naked barbarians, barbarians fighting like wild animals, barbarians attacking fiercely but becoming exhausted whereas the Romans are accustomed to fight for a long time. 

He does interpret the timescale as being longer than it immediately appears in Caesar, with lots of othismotic struggling prior to the Germans falling back into their phalanx, or phalanxes.  There must be withdrawal to form the phalanxes, as the Romans are not on the same ground where they dropped their pila (or they'd just pick them up).

On the withdrawal thing I recall conversations where the movement of troops backwards  and forwards on the battlefield was quite lengthy, certainly some in the mile bracket. This was tied in with idea of punctuated flurries. The idea being that fighting occurred until both sides were temporarily exhausted . They both then dropped back a little and , if one side was suffering they could drop back further. The old wargames argument whereby any fall back invited quick pursuit  did not hold because both sides were taking a breather, dealing with the wounded etc.  I am pretty well convinced that this is what happens to both the Helvetii and the Germans , though I do wonder if the Helvetian withdrawal has an element of pre planning to it because they withdraw past the entry point of their reserves who advance on the Romans who are rescued by their  third line. That sounds too convenient to be unplanned. It makes sense of Cassius Dio's Germans  who pull back and form 'foulkons '  when exhausted. The eager rush of both sides, casting aside missile weapons is mirrored in the description of a battle against the Etruscans, but might just be a planned tactic to get into close quarters and negate the German long spears?
Roy

Quote from: Erpingham on March 09, 2020, 06:21:17 PM
Has CD got an independent source here, or is he padding/interpreting from his literary knowledge of how barbarians and Romans fight?  I see we have the superiority of Roman short swords and daggers to long barbarian weapons, the superiority of Roman armour over naked barbarians, barbarians fighting like wild animals, barbarians attacking fiercely but becoming exhausted whereas the Romans are accustomed to fight for a long time. 

All I know about Dio is from the intro to the Loeb which you can read here:

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/Introduction*.html

TL;DR - for this section of the History he used Caesar probably via Livy, along with his own inventions.

"Unfortunately the value of his history is greatly diminished for us as the result of his blind devotion to two theories governing historical writing in his discovery. On the one hand a sense of the dignity and true value of history demanded that mere details and personal anecdotes should give place to the larger aspects and significance of events. On the other hand the historian was never to forget that he was at the same time a rhetorician; if the bare facts were lacking in effectiveness, they could be adorned, modified, or variously combined in the interest of a more dramatic presentation. These two principles, as applied by Dio, have resulted all too frequently in a somewhat vague, impressionistic picture of events, in which precisely those data which the modern historian eagerly looks for are either largely wanting or else blurred and confused. Thus names, numbers, and exact dates are often omitted; geographical details are scanty; and even the distinctive features of the various battles are passed over in great part in favour of rhetorical commonplaces, culled from Thucydides and other models, thus robbing the battles of all or much of their individuality. A good illustration of the transformation the facts could be made to undergo in the interest of these two theories is to be seen in his account of the conquest of Gaul. It is now generally recognized that there is nothing in this account which need imply an ultimate source other than Caesar's Commentaries; and yet, were it not for the familiar names, the reader might readily be excused for failing to recognize many of the events narrated, to such an extent has Dio shifted the emphasis on the facts and assigned new motives, while all the time striving to bring into bold relief the contrasts between the Gallic and the Roman character."

In short, too much reliance should not be placed in his battle accounts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=98&v=ZxY3CzN2Kkc&feature=emb_logo

this is very nice......

more grist to the mill

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army/the-spacing-of-individual-soldiers/
https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army/description-of-the-century-and-maniple/
https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army/trajectory-calculator/
https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army/elements-of-the-charge/