Throwing a spear/pilum/javelin

[Jim Webster]

I'm not sure I'd equate the Spanish to velites. The mixed Spanish and Celts at Cannae do not seem to have skirmished much

Jim

[aligern]

I wouldn't be at all uncomfortable comparing velites to caetratiI think caetrati are a bit further along the curve towards close fighting, but at Mahabad the velites finish off Gauls that have been tormented with missiles. Hannibals Spaniards in the line are presumably scutarii and I'd see them as performing more solidly in line than caetrati. Of course Hannibals Gauls and Spaniards used missiles, just not as effectively as the Romans did, but I bet they had them. Spaniards in Carthaginian service were both caetrati and scutarii. In the battle against the 'proper legion' aren't some Spanish following more Roman tactics, trained by the Carthaginians, and others acting as light cohorts.

Roy

[Dave Gee]

The thought process for this was started after reading Vosges 58 BC which is posted in the Ancient and Medieval Battles forum by aligern. The battle report doesn't really have a direct bearing, it just started the process. It was this sentence that got me thinking:

"49 1 The Romans on seeing them 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;"

This leads me to thinking about how the EiR legionary would use his pilum. A throwing spear is not the sort of weapon that is easy to use in close formation - my days of track and field attest to that  You need room to move and pivot to get any meaningful power into a throw. I have read that the pilum was primarily used to unbalance a foe by sticking it in their shield.

I guess what I'm asking is did the throwing spear (of whatever kind, not just the Roman one) have a strict battlefield use?
Was it just another weapon in the arsenal or did it inspire 'especial confidence' (massed javelin-ry?)?
With the professional armies there may/must have been drills. Did the front rank or 2 advance and the other ranks run up and throw spears over their heads? How did a formed unit 'deploy' throwing spears?

Dave

Thanks for all of the input so far.

With regards to the EIR legionary I think the consensus is the strict battlefield use of the pilum was as a shock weapon to throw off the enemy as they charged/were charged.
The pilum was just another weapon in the arsenal that could be used as the situation demanded but the legionary was essentially a 'swordsman'.
The legions did perform throwing drills. However the exact nature of how it was done is not clear and would have, again, depended on the situation at hand on the battlefield - different drills for offensive and defensive deployment etc maybe.

I'm still intrigued by the phrase "especial confidence" from Mr G.J.Caesar. Were the Germanic tribes noted spear hunters and therefore more deadly with their javelins? I would assume that the amount of woodland would make the spear favorite over bow or sling as a hunting weapon.

Dave

[Erpingham]

With regards to the EIR legionary I think the consensus is the strict battlefield use of the pilum was as a shock weapon to throw off the enemy as they charged/were charged.
The pilum was just another weapon in the arsenal that could be used as the situation demanded but the legionary was essentially a 'swordsman'.

Without wanting to sow discord, it has to be said there are scholars who would dispute this, certainly in the Republic.  They would say that the pilum is the primary weapon - that a legion would endeavour to destroy its opposition with a rain of pila and would only go in with the sword as they waivered.  This isn't the place to argue our way through the sources but it is worth being aware there are other interpretations of Roman tactics.

[Patrick Waterson]

I regret that the phrase 'special confidence' appears to be a translator's interpolation.  This is a much better translation, taken from the Perseus site (and slightly cleaned up):

Caesar appointed over each legion a legate and a quaestor, 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 [spatium pila ... non daretur]. Throwing aside their javelins [relictis pilis], they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx [phalagga], 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 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.

Caesar's use of 'phalanx' to describe the German formation indicates that it was close-packed and possibly also that it used spears for melee (Tacitus' description of Germans suggests long spears for melee and lighter ones for throwing).  The Helvetii seem to have attempted a similar formation when they faced Caesar, but it had been disrupted by the Roman pila volley.  Ariovistus' men had their formation still untouched by Roman weapons, hence the activities of legionary high-jumpers to dislocate the shield wall.

The pilum was not a weapon by itself, but part of a combination, with the gladius providing the other part.  The battle against Ariovistus indicates that without the disruptive effect of the pilum on an enemy formation the gladius was not effective, at least against a Germanic shield wall.  Our sources also suggest that the pilum volley alone was not a battle-winner: it is mentioned, as far as I remember invariably (though see below), as being followed by close action with swords.

The extracts I quoted earlier suggest that during the 3rd-1st centuries BC the legion, or more exactly the 6-8 deep engaged first line, would all volley simultaneously.  Appian's quote suggests that prior to 358 BC this may not have been true: a 'platoon-firing' or 'ripple-shooting' process may have been the norm in the 5th-mid 4th centuries BC (the legion also operated slightly differently back then).  The increasingly rapid tempo of battle as time progressed seems to have favoured the adoption of simultaneous volleying by all ranks (of the first, or engaged, line) with an immediate charge to take advantage of the (temporary) disorder imposed on opposing formations.

So Mark G's understanding may be exactly right for the 5th century legion.  At any rate, I do get the impression that the system was increasingly tightened up and made more rapid and coordinated over time, until it was being executed in unison with optimised battlefield effect from around 314 BC.

Patrick

[Dave Gee]

@Erpingham - oh without doubt! I understand the collective noun for scholars is a "squabble" although some disagree 

I don't know what would happen if you failed to devastate your enemy with a rain of pila and they didn't waiver - perhaps these are the battles the Romans lost. Patrick's post also indicates things are not as tidy as we may like what with troops leaping on and tearing at the enemy. Sounds like a brutal melee with victory hanging in the balance, as I'm sure a lot of ancient battles were.

Is it fair to say that the throwing spear has played an important part in all ancient warfare from the earliest recorded battles up until the Dark Ages (I don't remember the Saxons or Vikings using thrown spears but I could be wrong)?

Dave

[aligern]

Vikings and Saxons carry  a mix of spears, some designed for thrusting, some for throwing, some equally happy at both tasks. Of course virtually any spear that can be wielded single handed can be thrown and  most javelins can thrust.
Spears being thrown are described in the poem,, the Battle of Maldon

'Now was riot raised, the ravens wheeled,
The eagle, eager for carrion, there was a cry on earth.
Then loosed they from their hands the file-hard lance,
The sharp-ground spears to fly.
Bows were busied - buckler met point
Bitter was the battle-rush, warriors fell
On either hand, the young men lay!
Wounded was Wulfmur, a war bed he chose,
Even Brithnoth's kinsman, he with swords
Was straight cut down, his sister's son.'

Vikings and Saxons do not appear to have thrown their spears in the same way as the Romans. Rather than mass volleys they are more individualised and throw when an opponent has been picked out. I suspect that two forces advanced to close range  and then let rip[ with missiles before closing  and that individuals would keep throwing, especially from the back ranks, but short range and aimed at a man.
On the Bayeux tapestry we can see a bundle of javelins ready to throw so they may have had access to more than two missiles per warrior.

Roy

[Erpingham]

From the 13th century Norwegian Kings Mirror

"For one thing, you may have a pole prepared, somewhat heavier than a spear shaft, and put up a mark some distance away for a target; with these you can determine how far and how accurately you can throw a spear and do it effectively. 
<snip>

  You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords.  But if the fight is on shipboard, select two spears which are not to be thrown, one with a shaft long enough to reach easily from ship to ship and one with a shorter staff, which you will find particularly serviceable when you try to board the enemy's ship.  Various kinds of darts should be kept on ships, both heavy javelins and lighter ones.  Try to strike your opponent's shield with a heavy javelin, and if the shield glides aside, attack him with a light javelin, unless you are able to reach him with a long-shafted spear.  Fight on sea as on land with an even temper and with proper strokes only; and never waste your weapons by hurling them to no purpose."



OK, not exactly Viking but giving the place of the throwing spear in the Scandinavian tradition.  Make every spear count, don't throw your spear unless you've got two, even if you have a sword.

The actual spear tactic in the naval warfare section is interesting - using a heavy javelin to take out the enemy shield, then follow up with the light or the long thrusting spear.

[Mark G]

which is remarkablysimilar to the most likely use for the Pila
- throw at short range to take out the enemy shield and follow up immediately with the sword.

[Erpingham]

which is remarkablysimilar to the most likely use for the Pila
- throw at short range to take out the enemy shield and follow up immediately with the sword.

Indeed.  An independent development of a similar tactic, or some classical influence coming through?

[Patrick Waterson]

Probably an independent development, on the basis that Roman armies seem to have given up using the pilum in the late 4th century or thereabouts, and Scandinavians were on the whole very practical people rather than Latin-reading military theorists (that bit would come into vogue later (in the Renaissance and afterwards) but principally in Europe, culminating in de Saxe and his thoughts about re-creating a phalanx-based army).

Intriguing nonetheless, and a nice hint that the 'heavy javelin' family (angon, gaesum, pilum, soliferrum and spiculum) seem to have had a 'de-shielding' effect upon opponents throughout the centuries.  Also useful as indicating by analogy that the Roman legionary would probably carry one light and one heavy pilum, as per Polybius VI.23.

Patrick

[Erpingham]

Scandinavians were on the whole very practical people rather than Latin-reading military theorists

I'm willing to bet they had copies of Vegetius (because seemingly the whole of Europe did). 

Reading the Kings Mirror it doesn't seem overwhelmingly influenced by classical military manuals, though the dialogue style (father to son) is presumably classically derived (though it was used in chivalric literature too, so possibly not direct influence).

[Patrick Waterson]

I am not willing to bet against their having copies of Vegetius. 

They would however need a certain amount of empirical weapon development and use, because unlike us they were betting their lives on these things, and Vegetius outlines the use of weaponry without indicating how it is made.  At a rough guess, copies of Vegetius would probably be available and consulted following

1) the Christianisation of Scandinavian kings (Latin-speaking and reading priests are handy), and
2) the consolidation of power and national authority by these same kings.

The question becomes: had the two-javelin system mentioned in the Kings Mirror been in use prior to His Majesty paging through Publius Flavius or was it developed as a consequence of doing so?  (Someone would have to tell the smiths how to do it.)  I wonder if we shall be able to do more than simply speculate on this.

Patrick

[aligern]

They definitely had copies of Vegetius, though one wonders whether it was seen as a practical military manual... whih in a way it is not even from the first. It has lots of 'good ideas ' and some rather impractical formations.  All the stuff about legions will have been fantasy reading to a Medieval aristocrat.
My pet theory is that it was given to nobles as a retirement present when they had stopped actual warfare.
Rhabanus Maurus supposedly updates V  I wonder how different that is?
B Bachrach thinks that RM was a practical manual for the Carolingian military but he doesn't get much support from other historians.

Roy

[Erpingham]

Without wandering too far off topic (New topic - how influential was Vegetius in the Middle Ages?), I personally would go for the idea being indigenous and not just a classical reference, as this seems more in keeping with the style of the advice.  But I'm not sure we have the evidence.  Incidently, anyone speak good enough Norse to tell us the original terms for the types of the spear.  The original is Chapter 38 here

http://books.google.co.uk/books?vid=OCLC05178869&id=LgtIfLwQgX4C&pg=PP7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false