Roman Pilum Throwing - Javelin & Shield Roman Army Style

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

That 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.]]

[Erpingham]

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.

[RichT]

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.

[Duncan Head]

I 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?

[Andreas Johansson]

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"?

[aligern]

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

[Duncan Head]

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 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.

[aligern]

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

[RichT]

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.

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

[Imperial Dave]

Which is maybe why this is a really good clear description of othismos.

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

[Erpingham]

Cassius 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).

[aligern]

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

[RichT]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

this is very nice......