Roman Pilum Throwing - Javelin & Shield Roman Army Style

[aligern]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[RichT]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Mark G]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

     

[Erpingham]

which 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. 

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[Nick Harbud]

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.)

[Mark G]

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

[Erpingham]

One 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.

[Nick Harbud]

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.

[Erpingham]

For 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.

[aligern]

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.