Roman Pilum Throwing - Javelin & Shield Roman Army Style

[Erpingham]

A 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 ).

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Mark G]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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 

[manomano]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

thank you Mariano, much appreciated for the comments and link

[Erpingham]

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

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[manomano]

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)

[Imperial Dave]

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)

[Andreas Johansson]

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?)

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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