Roman Pilum Throwing - Javelin & Shield Roman Army Style

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

It 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 Patrick assembled elsewhere on the forum some years ago, which showed a wide variety of Roman infantry tactics.

[Imperial Dave]

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.

[Erpingham]

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" . 

[Mark G]

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.

[Erpingham]

One 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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

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?

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.

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

Pompey'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.

[RichT]

(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:

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."

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[aligern]

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

[RichT]

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

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

Says who?

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

Says who?

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?

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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 

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.