Here is an article (https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army/fighting1/?utm_source=Karwansaray+Publishers+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3cbc5cefec-Karwansaray_Publishers_Newsletter_02_Jan_19_COPY_0&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_519a3fa91b-3cbc5cefec-407438405&mc_cid=3cbc5cefec&mc_eid=c6857677d6) from Gary Brueggeman, well known for his work on the Roman army, served up by those nice people at Karwansaray.
Looks like there is lots here to argue about, as Roman infantry combat is nearly as contentious as hoplite warfare. Have at it you Romans!
I was just reading a bit of that! I found it annoying that he was not consistent with his units when he is talking about speed of the advance. One instant he is using time and the next steps and then paces. By paces does he mean steps? He also talks about the Romans striking at the opponent on their right, because him likely being right-handed would be open on his "left". (???)
And then there is the commentary by a SLA member that they would run at their opponents and ram them - like they are playing American football. And we are expected to take this [SLA] person seriously?
Next someone will be telling me Achilles' leaping attack from the movie Troy is accurate! :P
Quote from: altfritz on April 07, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Next someone will be telling me Achilles' leaping attack from the movie Troy is accurate! :P
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Pylos_Combat_Agate.jpg)
Some good stuff and a lot that IMHO is wrong, being based on wrong premises. Take for example this part on pila throwing:
| Which ranks threw their pila? The usual unspoken assumption is that they all did. Can this be correct? The illustration below shows the trajectory of all 8 ranks if they all threw at exactly the same time. Each rank is separated by 7 feet to allow enough space between them for the pila to be used. Even in this idealized "best case" example it is clear that only one or two ranks could reach the enemy effectively and that the rearmost ranks would actually be a danger to their own front ranks. It thus seems pretty clear that not all of the ranks could throw their pila during the charge.
(https://i.imgur.com/RRF2Elr.jpg) |
Notice the assumptions:
a) the legionaries and their enemies are stationary at the time the pila are thrown,
b) the legionaries are seven feet per rank,
c) the legionaries can't throw pila further than 56 feet granted 7 feet per rank in the diagram (I'm allowing 14 feet between the front legionary and the pilum thrown by the 8th rank man.
To answer them:
a) who says either the legionaries or their opponents were stationary? If their opponents were advancing the Romans could do a timed volley, with the front rank throwing first, followed by the second rank, then the third and so on, each rank throwing its pila with the enemy in range. If the enemy were stationary then the legionaries' front rank could throw pila, followed by and advance of a couple of steps and the second rank throws, and so on.
b) six feet according to Vegetius and this corresponds to the open order of ranks following the tacticians
c) This is nonsense. The school athletic records for a javelin throw are 255 feet for boys and 150 feet for girls. What were the Romans - invalids? Allow legionaries to throw a pilum at least to 150 feet. If they are in a 10-rank formation that means their line is about 60 feet deep which means they can, after all, stand still and all throw their pila when about 90 feet from the enemy. The front rank pila will land further than the rear rank ones but since the enemy line is presumably at least as deep as theirs that means pretty much all those pila will score hits.
There's a lot more like this but enough for now.
the distance for throwing a pila is definitely warped. BUT it depends on trajectory. If on an arc greater than 50-60 feet is easily achieveable
I am going to show my ignorance here ::)
I always assumed that the Pilum was a lot heavier than a javelin hence its short range
Probably based on no more than the WRG Heavy Throwing Weapon category ;D
no ignorance at all. It depends on the type of pilum being used as there is a range of weights potentially
Quote from: Dave Knight on April 07, 2021, 08:34:37 PM
I am going to show my ignorance here ::)
I always assumed that the Pilum was a lot heavier than a javelin hence its short range
Probably based on no more than the WRG Heavy Throwing Weapon category ;D
According to the Wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilum) a pilum weighed between 0.9 and 2.3kg (an olympic javelin weighs 0.8kg for men and 0.6kg for women). Experiments* show a pilum could be thrown to a range of 33 metres (36 yards) or a little in excess of 100 feet, so a volley from about 40-50 feet should get all the pila where you want them.
*personally I would allow the Romans a greater distance since they spent all their time building up those arm muscles by digging and training with double-weighted wooden swords.
Maybe he got his [measuring] units messed up again?! And, yes, I suspect a Roman Soldier was much fitter than a typical modern-day civilian (and many military). Stronger, Leaner, Harder all round.
Your treating pila like javelins though, completely ignoring the things that make them difference.
What counts is not maximum range (it almost never matters )
What matters is effective range.
Who cares if any javelin can be thrown 100m if it just bounces off a shield. Your achieved nothing with it.
What counts is the range it is effective at. For a pila that means the range it penetrates the shield, and that is very close. But once it penetrates, your following up immediately against someone who has either been stuck through his shield, or has a bloody great anchor hanging out of it and stopping him using it as he trained. And your on him, with your super efficient killing sword .
Ditto this crazy overhead volley nonsense. Why? You can see the target, you may hit your comrades in front ( who are moving in the same direction you throw), and your using all this super efficient short range ammunition on blind area shots.
Better to let the front rank go in, kill and maim, pull back, and then let the next rank step forward and repeat.
Quote from: Holly on April 07, 2021, 08:04:15 PM
the distance for throwing a pila is definitely warped. BUT it depends on trajectory. If on an arc greater than 50-60 feet is easily achieveable
When you talk about
feet, do you mean
steps or
paces?
feet as in metres/3
I think the steps/paces thing may be the difference between the single pace (gradus) (right foot to left foot) and the double pace (passus) (right foot to right foot). A gradus was 2.5 Roman feet, a passus 5 Roman feet. A Roman foot was 29.6 cm.
I suspect a pilum doesn't lose much energy over a 100 foot (not metres) flight. (speed is slow, mass is high, streamlined shape). Probably no difference between effective and maximum range.
Do we have any data on this?
From a position of total ignorance all I have to offer on the subject is my experiences throwing balls for our dogs.
Simply throwing a ball by hand doesn't send it very far. Using a "ball thrower" - a type of atlatl - does allow you to throw the ball considerably further.
Of course experience does make a significant difference. Cricket players can throw a ball waaaaaaayyyyyyy further than I can ever imagine, even when using a ball thrower.
I suspect skirmish troops would be able to throw their javelins considerably further that someone who doesn't have the opportunity to do a preparatory "run up".
I appreciate I'm talking balls (and javelins) rather than pila but just thought I'd chip in with my two pen'orth.
;) Geoff
Quote from: LawrenceG on May 23, 2021, 03:19:19 PM
I suspect a pilum doesn't lose much energy over a 100 foot (not metres) flight. (speed is slow, mass is high, streamlined shape). Probably no difference between effective and maximum range.
Do we have any data on this?
Difference between initial and final velocities can be calculated (by numerical methods) using the drag equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation). Key parameters are the initial speed and drag coefficient.
Olympic athletes can launch a javelin at around 30 m/s, but a pilum would be significantly slower due its much heavier weight (0.9-2.3 kg compared to modern athletic javelins that are 0.6 kg for women, 0.8 kg for men) and the average legionary not being an olympic athlete.
Drag coefficients for different shapes can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient). Pick any value that suits your own prejudices.
Hope this helps. 8)
Perhaps worth reminding folks of this earlier discussion
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3904.0
which includes links to various experiments.
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 24, 2021, 08:18:27 AM
Quote from: LawrenceG on May 23, 2021, 03:19:19 PM
I suspect a pilum doesn't lose much energy over a 100 foot (not metres) flight. (speed is slow, mass is high, streamlined shape). Probably no difference between effective and maximum range.
Do we have any data on this?
Difference between initial and final velocities can be calculated (by numerical methods) using the drag equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation). Key parameters are the initial speed and drag coefficient.
Olympic athletes can launch a javelin at around 30 m/s, but a pilum would be significantly slower due its much heavier weight (0.9-2.3 kg compared to modern athletic javelins that are 0.6 kg for women, 0.8 kg for men) and the average legionary not being an olympic athlete.
Drag coefficients for different shapes can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient). Pick any value that suits your own prejudices.
Hope this helps. 8)
But surely a typical - that is veteran - legionary would be at least as fit as an Olympic athlete and almost certainly stronger.
QuoteBut surely a typical - that is veteran - legionary would be at least as fit as an Olympic athlete and almost certainly stronger.
But why would that be? Your typical regular soldier today would be fit, but not at the peak fitness of an Olympic athlete. While we know that Roman soldiers trained daily (or at least recruits did) and they occassionally did physical jobs like road work or building, do we have evidence that they were all superb physical specimens?
Quote from: Erpingham on May 26, 2021, 12:22:05 PM
QuoteBut surely a typical - that is veteran - legionary would be at least as fit as an Olympic athlete and almost certainly stronger.
But why would that be? Your typical regular soldier today would be fit, but not at the peak fitness of an Olympic athlete. While we know that Roman soldiers trained daily (or at least recruits did) and they occassionally did physical jobs like road work or building, do we have evidence that they were all superb physical specimens?
Well, on campaign, I think they would be very 'match fit' for what they did, which was march places, build camps, forage for food, pillage, and fight.
Is Howard by any chance channelling the late Patrick Waterson, who had a notoriously high opinion of the physical fitness of ancient soldiers?
It's worth noting that legionaries were, by modern standards, rather short on average, which has to be bad for javelin-throwing performance. (If you doubt this, ask yourself why the atlatl exists.)
Quote from: Prufrock on May 26, 2021, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 26, 2021, 12:22:05 PM
QuoteBut surely a typical - that is veteran - legionary would be at least as fit as an Olympic athlete and almost certainly stronger.
But why would that be? Your typical regular soldier today would be fit, but not at the peak fitness of an Olympic athlete. While we know that Roman soldiers trained daily (or at least recruits did) and they occassionally did physical jobs like road work or building, do we have evidence that they were all superb physical specimens?
Well, on campaign, I think they would be very 'match fit' for what they did, which was march places, build camps, forage for food, pillage, and fight.
Don't doubt they would be fit for purpose. Just perhaps we should be realistic about what that meant. Like Andreas, I am cautious of elevating our ancient ancestors into paragons of strength and fitness.
Is the comparison with ancient Olympic athletes or modern ones? I can believe that a legionary might be approximately as fit (or strong or enduring or whatever measure) as an ancient Olympian but definitely not as a modern one - not modern as in the last fifty years or so. Modern sports science has made a big difference.
I don't know that there are any recorded times or distances for ancient athletics events to allow a comparison. Pheidippides ran Athens to Sparta (the 'Spartathlon' in modern terms) inside two days (arriving the day after he set off) - the modern record is a bit over 20 hours. His time for the marathon is not recorded.
But I think we also have to be careful not to overstate the all-round abilities of [modern] Olympic athletes. The old man was a self-employed fencing contractor who worked 30 years 7:30 til 5 climbing up the back of people's properties, digging holes, lugging fenceposts and palings, and then turning that into fences. He never did any fitness training outside of his job, but was one of the guys they called up for search and rescue when people got lost in the mountains. That kind of hardy toughness is what the legionaries would have had by virtue of daily hard physical labour and high expectations around work ethic. Their 'Olympians' would have been the chaps who had all that but also set the tone in terms of killing. Your Pullo, Vorenus, Crastinus types - probably mostly centurions and those pressing for that rank.
Edit: modified as Richard's post came in while I was typing.
QuoteBut I think we also have to be careful not to overstate the all-round abilities of [modern] Olympic athletes.
Actually, we were looking at one very specific skill - javelin throwing - not all-round ability. If we want all round ability, the best Olympic comparator is probably decathlon, because it requires a range of strengths. Decathlon javelin records are quite a bit lower than specialist javelin records, due to the lack of specialism.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 26, 2021, 02:26:10 PM
QuoteBut I think we also have to be careful not to overstate the all-round abilities of [modern] Olympic athletes.
Actually, we were looking at one very specific skill - javelin throwing - not all-round ability. If we want all round ability, the best Olympic comparator is probably decathlon, because it requires a range of strengths. Decathlon javelin records are quite a bit lower than specialist javelin records, due to the lack of specialism.
Sorry Anthony - you are quite right, my apologies. That said, that their overall fitness would be much higher than that of most modern folks and that thowing pila to wound, main and kill was part of their job description (which it isn't for Olympic javelin throwers), I would suggest 5-15 metres killing range, 15-30 metres throw and hope (maybe cause shield to be discarded or a nasty wound if subject caught unawares), but ranges much beyond that mostly for show.
So there are two slightly different things in play here:
- general toughness, fitness, stamina and endurance, the sort acquired naturally by people doing manual labour (like fencing contractors, or legionaries). I expect that a legionary would typically be at least the equal of their modern equivalants by this measure (and both legionaries and modern equivalants way ahead of the general modern population of course).
- specialist athletic ability, as in modern javelin throwers. I don't think the typical legionary would come anywhere close to the modern athlete's specialist ability. Modern elite generalists (eg Olympic decathletes) might be closer to ancient abilities in a single event (like javelin) but still ahead, because science.
What was the original question?
Nick:
Quote
Olympic athletes can launch a javelin at around 30 m/s, but a pilum would be significantly slower due its much heavier weight (0.9-2.3 kg compared to modern athletic javelins that are 0.6 kg for women, 0.8 kg for men) and the average legionary not being an olympic athlete.
So yes I agree with that - a legionary, tough and enduring though he undoubtedly was, would not be able to throw a javelin as far as a modern Olympic javelin thrower. (Conceivably he might be able to throw a pilum nearly as far though, since Olympians don't train, practice and specialise in throwing pila and I don't know how much difference the nature of the javelin makes).
QuoteThat said, that their overall fitness would be much higher than that of most modern folks
Don't disagree there - we are a far more sedentary bunch :)
Our legionary had to be able to throw his pilum the regulation distance (whatever that was) - we have no records of distance pilum throwing competitions AFAIK. That distance would have been chosen as within the range of the weediest recruit with a bit of practice, while delivering the required effect (shield pinning or whatever) and giving the legionary the opportunity to be sword in hand before the hairies reach him (or he reaches them in a "chuck and charge"). So, quite possibly within the range of a modern re-enactor rather than needing an Olympian.
Also - physical constraints might be less important than psychological ones. Comparing with muskets of more recent times - maximum range (to which a ball might fly) might be 200 metres, effective range (at which you might have a fair chance of hitting the target) well under 100 metres, and actual battlefield range (at which you would want to fire) a good deal less than that.
Lots of factors feed into that calculation - nature of the enemy, nature of the shooters, training and enthusiasm and closing speeds and experience and all sorts. IIRC the British in the Napoleonic wars favoured a very close range volley followed by an immediate bayonet charge. Hanoverian infantry facing a Highland charge (perhaps equivalent to legionaries facing oncoming hairies) also favoured opening fire at the shortest possible range.
All of which means that the distance to which a pilum could be thrown, its weight, its 'muzzle velocity', its impact momentum etc etc might be the least important considerations and have very little influence on the range at which it was actually thrown.
Quote from: RichT on May 26, 2021, 02:55:20 PM
- general toughness, fitness, stamina and endurance, the sort acquired naturally by people doing manual labour (like fencing contractors, or legionaries). I expect that a legionary would typically be at least the equal of their modern equivalants by this measure (and both legionaries and modern equivalants way ahead of the general modern population of course).
I am reminded of something I was told by a guy who'd been an instructor in Afghanistan, namely that American couch potatoes are more promising recruits than Afghan farmboys, because you can get the former into shape but you can't do anything about the latter having had their physical potential impaired by childhood malnutrition.
(The memorious may recall that when I brought this up in another thread, Patrick suggested that the instructor was mislead by a cultural disinclination on the part of the Afghans to put in their best performance on the training ground. I'm inclined to suspect the instructor knew his recruits better than Patrick did.)
I don't really know anything about typical nutrition among Romans of the class relevant for legionary recruitment, but their abovementioned short stature suggests it wasn't optimal. In particularly, it seems likely to have been low in protein.
So my guess would be that legionaries would perform worse than modern professional soldiers (but better than couch potatoes who haven't had a drill sergeant bash them into shape yet).
In terms of stature, we might note that the British armies minimum regulation height at the start of WWI was 5ft 3in. This was later reduced to 5ft, to allow otherwise suitable men to join up. The issue was the shocking levels of childhood nutrition and health in the cities.
The height of Roman soldiers is an interesting question and probably depends on when you are looking at and where you were recruiting from. Vegetius said the earlier legion had a height requirement of 5ft 10in (Roman) and this dropped to 5ft 7 in (again Roman) in the late Empire. So, perhaps short to 21st century people but , by late 19th/early 20th century standards, pretty hefty.
QuoteOur legionary had to be able to throw his pilum the regulation distance (whatever that was) - we have no records of distance pilum throwing competitions AFAIK.
QuoteAll of which means that the distance to which a pilum could be thrown, its weight, its 'muzzle velocity', its impact momentum etc etc might be the least important considerations and have very little influence on the range at which it was actually thrown.
This is precisely what I was getting at on the first page.
The pila was NOT a javelin that needs to be thrown as far and as accurately as possible - its as poor a comparison as treating every long stick as a Pike, or every self bow as a Longbow. its just wrong.
to quote myself:
QuoteWho cares if any javelin can be thrown 100m if it just bounces off a shield. Your achieved nothing with it.
What counts is the range it is effective at. For a pila that means the range it penetrates the shield, and that is very close.
..
Ditto this crazy overhead volley nonsense. Why?
...
you're using all this super efficient short range ammunition on blind area shots.
OK, enough of all these gut reactions, let's look at this with a bit of mathematics.
The force applied by a legionary (or athlete) to a pilum will be the same irrespective of its weight because it is limited by the thrower's body. Similarly the distance over which he can apply such force is constant and given by the length of his arms. Therefore, using the good old Newtonian equations of motion,
v
2 = u
2 + 2as
and
F = ma
We can rearrange this to show that v
2 is proportional to the reciprocal of the pilum mass. Bunging this into a spreadsheet we get the graph below. The top curve assumes the thrower has the physique of a modern oplympic athlete and the lower one assumes a somewhat less accomplished guy who can only chuck a javelin at 25 m/s rather than 30 m/s.
In terms of how far the pilum will go and how fast it will arrive at its destination, one can put the values into a ballistic spreadsheet and get the results below.
Mass (kg) | 0.9 | 2.3 |
Launch Velocity (m/s) | 23.5 | 14.7 |
Distance @22° (m) | 40 | 16 |
Velocity @22° (m/s) | 20 | 14 |
Distance @40° (m) | 50 | 21 |
Velocity @40° (m/s) | 18 | 14 |
The above assumes a drag coefficient (C
D) of 2.0, based upon what experiments have determined for typical arrows, and a shaft diameter of approximately 50 mm. Varying C
D values does not change distances and velocities by that much.
So, what all this shows is that a heavier pilum (pretty much irrespective of its aerodynamic characteristics) will not slow down as much as aa lighter one during flight, but the latter only loses 10% of its velocity anyway. However, the heavier pilum only has about 40% of the range of the lighter one, which at 40-50 m makes it a fairly close range weapon.
8)
A bit of maths is always welcome.
A couple of thoughts
- the maximum range of a 2.3 kg pilum (if I'm reading these figures right) is 21 m (not 40-50 m), making it an extremely close range weapon.
- the penetrative power is I assume proportional to the velocity on arrival, which doesn't change much with range, so a maximum range shot (which at 21 m is not saying much) has the same penetrative power as a minimum range shot. So purely in terms of penetration, it doesn't much matter when you throw it.
Interesting, though the points we have made above still stand - the maths and physics may be the least important aspect. You wouldn't learn much about optimum 18th C musketry ranges by calculating the muzzle velocity, bullet mass etc of a Brown Bess, because tactical and human factors massively outweigh physical ones. (Though it would at least tell you maximum theoretical ranges).
The 900g pilum at 50m still has about 145 J of energy, more than enough to perforate a shield or mail armour.
That leaves open only the question of (in)accuracy limiting range.
Quote from: RichT on May 28, 2021, 10:18:48 AM
- the maximum range of a 2.3 kg pilum (if I'm reading these figures right) is 21 m (not 40-50 m), making it an extremely close range weapon.
That is correct. The lighter pilum has a range of 40-50 m. The heavier pilum can reach 16-21 m, depending upon elevation. IMO, the longer range may be impractical due to the difficulty of launching such weapons at 40-45° elevation. Notwithstanding, all of this confirms the view of many rulesets that the pilum is not an independent distance-effect weapon, but an adjunct to close combat.
Quote
- the penetrative power is I assume proportional to the velocity on arrival, which doesn't change much with range, so a maximum range shot (which at 21 m is not saying much) has the same penetrative power as a minimum range shot. So purely in terms of penetration, it doesn't much matter when you throw it.
How you measure effect depends upon whether you judge these things to be a matter of momentum (bearing in mind that Force=rate of change of momentum) or kinetic energy, which is ½mv
2. To do the sums for the arithmetically challenged; the lighter pilum has momentum of 18 kg.m/s and KE of 180 J; the heavier missile has momentum of 32.2 kg.m/s and KE of 225.4 J. Therefore, the heavier pilum should hit with distinctly more oomph, but you need to wait until you see the whites of the eyes before unleashing hell.
8)
Feels smug
I think the earlier comment about Hanoverians holding fire till close range was a simple equation of firing at a distance = few hits, and no time to reload, versus, hold your nerve to the last minute and your carefully prepared, loaded properly, first fire would do a lot of damage before possible impact. Also fire disrupting formations would cause a faltering in the charge. Also, reloading in a hurry with fixed bayonets sounds like a surefire recipe for self inflicted hand injuries...
There is a bit more to it than just holding nerve. Not much, but a bit
But it is also true that in the same way veteran phalangites could tell the quality of their opponents by how steady the vertical pikes were held, so too veteran black powder troops could tell how resolute an opponent was by how well they held their fire.
Boils down to :
When attacking formed infantry in the open, if the
first round comes at over 200m - they are fools who will run early
First round at around 150-200m - basically trained and commanded , keep going and see how they stand
First round at 100m - decent troops. You're guys are likely to halt and return fire if you don't keep them advancing.
First round not yet fired at 60m then either they have no ammunition, or you really don't want to find out what's going to hit you in ten paces, highly likely your men break first now.
Which is all together a combination of troop training and quality and nerve and officer quality.
Trooper nerve isn't much use if your officers have you discharge at ineffective range . But no officer can hold the line if the men won't stand
I think Mark's comment feeds back nicely into Caesar's Legions at Pharsalus where they stopped and regrouped and reorganised when there was no countercharge
This sort of thing may well be dealt with at a lot lower level than the General
Feels more smug.
Will this "agreeing with Mark" thing last past lockdown? I could get used to it, you know.
Quote from: Mark G on June 02, 2021, 07:39:26 PM
Feels more smug.
Will this "agreeing with Mark" thing last past lockdown? I could get used to it, you know.
In an infinite universe anything is probably possible 8)