The thought process for this was started after reading Vosges 58 BC which is posted in the Ancient and Medieval Battles forum by aligern. The battle report doesn't really have a direct bearing, it just started the process. It was this sentence that got me thinking:
"49 1 The Romans on seeing them 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;"
This leads me to thinking about how the EiR legionary would use his pilum. A throwing spear is not the sort of weapon that is easy to use in close formation - my days of track and field attest to that ;) You need room to move and pivot to get any meaningful power into a throw. I have read that the pilum was primarily used to unbalance a foe by sticking it in their shield.
I guess what I'm asking is did the throwing spear (of whatever kind, not just the Roman one) have a strict battlefield use?
Was it just another weapon in the arsenal or did it inspire 'especial confidence' (massed javelin-ry?)?
With the professional armies there may/must have been drills. Did the front rank or 2 advance and the other ranks run up and throw spears over their heads? How did a formed unit 'deploy' throwing spears?
Dave
Simultaneous volleying does seem to be indicated, and is also hinted at in Vegetius' principles for deployment:
Having explained the general disposition of the lines, we now come to the distances and dimensions. One thousand paces contain a single rank of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man being allowed three feet. Six ranks drawn up on the same extent of ground will require nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-six men. To form only three ranks of the same number will take up two thousand paces, but it is much better to increase the number of ranks than to make your front too extensive. We have before observed the distance between each rank should be six feet, one foot of which is taken up by the men. Thus if you form a body of ten thousand men into six ranks they will occupy thirty-six feet. in depth and a thousand paces in front. By this calculation it is easy to compute the extent of ground required for twenty or thirty thousand men to form upon. Nor can a general be mistaken when thus he knows the proportion of ground for any fixed number of men. (Epitome Rei Militaris/De Rei Militari III.14 - see all of Vegetius here http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/ (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/))
Six feet (or 5') between ranks makes sense if everyone is hurling javelins simultaneously (any closer and friendly-poke-in-the-eye could be a problem). The idea seems to be to get rid of the pila simultaneously, draw swords, close the interval between ranks and go in with the cold steel before the enemy, who has numerous men and shields rendered unusable because of pila sticking in them, can sort himself out.
The pilum is thus a mass volleying, formation-disrupting weapon used to prepare the way for cold steel. If action developed too quickly for a pilum volley to be practicable, or if it was considered superfluous, our accounts have legionaries dropping their pila and going in with the gladius rather than hanging on to the pila for use in melee.
The pilum was incidentally almost useless frontally against pikes: Polybius' general principle that rear-rank pike shafts intercept flung missiles, and the incident at Atrax, where a Macedonian phalanx held a breach in the city wall against all the pila-throwing a Roman force could muster, support this observation.
Patrick
Yes Patrick, I rather envisage plum throwing as being carried out to a rhythm controlled by the centurions. Something along the lines of
Left
Right
Left
Right
One
Two
Three
Throw
Ad Gladius!!!!
as this would be the most intimidating way of attacking.
I cannot see how throwing in an irregular and desultory way would impress at all.
There is that quote in Livy I think, but Patrick will know exactly, about the Romans developing rank throwing as a tactic. I am pretty sure that the story is an invented tale to describe the invention of what was then current tactics.
The above method has the advantage that:
1) It fits with the description of actions such as Pharsalus where one side tries to catch the other by halting before throwing distance is reached and thus putting the other army in the position of throwing at thin air. By the way such a battle is excellent evidence that the Romans throw on the move and , within the constraints of all centurions coordinating, all at one go. Because the throw is actioned to a command it is possible for the centurions to give the order to halt and advance again as at Pharsalus or to drop pila as at the Vosges battle.
2) The commands follow a natural military style of order in that the trooper is warned first and then the order is given. The One, Two, Three would be for long strides as in modern javelin throwing. The great benefit of then military method is that training takes over so the soldier does not need to think about when to take a long stride, when to arch the back and then release and the Ad Gladius or Ad Gladii is to remind the stupid ones to 'draw your bloody sword laddie' or Heinie will be sticking a nasty framea in you!'
Rhythm is a large part of drill it helps 'Suppress the Flesh'. which enables men to overcome fear.
Roy
I'm a little skeptical about the entre depth of he formation participating in a single (or double) massed volley.
It seems much more likely to me that the volley was the front rank - maybe two ranks - only at any one time.
but I do think it would be in unison and by command.
I'd be interested in others opinions on this though, to help me get a better grip on the whole thing.
I suspect that the platoon fire of the XVIIITh century s a useful comparison. Infantry fired then by battalion, by wing or by platoon. All of those had an officer in charge. It must be very difficult to fire other than by a commanded group, So maybe that's what posterior and prior centurions do, shoot the pile by half maniples??
Of course we could imagine Roman throwing as rotation fire, but then they would have to come very close indeed and that makes a nonsense of Pharsalus or the Vosges battle where clearly the Romans are also advancing fast or they would not have to lose their pile. I am pretty certainly opposed to any sort of loose skirmish, the opponent would be faced with a scattering of missiles and a disordered formation and would just push it back.
Roy
I'm trying to cast my mind back to the epic WMWW debate, where we did discuss this at length. My recollection from that is that the Romans could stay in pilum flinging action over a period of time. This would suggest the "platoon firing" idea, rather than trying to discharge all pila in one massed throw, is the base tactic. I think there was a tactic where each rank threw then knelt down, to allow the next to throw but this was a "special".
I often wondered( when stuck on a train or doing basing etc :o) wether the front rank (or two) may have stepped forward a pace or two and threw their pilum and then the rear ranks passed theres forward for the front ranks to fire a second volley. This would solve the problem of how massed ranks threw them and also it would keep up a regular volley.
Tha main problem I have with induction throwing (front line steps forward, throws, kneels, next line steps past front, throws, kneels, etc) is that you
A) run out of Pila in less than half an hour
B) run out of space (only a 30 m range (and 15M effective range)) very quickly.
since we pretty much know that (with exceptions) Pila continued to be used for a few hours in the 'typical' battle, that rules out a continuous induction fire to me.
As does kneeling down in the front row - well, I wouldn't do it, would you?
But the idea that only the front row would discharge at any one time does seem to be right to me.
I'd be happier with two ranks shooting at a time, and happier still with six or eight. However there is a sort of attractive logic to one rank shooting and that is that the men in the front rank throw at the front rank of the opponent and thus unsoiled them before combat with the sword. So the pilum is a very short range weapon and is used on an individual opponent. Otherwise one rank throwing their pile and having them travel deep into the opposing formation is going to be very ineffective as the opposing front rankers will still be there.
But, I remain convinced that all of the front half of a maniple throws together. One rank of throws is too weak . They then follow up with a charge into combat and use the sword. They fight for a bit and, when they tire they retire and the posterior half pass through and throw pile and repeat whilst the enemy are doing their version of the same.
That battles might take a long time is because there are two throws per line and two main lines.
I don't doubt that in special circumstances such as Ilerda oil a throwing might be continued for a long long time, but that is skirmishing Spanish style between deployed units, not the main and simultaneous clash of battle lines that is the norm for major battles
Ilerda is a skirmish. Battles take a longish time because there are repeated forward and retrograde movements with new sections arriving , throwing and then having repeated surges with the sword.
I can't see that Pharsalus or Bibracte make sense if only one rank shoots. I can't see that there is any sensible way that rank shooting can be effective. Against someone rank shooting an opponent that threw all its missiles from the front 6 ranks at once and then crashed home would be irresistible because the rank shooters would be caught, encumbered with pila in their shields and standing still.
I suppose that it depends upon one's reading of Romans. Are they hugely aggressive swordsmen, looking to have a substantial impact and impetus or wily javelin skirmishers ?
Roy
The problem with having ranks coming forward to shoot is that if the enemy hits, the troops in the front rank might not be the Front Rank men.
Jim
I think Roy and Jim are on the right lines here, at least as indicated by our sources.
Case 1: Munda, 45 BC. Caesar vs Gnaeus Pompeius the Younger
" ... when the javelins [pila] were thrown, vast numbers of the enemy were hit and fell in heaps." (African War 31)
This implies a single throwing event.
Case 2: Pharsalus, 48 BC. Caesar vs Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
"... they renewed the charge, threw their javelins [pila] and quickly drew their swords. Nor indeed did the Pompeians fail to meet the occasion. They stood up to the hail of missiles and bore the onset of the legions; they kept their ranks, threw their javelins [pila] and then resorted to swords." (Civil War III.93)
Again, the pila-hurling seems to be treated as a single event, and the comment 'they kept their ranks' is hard to reconcile with any system of each rank advancing in turn to throw.
Case 3: Spain, 207 BC. Silanus vs Mago
"While he was leading them out of the camp thus marshalled, the Romans discharged their javelins [pila] at them before they had scarcely cleared the rampart. [6] The Spaniards stooped down to avoid the javelins [tela = missiles] thrown at them by the enemy, and then rose up to discharge their own in turn; which the Romans having received according to their custom in close array, with their shields firmly united, they then engaged foot to foot, and began to fight with their swords." (Livy XXVIII.2.5-6)
Once more we have what seems to be a single simultaneous massed pila-hurling event, followed by close work with swords.
Only when we get back as far as the 4th century BC do we have anything that looks like 'ripple-shooting' by ranks:
Case 4: Northern Italy, 358 BC, Sulpicius vs the Boii
"Afterwards the Boii, the most savage of the Gallic tribes, attacked the Romans. 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." (Appian, Gallica 1)
The Greek wording translated as 'line' is 'metapou tetagmenous', which has the sense of the formation nearest the enemy rather than a 'rank'; had it been just the front rank shooting one would have expected 'protostaton' (front-rankers) to be those first casting.
So only in the 4th century BC do we get anything less than a whole formation hurling at once; later accounts all give the impression of uniform and simultaneous volleying.
Patrick
I could see up to three men 'deep' throwing - especially at an oncoming target or just to get rid of the encumberance themselves (Polybius, "Romans are swordsmen").
But offensively?
we need 2-3 meters between each rank to ensure they guy doesnt stick the guy behind him. Add in a couple of meters to get up some speed before the throw, remembering that a swordsmen should come on guard at 4 meters too (if he is confident), and we have pretty much used up our 15m effective range already making that third rank throw a danger to the front ranker as he closes
- not to mention that the second guy is already partially obscured - the third rank must be throwing in blind hope. I'm a bit dubious in that particular circumstance even of the second rank throwing something over the heads of a friend while he is running forward at a target that close.
But I guess neither option is mutually exclusive - multiple rank stationary volleys in some circumstances, front rank only before a charge seems believable to me.
and for the exceptional cases why not have a full maniple discharge (pharsalus does seem to be that exception) on occasion to match the individual skirmish of Illerda.
Lets not forget that the case for them only taking one Pila into battle most of the time is a pretty good one too.
Seems to me that Patrick is conclusive here. The normal. Practice is for a massed volley of the front ranks of the first line. That line. Might be a maniple entire or it might bea century, but it seems clear that is is enough of the acids to give a massed effect. as I said the Romans are not there for an extended skirmish, they are using the plum to create the best conditions for a very violent assault with swords.
Where they have an advantage is that they can renew the missile and sword attack systematically and in great numbers. Celts, Germans and the like have missiles and as new men make their way to the front they will throw them, but it is a desultory rain of missiles, not orchestrated after the first throw . The Spaniards have lots of missiles, but they're keeping a rain of shafts going for longer and looking for the option for small groups to go in and fight.
The roman system works because it delivers repeated significant missile shocks and fresh troops whilst the opponents efforts tail off.
Roy
Shock value does seem very important.
Goldsworthy is very good on this, with the shocks from the barratus and the charge.
I'd be tempted to go so far as to stop using the word 'continuous' and replace it with 'occasional' when discussing celtic or spanish javelins to emphasise the contrast with that organised shock volley of the Romans.
Yes I think you have it aright there Mark, The Spaniards are a bit like the Roman Velites but are punchier when they fight, though Velites had largish round shields and Spanish gladii. Indeed that equipping of Velites might be a copy of Spanish Caetrati tactics. The Spanish would perhaps be more than occasional, but their tempo is constant and lower level than the sudden peaks of a Roman volley system. The effect on the opponent is going to be quite dramatic as the Romans advance like a wave, say six pile per man frontage hit you and then the Romans are on you stabbing and pushing.
Roy
Its actually a contrast in ways to exhaust the opponent with each nation choosing a route that gets it to breaking the front and then killing the fleeing enemy.
I'm not sure I'd equate the Spanish to velites. The mixed Spanish and Celts at Cannae do not seem to have skirmished much
Jim
I wouldn't be at all uncomfortable comparing velites to caetratiI think caetrati are a bit further along the curve towards close fighting, but at Mahabad the velites finish off Gauls that have been tormented with missiles. Hannibals Spaniards in the line are presumably scutarii and I'd see them as performing more solidly in line than caetrati. Of course Hannibals Gauls and Spaniards used missiles, just not as effectively as the Romans did, but I bet they had them. Spaniards in Carthaginian service were both caetrati and scutarii. In the battle against the 'proper legion' aren't some Spanish following more Roman tactics, trained by the Carthaginians, and others acting as light cohorts.
Roy
Quote from: Dave Gee on June 26, 2012, 09:36:36 AM
The thought process for this was started after reading Vosges 58 BC which is posted in the Ancient and Medieval Battles forum by aligern. The battle report doesn't really have a direct bearing, it just started the process. It was this sentence that got me thinking:
"49 1 The Romans on seeing them 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;"
This leads me to thinking about how the EiR legionary would use his pilum. A throwing spear is not the sort of weapon that is easy to use in close formation - my days of track and field attest to that ;) You need room to move and pivot to get any meaningful power into a throw. I have read that the pilum was primarily used to unbalance a foe by sticking it in their shield.
I guess what I'm asking is did the throwing spear (of whatever kind, not just the Roman one) have a strict battlefield use?
Was it just another weapon in the arsenal or did it inspire 'especial confidence' (massed javelin-ry?)?
With the professional armies there may/must have been drills. Did the front rank or 2 advance and the other ranks run up and throw spears over their heads? How did a formed unit 'deploy' throwing spears?
Dave
Thanks for all of the input so far.
With regards to the EIR legionary I think the consensus is the strict battlefield use of the pilum was as a shock weapon to throw off the enemy as they charged/were charged.
The pilum was just another weapon in the arsenal that could be used as the situation demanded but the legionary was essentially a 'swordsman'.
The legions did perform throwing drills. However the exact nature of how it was done is not clear and would have, again, depended on the situation at hand on the battlefield - different drills for offensive and defensive deployment etc maybe.
I'm still intrigued by the phrase "especial confidence" from Mr G.J.Caesar. Were the Germanic tribes noted spear hunters and therefore more deadly with their javelins? I would assume that the amount of woodland would make the spear favorite over bow or sling as a hunting weapon.
Dave
Quote from: Dave Gee on June 28, 2012, 10:22:54 AM
With regards to the EIR legionary I think the consensus is the strict battlefield use of the pilum was as a shock weapon to throw off the enemy as they charged/were charged.
The pilum was just another weapon in the arsenal that could be used as the situation demanded but the legionary was essentially a 'swordsman'.
Without wanting to sow discord, it has to be said there are scholars who would dispute this, certainly in the Republic. They would say that the pilum is the primary weapon - that a legion would endeavour to destroy its opposition with a rain of pila and would only go in with the sword as they waivered. This isn't the place to argue our way through the sources but it is worth being aware there are other interpretations of Roman tactics.
I regret that the phrase 'special confidence' appears to be a translator's interpolation. This is a much better translation, taken from the Perseus site (and slightly cleaned up):
Caesar appointed over each legion a legate and a quaestor, 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 [spatium pila ... non daretur]. Throwing aside their javelins [relictis pilis], they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx [phalagga], 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 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.
Caesar's use of 'phalanx' to describe the German formation indicates that it was close-packed and possibly also that it used spears for melee (Tacitus' description of Germans suggests long spears for melee and lighter ones for throwing). The Helvetii seem to have attempted a similar formation when they faced Caesar, but it had been disrupted by the Roman pila volley. Ariovistus' men had their formation still untouched by Roman weapons, hence the activities of legionary high-jumpers to dislocate the shield wall.
The pilum was not a weapon by itself, but part of a combination, with the gladius providing the other part. The battle against Ariovistus indicates that without the disruptive effect of the pilum on an enemy formation the gladius was not effective, at least against a Germanic shield wall. Our sources also suggest that the pilum volley alone was not a battle-winner: it is mentioned, as far as I remember invariably (though see below), as being followed by close action with swords.
The extracts I quoted earlier suggest that during the 3rd-1st centuries BC the legion, or more exactly the 6-8 deep engaged first line, would all volley simultaneously. Appian's quote suggests that prior to 358 BC this may not have been true: a 'platoon-firing' or 'ripple-shooting' process may have been the norm in the 5th-mid 4th centuries BC (the legion also operated slightly differently back then). The increasingly rapid tempo of battle as time progressed seems to have favoured the adoption of simultaneous volleying by all ranks (of the first, or engaged, line) with an immediate charge to take advantage of the (temporary) disorder imposed on opposing formations.
So Mark G's understanding may be exactly right for the 5th century legion. At any rate, I do get the impression that the system was increasingly tightened up and made more rapid and coordinated over time, until it was being executed in unison with optimised battlefield effect from around 314 BC.
Patrick
@Erpingham - oh without doubt! I understand the collective noun for scholars is a "squabble" although some disagree :)
I don't know what would happen if you failed to devastate your enemy with a rain of pila and they didn't waiver - perhaps these are the battles the Romans lost. Patrick's post also indicates things are not as tidy as we may like what with troops leaping on and tearing at the enemy. Sounds like a brutal melee with victory hanging in the balance, as I'm sure a lot of ancient battles were.
Is it fair to say that the throwing spear has played an important part in all ancient warfare from the earliest recorded battles up until the Dark Ages (I don't remember the Saxons or Vikings using thrown spears but I could be wrong)?
Dave
Vikings and Saxons carry a mix of spears, some designed for thrusting, some for throwing, some equally happy at both tasks. Of course virtually any spear that can be wielded single handed can be thrown and most javelins can thrust.
Spears being thrown are described in the poem,, the Battle of Maldon
'Now was riot raised, the ravens wheeled,
The eagle, eager for carrion, there was a cry on earth.
Then loosed they from their hands the file-hard lance,
The sharp-ground spears to fly.
Bows were busied - buckler met point
Bitter was the battle-rush, warriors fell
On either hand, the young men lay!
Wounded was Wulfmur, a war bed he chose,
Even Brithnoth's kinsman, he with swords
Was straight cut down, his sister's son.'
Vikings and Saxons do not appear to have thrown their spears in the same way as the Romans. Rather than mass volleys they are more individualised and throw when an opponent has been picked out. I suspect that two forces advanced to close range and then let rip[ with missiles before closing and that individuals would keep throwing, especially from the back ranks, but short range and aimed at a man.
On the Bayeux tapestry we can see a bundle of javelins ready to throw so they may have had access to more than two missiles per warrior.
Roy
From the 13th century Norwegian Kings Mirror
"For one thing, you may have a pole prepared, somewhat heavier than a spear shaft, and put up a mark some distance away for a target; with these you can determine how far and how accurately you can throw a spear and do it effectively.
<snip>
You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords. But if the fight is on shipboard, select two spears which are not to be thrown, one with a shaft long enough to reach easily from ship to ship and one with a shorter staff, which you will find particularly serviceable when you try to board the enemy's ship. Various kinds of darts should be kept on ships, both heavy javelins and lighter ones. Try to strike your opponent's shield with a heavy javelin, and if the shield glides aside, attack him with a light javelin, unless you are able to reach him with a long-shafted spear. Fight on sea as on land with an even temper and with proper strokes only; and never waste your weapons by hurling them to no purpose."
OK, not exactly Viking but giving the place of the throwing spear in the Scandinavian tradition. Make every spear count, don't throw your spear unless you've got two, even if you have a sword.
The actual spear tactic in the naval warfare section is interesting - using a heavy javelin to take out the enemy shield, then follow up with the light or the long thrusting spear.
which is remarkablysimilar to the most likely use for the Pila
- throw at short range to take out the enemy shield and follow up immediately with the sword.
Quote from: Mark G on July 03, 2012, 01:57:08 PM
which is remarkablysimilar to the most likely use for the Pila
- throw at short range to take out the enemy shield and follow up immediately with the sword.
Indeed. An independent development of a similar tactic, or some classical influence coming through?
Probably an independent development, on the basis that Roman armies seem to have given up using the pilum in the late 4th century or thereabouts, and Scandinavians were on the whole very practical people rather than Latin-reading military theorists (that bit would come into vogue later (in the Renaissance and afterwards) but principally in Europe, culminating in de Saxe and his thoughts about re-creating a phalanx-based army).
Intriguing nonetheless, and a nice hint that the 'heavy javelin' family (angon, gaesum, pilum, soliferrum and spiculum) seem to have had a 'de-shielding' effect upon opponents throughout the centuries. Also useful as indicating by analogy that the Roman legionary would probably carry one light and one heavy pilum, as per Polybius VI.23.
Patrick
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 03, 2012, 03:08:00 PM
Scandinavians were on the whole very practical people rather than Latin-reading military theorists
I'm willing to bet they had copies of Vegetius (because seemingly the whole of Europe did).
Reading the Kings Mirror it doesn't seem overwhelmingly influenced by classical military manuals, though the dialogue style (father to son) is presumably classically derived (though it was used in chivalric literature too, so possibly not direct influence).
I am not willing to bet against their having copies of Vegetius. ;)
They would however need a certain amount of empirical weapon development and use, because unlike us they were betting their lives on these things, and Vegetius outlines the use of weaponry without indicating how it is made. At a rough guess, copies of Vegetius would probably be available and consulted following
1) the Christianisation of Scandinavian kings (Latin-speaking and reading priests are handy), and
2) the consolidation of power and national authority by these same kings.
The question becomes: had the two-javelin system mentioned in the Kings Mirror been in use prior to His Majesty paging through Publius Flavius or was it developed as a consequence of doing so? (Someone would have to tell the smiths how to do it.) I wonder if we shall be able to do more than simply speculate on this.
Patrick
They definitely had copies of Vegetius, though one wonders whether it was seen as a practical military manual... whih in a way it is not even from the first. It has lots of 'good ideas ' and some rather impractical formations. All the stuff about legions will have been fantasy reading to a Medieval aristocrat.
My pet theory is that it was given to nobles as a retirement present when they had stopped actual warfare.
Rhabanus Maurus supposedly updates V I wonder how different that is?
B Bachrach thinks that RM was a practical manual for the Carolingian military but he doesn't get much support from other historians.
Roy
Without wandering too far off topic (New topic - how influential was Vegetius in the Middle Ages?), I personally would go for the idea being indigenous and not just a classical reference, as this seems more in keeping with the style of the advice. But I'm not sure we have the evidence. Incidently, anyone speak good enough Norse to tell us the original terms for the types of the spear. The original is Chapter 38 here
http://books.google.co.uk/books?vid=OCLC05178869&id=LgtIfLwQgX4C&pg=PP7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
To semi-answer my own question, the heavy javelin appears to be palstafr and the light javelin gavelok. Gavelok is a generic term for javelin. Palstafr seems to translate literally as spade or hoe staff, so probably a broadbladed weapon, not a long, thin pilum type. So, nothing pointing to a classical origin.
BTW, the meaning of the English word palstave (a type of axe) can mislead here - it's an antiquarian borrowing.
We can probably safely say it was indigenous, then. On that basis it does appear that the Norse developed a heavy/light javelin system and long spears for naval fighting without having to copy same from classical sources and influences.
The implication would seem to be that similar (in a broad functional sense) weapon systems can evolve in relative isolation for similar reasons. ('Can' does not necessarily mean 'must', of course.)
A good bit of detection and deduction there, Mr C. :)
Patrick