Elements of Roman Fighting

[Nick Harbud]

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.  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.  Pick any value that suits your own prejudices.

Hope this helps.   

[Erpingham]

Perhaps worth reminding folks of this earlier discussion

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3904.0

which includes links to various experiments.

[Howard Fielding]

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.  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.  Pick any value that suits your own prejudices.

Hope this helps.   

But surely a typical - that is veteran - legionary would be at least as fit as an Olympic athlete and almost certainly stronger.

[Erpingham]

But 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?

[Prufrock]

But 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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.)

[Erpingham]

But 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.

[RichT]

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.

[Prufrock]

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.

[Erpingham]

But 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.   

[Prufrock]

But 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.

[RichT]

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:

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).

[Erpingham]

That 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 

[Erpingham]

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.

[RichT]

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.