Hadrian Caesar

This all strikes me as illogical. About a year ago, a television series entitled Battlefield Britain once featured legionary reenactors who, for the episode, conducted tests with modern pilum reconstructions. The latter showed that unless the pilum has actually lodged itself in the man behind the shield, the heavy pilum (regardless of its malleable design) merely slides back out the hole it made upon impact - without bending even slightly. All that stops it from falling to the ground is its barbed point. My point is, a pilum won't lodge itself in a shield - the long, slender iron tip prohibits it from doing so. It doesn't matter if it can be bent; its weight just forces it to slide back out until it hits the ground or its barbs get caught in the newly made hole. I just can't see how this bending or breaking concept can work through physics. Even if, as some have suggested, the legionary was supposed to step on the spear, thus breaking its pins, that sort of action would be far too risky to perform in the heat of battle. His foot would probably slip or miss altogether, especially if he's wearing studded caligae. All I seem to be able to conclude is that the pilum was made to kill, and if it failed at that, to become such a hindrance to the enemy's movement that he be forced to drop his shield. Before the poor Gaul could take the time to wiggle the barbs out, the Roman had already killed him. I just don't get it. When thrown, a pilum won't get stuck in a shield, break, or bend for the world.

I've read what everyone has to say about the pilum's many functions, and I'd like to read more - from the original Roman writings, that is. Are there any ancient sources which mention the pilum's ability to bend upon impact, or is that trait just a modern assumption? Thanks

Did the Romans of the early empire ever use heavy cavalry? All I ever seem to hear is that their mounted troops were light and served the purpose of a simple screening force for the main body of legionaries.

Dear doctor, I have read of the roman pilum many times, and not once have I come across a logical description of its function; I can never visualize how the pilum would have bent upon impact and thus have become a hindrance to its victim. It is said that the pilum's shaft was soft, and that it would bend to either become unremovable and/or inadequate to throw back at its legionary owner, as well as perhaps killing the poor gaul through his shield. The latter part I can understand, but how on earth did the part of the pilum's iron shaft which was on the INSIDE of the shield bend? Wouldn't the outside shaft be the only bending component, the pilum's weight bending the shaft at its point of impact only? Many modern scholars seem to describe the pilum entire shaft as bending, but why would it? Wouldn't such softness render the pilum too soft for penetration? Furthermore, wouldn't the job of preventing the spear's removal be left to its barbed point? And why develop such a weapon in the first place, when the enemy didn't even have the time to struggle with the pilum, remove it and return it to the romans before they closed in for the kill? Thanks,

Yes, you're right; this thread will eventually close, as does every thread. I'm just hoping to resume the topic in three paragraphs, rather than fifty. So far, I seem to have succeeded.

True, but I only mentioned the major problems which the phalangites faced, such as those at the battle of Hydaspes, where the more noticeably rough terrain posed a threat to Alexander's tactics, resulting in heavy Macedonian losses.

It seems to me that the last phalanx vs. legion thread was closed without actually concluding that either of the two systems of warfare was superior to the other. So just to end this topic clearly, here's the answer I drew from the information you guys came up with, beginning with the phalanx. The phalanx is nearly invulnerable when attacked from the front, but easily destroyed when assaulted from the flanks or rear. These weaknesses are easily eliminated if the phalanx is so wide that the enemy infantry cannot outflank it without coming into contact with the advancing formation's front. Alexander the Great, for example, partly used this knowledge to achieve his victories. However, the phalanx will meet defeat if it must fight on broken ground, or among thick vegetation. This is why the early Romans abandoned the Greek phalanx for the legion; it simply could not achieve victory over broken ground. All of Alexander's battles were fought on plains where the Macedonian phalanx could not be penetrated due to broken ground, all, that is, except for his final conflict, the battle of the Hydaspes River. I would say that here, Macedon's heavy infantry casualties, although largely caused by the Indian elephants, were mainly due to the fact that the phalanx had had to fight through irremovable vegetation, where many exploitable gaps were made in the formation's front. After the Romans discovered the phalanx's disadvantage, they created a type of infantry which was as effective as possible without requiring a large, cleared out battlefield to defeat an enemy. This was why they were able to conquer so much of Europe, where forest fights were inevitable.

Thanks.

I know very little of the Romans' conflicts with the tribes and peoples of Dacia. Would any of you care to share your knowledge with me? Thanks.

Just out of curiosity, really; why are you guys so captivated by the Romans? Is it their all-round superior technology and military supremacy?

Marius introduced wooden pegs to the pilum, and this somewhat improved it's effectiveness. Or so i'm lead to believe, depends what u read and where. At the moment, i'm sure that the pila had some problems with bending at the right time occasionally. Still an very effective weapon, don;t get me wrong, after all if it had too many problems the romans probably would have ditched it. But they didn't so im not sure how often things went wrong. Let me know what u find, i'm always up for learnin new stuff. And the spanish learned a technique for attacking a phalanx from the front in the late middle ages, using light infantry with very small shields and light swords. Like i say it depends what u read. I just read somewhere that the ability of the pila to bend was accredited to marius, and didn't actually do it before then. Another web-site says nothing about it's ability to bend and says that the shape of it's head prevented removal, and that marian reforms gave legionaries a heavy and light pila. It gets so confusing sometimes. Lets just agree that legions kicked phalanx ass for the time being until either of us finds out for sure how pila worked. Agreed. I heard about that spanish strategy, and frankly, although coming from the mouth of a scholar, it sounds like bs to me; I really doubt that light infantry can smash a pike formation from front. Anyway, we're correct in the sense that the legion really does kick the phalanx's and schiltrom's arse.

Well the romans, and the gauls when they leveled an roman army and sacked rome. This in turn caused the romans to adopt the maniple system of warfare. Maybe spear was a bit ambigous, after all if u modify any weapon past a threshold it'll become another weapon entirely. Tough cookie now i think about it. Bugger it, i'll stick with the spear at the moment. After all, in early republican army, if a roman solider lost his spear it was considered a huge dis-honour, and the chinese once called the spear the king of weapons. I'll stick with spear because of the sentimental value that many cultures placed on it. Yes, but the formations of Chinese infantry never faced the Romans and their pila, did they? Have to disagree with you there I'm afraid In the hands of a Roman soldier it most definitely was used as a weapon to hit the enemy, using the boss to punch with, and the edges to smack on an enemy's foot or up into his chin to make him falter or lose balance. Search around for reenactor accounts of its use in this way. Jim. Quite true.

Well yes, of course, any phalanx is most vulnerable when attacked at the flanks, but my point is that the romans were the only infantry formation capable of destroying a phalanx from the front, appart, that is, from another phalanx. I have to admit that I didn't know about the flaw of which you speak. I have always read that archaeologists weren't quite sure what made the pilum become useless when thrown back, whether it was the wooden pegs or the bending shaft. I have to look into this. well the macedonians did have alexander the great and his amazing heavy cavalry though. And despite the points u pointes out, the roman only truely got that upper hand when they attacked from the flanks. They did have alot of trouble from the front still. The pila, although well designed and made, had a fatal flaw (until marius) when roman blacksmith had to be very highly skilled. This is because the head was made from iron, and was incredibly difficult to forge correctly. Often the pilum would bend to easily, not doing any damage, or not bend enough, allowing it to be pulled from a shield (i doubt anyone pulled it out of their body, they'd probably be dead or dieing!) Marius fixed this by using wooden pegs which snapped on impact. I don't know if post-marian pila where re-usable after the wooden pegs were replaced, but they were easier (and alot quicker) to make, so i doubt it. correct me if im wrong people, it's the easiest way to learn.

Well, I suppose aren't entirely incorrect, but it all depends on the warrior's style of warfare. And anyway, although the spear does keep the enemy at a distance, the man holding it becomes totaly vulnerable once the enemy gets past its point. This disadvantage was made up for by the creation of formations such as the phalanx, which truly is unbeatable by any other infantry...that is, except by the roman legion and its waves of pila(see my text on the topic: phalanx vs. legion). None can argue over the pilum; it's the perfect infantry throwing spear. First of all, a wave of these deadly weapons usually kills its targets. And, if not, if it simply penetrates the shield, its barbed head renders it impossible to remove, thereby obliging the infantryman to drop his shield. But that's not what makes the pilum so unique and effective; if it hits the ground, its long, slender soft iron shaft bends, making it impossible to throw back at the roman lines. So either way, the enemy infantry has the disadvantage.

I once thought the macedonian phalanx was capable of defeating a Roman legion, but I was wrong. The legion is far superior to any phalanx - as it was meant to be. The thing is, one shouldn't base himself on the mobility of the phalanx - which isn't much different from that of the legion - but rather on the effectiveness of their battle tactics. Therefore, before proceeding to the confrontation between the latter, one must be aware of the advantages each one would have over ordinary infantry... Phalanx: + Less vulnerable than the enemy, keeping it at a distance. + More deadly than the enemy, presenting an impenetrable steel wall of pike points. In all, that's two points. Now for the legion: + Throws a pilum, or roman javelin, usually killing or wounding the enemy infantry. +Should the javelin merely penetrate the shield, its barbed point makes it very difficult to remove, and thereby forces the enemy to drop it. +Should the javelin hit the ground, its soft iron shaft will bend, rendering it impossible to be thrown back. The total is three points, unlike the phalanx, which has two. Now, the phalanx faces off against a legion. The legion still posesses all the previous advantages, but because it's now fighting the macedonian phalanx, it's wave of javelins will also kill, wound or seriously bugger up the first few rows of pikemen, allowing the legionairs to quickly enter behind the sharp points and make a mess of the phalangites. So this makes the legionairs the only infantry to ever be able to destroy a phalanx from the front. The phalanx, on the other hand, has lost all its previous advantages, having suffered from the volley of pila and dropped the pikes of its first three rows. So the legion actually gains an advantage when fighting the phalanx, which gives it four in all, whereas the poor macedonians, who once conquered much of the known world, are absolutely helpless.