Weapons

[Jimbow]

Ok, sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I'm curious, I seem to remember reading about a wooden pin in the pilum head which would break and this render the pilum useless as well, did he try to replicate this? How often did he try it, a few tosses or a full exploration of scores of tosses? Ancient technology does not work terribly well you know.

 

No point. The wooden peg is mentioned as a battlefield innovation used only once by Marius. He based all of his pila on found archaeological examples. There were 20 throws that hit the target by him, and he fails to give a number for his brother-in-law (I suspect 20 also), against 11mm thick rough ply (not scuta, sorry, got a bit mixed up). Still not satisfied they added a further 7mm of ply on top, totalling 18mm, and dropped extra-weighted pila (weighted until they penetrated) onto it. No bending.

 

I wonder also if there are any ancient references to the use of the pilum. If many authors mentioned its functions as a bending head rendering shields and throwback useless, it would be suprising that they could get away with it often seeing as how it was being used during their day.

 

There are no ancient references to bendy pila by design, only one bendy hasta. All interpretations by scholars so far have been apparently mistaken, attributing spears to javelins: Polybius says hasta velitaris not pilum; Plutarch described the wooden pin (which is a very different way of bending it through a shield);Caesar says a pilum did bend but only after penetrating up to 3 shields, which makes the bending incidental and a one-off, not by design. It would be like saying machine-gun barrels are designed to melt when they're fired continually and not cooled.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Jimbow

[Favonius Cornelius]

What can I say, I think you have me convinced Jim! I tend to reject and question revisionist theories because there are so many as posed by graduate students and professors looking to make a splash and get that scarce funding, but every once in a while an idea makes it past my gauntlet of doubt.

[Pertinax]

That is very convincing and I agree with Favonius Cornelius .I have to ask a question to reinforce this argument, to any members who have been in any sort of hard contact sport or actual straight fight,- do you think you would stoop to pick up ,then reverse ,then throw a pilum thrown at you in a life or death fight? What would that do to any concerted effort of a group advance? the whole assault would end in an immediate melee-anyone who has fought with a stabbing implement wants to get in close and hit hard ,not break momentum ,not least because that is also the best way to defend oneself. Previously I had thought the "bendy " argument was logical but I am now prepared to think otherwise.

[Lost_Warrior]

I have to ask a question to reinforce this argument, to any members who have been in any sort of hard contact sport or actual straight fight,- do you think you would stoop to pick up ,then reverse ,then throw a pilum thrown at you in a life or death fight?

 

LOL no, definitely not.

[Jimbow]

"It had also been the custom among the soldiers, when the infantry were formed into companies of 100, and the cavalry into troops of 10, for all the men in each company or troop to take a voluntary oath to each other that they would not leave their comrades for fear or for flight, and that they would not quit the ranks save to fetch or pick up a weapon, to strike an enemy, or to save a comrade. This voluntary covenant was now changed into a formal oath taken before the tribunes. "

 

Livy, Ab urbe condita ,22.38

 

Just depends if it's a sword or missile I suppose. Arguing against myself in a way too But I suppose that if it were javelins they picked up they can't have been bent.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[Lost_Warrior]

It would depend on where the weapon was in relation to them or the enemy whether or not they would pick it up (if they would die doing so, well, I would assume they would not pick that up) It's also safe to assume that they would probably not pick up an unusable weapon. However, it wasn't necessarily the legion's own weapons they were picking up. If it was something thrown AT them, it probably wasn't the pila that they themselves were throwing

[Germanicus]

to any members who have been in any sort of hard contact sport or actual straight fight,- do you think you would stoop to pick up ,then reverse ,then throw a pilum thrown at you in a life or death fight?

 

Yes, but you're right to ask it in this way Pertinax, as it's not something one could speculate on if one hadn't been under threat and acted similarly. I wouldn't break it down into three actions though.

[Virgil61]

to any members who have been in any sort of hard contact sport or actual straight fight,- do you think you would stoop to pick up ,then reverse ,then throw a pilum thrown at you in a life or death fight?

 

Yes, but you're right to ask it in this way Pertinax, as it's not something one could speculate on if one hadn't been under threat and acted similarly. I wouldn't break it down into three actions though.

 

Let's remember these aren't hours long fights by the same groups of soldiers. It would be impossible, the physical demands being so high. Sometimes we have difficulty keeping that in mind.

 

Groups would fight, then one or both break it off and rest, being replaced in line by a different century, cohort, manipule or whatever and who internally would rotate their lines. I suspect those whose units weren't in the immediate fight would be resting, drinking water, encouraging their side, etc. The exact line of combat probably ebbed and flowed. During these resting lulls you could certainly collect spent spears and pilums or other assorted missiles.

 

While I don't have a strong opinion on the pilum's bending properties I can't imagine that while your units engaged and you're waiting in the 4, 5, 6th rank for your turn at the front line, coming across an enemy spear/javelin/pilum on the ground you couldn't pick the damn thing up and return it to its owners point first.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Virgil61

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Wait, why would you want to use a pilum when you already have one and its pretty useless since most of the combat is gonna be by the gladius?

Oh, by the way, I remember seeing some documentary about the positioning of the soldiers, not sure if I'm right. Not specifically, at the front is always the newly recruited or little experienced soldiers. The middle is the enough experience soldiers that is guarenteed to hold the line. The last are always the most experienced and valued soldiers who almost have completed their service and most probably will live. And the reserves are positioned somewhere strategic.

[Virgil61]

To be quite honest it's highly unlikely as it is Peter Connolly, one of the leading and most published ancient history illustrators and researchers, literally placed by many at the same level as Robinson for his contribution to our understanding of the Roman army over the past 30 years. When he says "I think it was like this" people take a lot of notice. He tends to be quite "exact" about what he publishes and did take advice I believe on the metal used for the pila. ...

 

Cheers,

Jim.

 

I don't mean to be a contrarian but I guess it's in my nature. I've always been highly skeptical of classicist's interpretations ancient military history. They get as much wrong as they do right at times in my opinion. For the most part they lack a "soldier's eye" in interpretation and have little insight of small unit leadership or of the dynamics of military organizational structure mostly as a result of little military experience themselves.

 

My two favorite examples to illustrate this are of Trajan's column and the attack on Masada. A current scholar from England has made a reputation out of his study of Trajan's column. He's insisted, and gotten a lot of nodding approval on this as cutting edge stuff, that the column shows Roman Legions weren't used in battle often but rather as combat engineers. While it's true the column shows Roman soldiers constructing forts and foraging and the auxiliries as fighting his lack of experience lets him down. Soldiers then and today don't spend the majority of their time fighting, they spend them on details, constructing defensive fortifications then or filling sandbags and digging defensive pits today, the Romans foraging for supplies and contemporary soldiers unloading them from trucks, and so on. Anyone designing the column would have been either directed by someone with experience or been someone themselves with experience and the column would show it. Looked at in that light it doesn't show that Roman soldiers rarely fought or were used exclusively as combat engineers, it shows that soldiering hasn't changed; most of it consists of tedious day-to-day details of soldiering that haven't changed much rather than combat which then as now, consists of a small proportion of a soldiers life.

 

Another scholar insists that the timeline in Josephus' detailing the attack on Masada is incorrect, his strongest argument being that the Roman commander insisted his soldier go to bed early the night before. His argument being there'd be so much to do in preparation. I'd understood the Roman commander's intent immediately--hell one of my privates would have understood it. One of the common directives given by officers and NCOs today to their troops is to go to be early the day before a major mission as to have them rested for the next day's mission. Like the imagines on Trajan's columns some soldiering techniques never change.

 

Classicists seem to miss these "soldier's eye" details over and over again to the point where I've come to view their works with mixed interest and skepticism. I'm not sure what the answer is, but as I've said before, a few years in the military to understand it's organzational psychology, imporatance of training and small-unit and large unit principles of leadership (in a broad sense none of these have changed much) might go a long way for an aspiring classicist in military history.

 

One of the classicists I do admire is Adrian Goldsworthy who seem to "get it" much more often than not. How would you rate Connolly (who is more than just an illustrator I believe) relative to Goldsworthy? Is he really worth a read and what would you recomment? He's certainly written volumes on the legions and is one of the few big names I haven't read yet.

 

Anyway you're posts are generally informative and I apologize for derailing the discussion a bit and about the my rant, I just had to get that off my chest.

[Virgil61]

Wait, why would you want to use a pilum when you already have one and its pretty useless since most of the combat is gonna be by the gladius?

Oh, by the way, I remember seeing some documentary about the positioning of the soldiers, not sure if I'm right. Not specifically, at the front is always the newly recruited or little experienced soldiers. The middle is the enough experience soldiers that is guarenteed to hold the line. The last are always the most experienced and valued soldiers who almost have completed their service and most probably will live. And the reserves are positioned somewhere strategic.

 

Take a century for example with an 8 or 10 or 12 man front with several ranks deep, the number depending on the terrain, enemy, tactics of the day etc. They've thrown some or all of their pilums in the initial first contact. While the first rank is fighting, the next rank is getting ready to engage assuming there's no melee. That a soldier in the middle or rear ranks is going to pick up a spear/javalin or whatever that might have been thrown in their direction and return it back point first isn't a stretch of the imagination. One has to believe it happened.

 

The legion you're speaking of is one from the early-mid Republic generally known as a manipular legion.

[Jimbow]

How would you rate Connolly (who is more than just an illustrator I believe) relative to Goldsworthy? Is he really worth a read and what would you recomment? He's certainly written volumes on the legions and is one of the few big names I haven't read yet.

Very highly I see your point on this, and I much agree. Connolly actually reconstructs a lot of the kit himself I believe, and puts it through trials to try to see how it could have been used. He is also fairly outspoken and independent imho, which I think gives him more credence.

 

I have to say I'm not really in a position to fault him, but I can give you a nice example of one of his theories which makes absolute sense once heard: The large helmet neckguard. When seen initially I thought "Aha, to protect from the rear!" Wrong, if you accept Connolly's theory, and here's why I like him so much (as well as being an illustrator); The neckguard is to protect from frontal attack. In a nutshell, your average Roman soldier is in a formation based on frontal assault, and by far the best fighting stance for him to take is to cover behind the large scutum, crouch low and stab with the gladius. However, this leaves a vulnerability from often taller adversaries with longer swords that are usually used to slash and cut (the extreme examples are the Dacians). This means the upper back is vulnerable, and that's why Connolly believes the neckguard was adapted and enlarged from the shorter Gallic type, which is where their helmets were plageurised from, It's essentially an extra layer of armour for there. Once the segmentata was introduced in Augustus' reign (9 BC so far) I think the weakspot was identified and the adaptation was made to the Gallics (and Coolus'), bearing in mind the hamata had a double layer over the shoulders and, importantly, across the whole upper back. In a nutshell the guy's inspiring

Anyway you're posts are generally informative and I apologize for derailing the discussion a bit and about the my rant, I just had to get that off my chest.

Thanks very much, no problem. I can talk about Peter Connolly 'til the cows come home I have most of his books, and I love the straightforward approach, and the superb illustrations which, don't forget, he also painstakingly researches, sometimes building models to get it right, over a long period of time.

[Pertinax]

When I made the remark about not stooping to pick up a discharged pilum I was thinking Gallic /Goth/Brigantian( any other Briton) adversary -I was imagining who would pick up a pilum to return it? A swordsman with long sword and shield? An assault trooper (Falx, axe , heavy sword)? What formation (if any ) these persons would be in. I can see peltasts/skirmishing troops perhaps attempting this but they would possibly be carrying several light spears themselves. I say here that if you are a "chosen sword" you wouldnt grasp another weapon unless you were going backwards and had lost your main arms.

Roman versus Roman-ok we have rotating front lines and precursor missile attacks but would a Century even think of retrieving weapons knowing they were fighting "themselves" ?

Im not taking issue with any of the posts here-just turning over my own thoughts and doubts.

I know I broke the retrival into "stoop/reverse /throw" my point there was ,if you are an accomplished soldier you will know how long this sequence might take depending on what fighting space you are in, the decision to retrieve may be a direct logical/practical "no its too risky cos too many bodies about,must keep head up and contact point visible".

Fights can be very very short , seconds (or less ) are needed to make or not make a decision.

Virgil61 is spot on with the Trajan remarks-The Dacian campaign was a masterpiece of combat engineering but all that work was to bring the Legions to battle by tactical and strategic excellence.

 

I think im ranting now

[Pantagathus]

That is very convincing and I agree with Favonius Cornelius .I have to ask a question to reinforce this argument, to any members who have been in any sort of hard contact sport or actual straight fight,- do you think you would stoop to pick up ,then reverse ,then throw a pilum thrown at you in a life or death fight? What would that do to any concerted effort of a group advance? the whole assault would end in an immediate melee-anyone who has fought with a stabbing implement wants to get in close and hit hard ,not break momentum ,not least because that is also the best way to defend oneself. Previously I had thought the "bendy " argument was logical but I am now prepared to think otherwise.

 

To answer in the way you asked it:

 

I took Tae Kwan Do/Akkido/Jujitsu for over 10 years and would have to say that IF the situation gave enough pause for a effortless step back into a croutch to pick it up without loosing eye contact with the enemy I would indeed pick it up.

 

If the situation was not conducive to that action I would keep my stance and momentum forward and prepaired to dodge another assault...

 

Also, the point about one's specialty is important. If one is not trained in a certain weapon, they of course would not think to pick it up and reuse it...

Edited December 19, 2005 by Pantagathus

[Pertinax]

I was thinking Kendo/Iaido( and I take your point on your own specialisms)-I know its not a direct analogy -but you would never lose the focus of the point of he blade on the adversary ( though you might move the blade). If id been pushed backwards and ( horror of horors) lost the weapon ,well then its "whatever means are to hand " but that isnt a good winning strategy.

I think the point about specialisation is important, and the effect of being part of what some commentators consider to ba a "crew served weapon" ie": fighting in a defined area within a defined structure to inflict maximun injury.

 

Neckguard aside to Jimbow -yep everyones a bit shorter than the Gauls and emerging rear of skull first from behind the scutum, so very logical ,also id say to spread impact damage away from the clavicles-painful hit spot