Weapons

[Pantagathus]

***Moved to it's own Thread***

Edited December 21, 2005 by Pantagathus

[mquish]

None can argue over the pilum; it's the perfect infantry throwing spear

 

I totally agree. I personally think the pilum is underappreciated in context of romes great victories. It played a huge factor in winning battles. I also think it was the most cleverly created weapon of ancient times because of the many tasks it performed in one throw as you have explained above. The use of it was a devasting introduction to romes enemies of whats to come. Picture and an army of maybe 5000 romans, each throwing two waves of pila. Thats 10000 spears hurtling towards you which must of being devasting not just to the enemies physically but also mentally, destroying morale even before the battle began. It gave the romans a huge advantage to take into the battle and this is why i regard the pila as one of the most clever weapons made.

[caldrail]

None can argue over the pilum; it's the perfect infantry throwing spear

 

I totally agree. I personally think the pilum is underappreciated in context of romes great victories. It played a huge factor in winning battles. I also think it was the most cleverly created weapon of ancient times because of the many tasks it performed in one throw as you have explained above. The use of it was a devasting introduction to romes enemies of whats to come. Picture and an army of maybe 5000 romans, each throwing two waves of pila. Thats 10000 spears hurtling towards you which must of being devasting not just to the enemies physically but also mentally, destroying morale even before the battle began. It gave the romans a huge advantage to take into the battle and this is why i regard the pila as one of the most clever weapons made.

 

As spears go, it wasn't any better than ayone elses. The only advantage it gave was that you couldn't throw it back. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be the target of a volley

[Princeps]

None can argue over the pilum; it's the perfect infantry throwing spear

 

I totally agree. I personally think the pilum is underappreciated in context of romes great victories. It played a huge factor in winning battles. I also think it was the most cleverly created weapon of ancient times because of the many tasks it performed in one throw as you have explained above. The use of it was a devasting introduction to romes enemies of whats to come. Picture and an army of maybe 5000 romans, each throwing two waves of pila. Thats 10000 spears hurtling towards you which must of being devasting not just to the enemies physically but also mentally, destroying morale even before the battle began. It gave the romans a huge advantage to take into the battle and this is why i regard the pila as one of the most clever weapons made.

 

As spears go, it wasn't any better than ayone elses. The only advantage it gave was that you couldn't throw it back. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be the target of a volley

 

Possibly, but http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2664&st=15

[Furius Venator]

From a practical point of view, it's actually irrelevant whether the pilum bent or not. Connolly says it couldn't be extracted from the shield so it doesn't need to bend to render the shield useless.

 

Connolly's idea of the Roman soldier fighting in a very low crouch is rather unlikely and challenged by Goldsworthy in 'The Roman Army at War 100 BC- AD 200'.

 

Connolly is an excellent author and an authority on ancient weapons. He does however tend to go a bit over the top with his weapon based analysis, even going so far as to claim that different shapes of gladius were used in different ways!

 

The reinforced helmets were to protect against downward cuts. It is not necessary to be in a low crouch to be struck on the head!

[Jimbow]

The reinforced helmets were to protect against downward cuts. It is not necessary to be in a low crouch to be struck on the head!

 

His theory on the large neckguard and reinforced shoulders has more to do with protection of the shoulders and upper back, the neckguard growing ever larger to do so. That is where his theory of the crouching stance came from, in that it gave a good practical reason for the enlargement of the neckguard over time. At least, that's what he said in his interview that I read.

 

Another idea comes from Lendon in Soldiers and Ghosts. He uses sources to suggest that the legionary's role evolved into that more of a combat engineer, leaving the actual fighting to the auxilia, who were recruited more and more for their aggression in battle, while the citizen soldiers, the legionaries, were used more for siegework and engineering. He suggests that is why the downward profile of the helmet grew larger, to protect against missiles being thrown down. Trajan's Column does support the theory, as an example, as well as written accounts of battle towards the end of the 1st C AD. The Batavian auxilia are a good example of this, who held the legionaries in low regard, seeing them as whimps.

[Furius Venator]

It still holds good. Celts tended to bring their weapons downward in great sweeping slashes. These would naturally impact on either the head or shoulders. The neck guard is just as easily explained as protection from missiles in normal combat. I'm sure Virgil will attest to the well known tendency for men to advance into missile fire with head bowed (large numbers of men killed by crossbowbolts in medieval times were shot through the top of their heads, bizarre until you realise they were instinctively guarding their faces by advancing head down). of course, that would mean they were protected from missiles launched from above too

 

Connolly has donesuperb work with his study of weapons and armour but is beginning to suffer from a tendency to draw too many conclusions from his evidence.

[Lost_Warrior]

That's a good explaination for the large neck guard, I had not found a decent one (honestly I simply hadn't thought of that) and it seemed that the overly large neck guard would simply have been a nussance (of course, when you are fighting in close formation without a terrible amount of room to move, any restriction of movement because of that huge helmet would not be a very big problem).

 

It might not be that missiles were thrown from above, as much as any arrow or missile is generally thrown at an angle to achieve greater distance and therefore would tend to come at it's target at a downward angle. And Furius is right about the Celts, (and many other ancient peoples) those large sweeping slashes *would* most likely land on the head and shoulders of the men. Remembering that in the case of the Celts, size was a big factor (Celts being of "monstrous" size compared to the Romans) and a taller Celt was even more likely to hit a legionaries head, shoulders, or even back with a slashing weapon of some kind.

 

Of course, if nothing else, it DOES keep the rain from running down the back of legionaries' armor

[tvihiocus]

Hmm. I suppose my favorite "classical Rome"-era weapon would probably be the gladius I suppose. It seems like a nifty little sword. If Wikipedia's type images are correct, the Pompeii variation looks the nicest. Would be cool to get a modern replica some day. Some medieval swords (like the Claymore) are nicer-looking, but that's medieval, not Roman. Or well, I'm not familiar with the regular sword types the "barbarians" used during those times yet, but let's just say that for now the pompeii gladius is my favorite Roman weapon. My "image" of a Roman soldier will probably always be (has since I was a kid) a guy with lorica segmantata, gladius, the helmet and a rectangular shield, for one reason or another

 

Oh, and on the topic of the spear, depending on the type it's not useless in closer ranges if it's not too long to be used as a staff. Although when used as such it does require some space around you to wield, but if you have that, it's very efficient. Obviously for a legionaire, though, you couldn't do that with the large shield anyway, nor in a tightly-packed formation.

[Jimbow]

Oh, and on the topic of the spear, depending on the type it's not useless in closer ranges if it's not too long to be used as a staff. Although when used as such it does require some space around you to wield, but if you have that, it's very efficient.

 

The Germans made great use of the spear in close quarters combat, which maybe influenced late Roman use of it as far more of the army was made up of non-Italians by then.

[Guest mandragon]

i think id have to say the combination of the gladius and the tower shield when used in conjuction with each other they made a nearly unbewatle team how u gonna hit somthing behind a 4 foot tall 3 foot wide shield?? plus while the enemy was trying to get around the shiel you snaked your gladius into his throat or groin(can all the men in here say ow) the pilum was alos very deadly but ill have to say gldius shield combo

[mquish]

None can argue over the pilum; it's the perfect infantry throwing spear

 

I totally agree. I personally think the pilum is underappreciated in context of romes great victories. It played a huge factor in winning battles. I also think it was the most cleverly created weapon of ancient times because of the many tasks it performed in one throw as you have explained above. The use of it was a devasting introduction to romes enemies of whats to come. Picture and an army of maybe 5000 romans, each throwing two waves of pila. Thats 10000 spears hurtling towards you which must of being devasting not just to the enemies physically but also mentally, destroying morale even before the battle began. It gave the romans a huge advantage to take into the battle and this is why i regard the pila as one of the most clever weapons made.

 

As spears go, it wasn't any better than ayone elses. The only advantage it gave was that you couldn't throw it back. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be the target of a volley

 

That maybe so, but in the hands of a professional army like the romans it became that much more deadlier. Trained in the art of throwing a spear in unision and with great accuracy, the use of the pilum for the Romans was a very efficient and uncostly;in terms of lives lost, way of killing the enemy. Yes i agree it is like any other spear with any any other soldier behind it that is, other than a roman.

[caldrail]

From a practical point of view, it's actually irrelevant whether the pilum bent or not. Connolly says it couldn't be extracted from the shield so it doesn't need to bend to render the shield useless.

 

Connolly's idea of the Roman soldier fighting in a very low crouch is rather unlikely and challenged by Goldsworthy in 'The Roman Army at War 100 BC- AD 200'.

 

Connolly is an excellent author and an authority on ancient weapons. He does however tend to go a bit over the top with his weapon based analysis, even going so far as to claim that different shapes of gladius were used in different ways!

 

The reinforced helmets were to protect against downward cuts. It is not necessary to be in a low crouch to be struck on the head!

 

Interesting because if the pilum could not be extracted from a shield, then why would the romans waste effort on designing and making them? Also, not all enemies have shields and spears that fall into the ground (or someone else dare I say it) would otherwise still be usable. Soldiers are practical people, if it worked then they'd use it - they did. I get the impression Mr Connolly is making a meal out of his weapon research, expert or not.

Edited March 10, 2006 by caldrail

[Furius Venator]

I suspect the bendable/breakable pilum might have been so that the very large number that did not hit an enemy's shield could not be thrown back.

 

To be fair to Connolly, very few people have actually considered the mechanics of ancient warfare, especially how individuals used their equipment. He does seem however to have fallen into the trap of becoming too focussed on his own line of research and not stood back enough to consider simpler solutions.

 

eg Three different styles of Gladius are discovered, all dating from different periods and found in different locations. Rather than consider them simply differences in production (ie cosmetic variations, which is really all they seem to be, Connolly considers that they reveal a change in the way the gladius was wielded.

 

That said, I'd reiterate that he knows considerably more about the design and construction of ancient weapons and armour than most, it's just their application he sometimes (emphasise 'sometimes') seems to get wrong.

[Lost_Warrior]

Interesting because if the pilum could not be extracted from a shield, then why would the romans waste effort on designing and making them? Also, not all enemies have shields and spears that fall into the ground (or someone else dare I say it) would otherwise still be usable. Soldiers are practical people, if it worked then they'd use it - they did. I get the impression Mr Connolly is making a meal out of his weapon research, expert or not.

 

The pillum couldn't be extracted from the sheild, rendering the shield useless, so that it had to be thrown aside and was no longer helping the enemy any. When the battle was over, the Romans collected the pilla from the sheilds that had been cast aside by using a special tool designed for the purpose I believe...(ingenius Romans!)