Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Effectivity of Roman Pila Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 03 Oct, 2012 4:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Personally I think that the main intent of the pilum was to disrupt the enemy formation just before the Romans hit it with their swords. Being able to penetrate the occasional shield or cuirass is part of that disruption but it isn't an integral factor of the tactic.
View user's profile Send private message
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed 03 Oct, 2012 7:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

yep, on Gary's page there is a picture with section of battlefield with 250 Pila thrown... would be quite a mess to charge through such obstacles especially in tighter formations.. Another question is how much mess would create Pila discharge into formation of Phalangities... even if they were not killed or wounded.. their tight formation could get into troubles walking over...
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 03 Oct, 2012 9:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Another question is how much mess would create Pila discharge into formation of Phalangities... even if they were not killed or wounded.. their tight formation could get into troubles walking over...


Yes. And with a shortsword as primary armnament, even if both formations were disrupted this situation would favor the Legionairres as opposed to a pike phalanx or any other formation with infantry equipped with similar weapons such as long spears.

Quote:
The speed won't go down so much. Generally, as the thing being thrown becomes heavier, the energy will increase. So, if the Olympic athlete who can throw an 800g javelin at 32m/s, for an energy of 400J, throws a 1.5kg javelin, they will do so with more energy. (Unless the change in weight badly affects their form!) The speed will be lower, but not so much lower as to result in less energy.

(The paper by Cross on throwing can be downloaded from his website. See figure 2.)

If the energy of the heavier javelin was lower, there would be very little point in having heavy javelins - people would throw javelins the weight of arrows instead.


I agree with much of what you say here Timo - the only thing is that it's real tough to get exact velocity generated with different weight javelins due to the multiple fulcrums involved and other complexities of the physics of thrown javelins. IMO the only way to get anything reasonable regarding joules generated would be to use current day humans - but most would not be trained to throw 2, 3 or 5 pound javelins, so one would assume that a middle ages javelin thrower would have better proficiency. Unless using trained javelin throwers such as high school (a bit to young and not at thier peak) or college (a bit tooselective) and let them practice with heavier ones first - but these athletes should also be the size of their historic counterparts.
View user's profile Send private message
Bryce Felperin




Location: San Jose, CA
Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posts: 552

PostPosted: Wed 03 Oct, 2012 6:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Personally I think that the main intent of the pilum was to disrupt the enemy formation just before the Romans hit it with their swords. Being able to penetrate the occasional shield or cuirass is part of that disruption but it isn't an integral factor of the tactic.


I agree with Dan on this. Otherwise they would of carried more than two. Having two, with one being for throwing farther than the other, argues that their tactics were intended for disruption of the enemy's formation before melee impact more than for a continuous engagement with missile weapons. Also the Romans fought in eight man files and rotated the lead man out regularly during battle. So if as was suggested earlier in this post (forgot which post) that only four men deep could successfully throw the javelins in battle, then the other four men of the file could be move up throw theirs for counter-attacks or breaks in the melee.

This would all make the javelin more of force multiplier for psychological, moral and disablement (pinning shields) effect than a true killer on the battlefield. The primary weapon of the legionaire was more his gladius and his big tower shield.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 03 Oct, 2012 10:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo Nieminen wrote:
I agree that anything over 2kg seems excessive (two-handed spears, even with long heavy heads, are often/usually under 2kg).


From what I've seen, partisans often weighed around 6lbs (2.72kg). Partisan could be and occasionally were both thrown and wielded in one hand, though never terribly effectively.

As far the bigger question goes, remember that heavy javelins are extremely slow as far as missile weapons go and thus rather easy to dodge, deflect, or even catch. These tricks are difficult but necessarily impossible to accomplish in tight formation. I think it's important to neither exaggerate nor dismiss the effective of projectile volleys. While most pila in battlefield circumstances must have glance off of armor, sunk into shields, inflicted nonfatal wounds, or simply missed, a single throw from a strong and skilled warrior yet had the potential penetrate torso defenses and inflict deadly injury. As other have mention, the disruption created by so many javelin shafts everywhere merits consideration. I was just rereading some of Sir John Smythe's discussion of pike-on-pike combat and contemplating how constricted such engagements must have become. On the advent of an advance that failed to immediately break the opposing formation, Smythe specifically recommended that soldiers in the front rank(s) hurl their pikes forward before drawing their swords in order to trouble the feet of the enemy.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Thu 04 Oct, 2012 2:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
I agree that anything over 2kg seems excessive (two-handed spears, even with long heavy heads, are often/usually under 2kg).


From what I've seen, partisans often weighed around 6lbs (2.72kg). Partisan could be and occasionally were both thrown and wielded in one hand, though never terribly effectively.


That seems to be a common weight for boar spears as well. 2.5-3kg looks "typical", though there are plenty over 3kg. The heaviest I could find was almost 4kg, and the lightest were 1-1.5kg. Perhaps these are heavier than fighting spears?

A&A spears I've seen weights for are under 2kg, the Hanwei yari are under 2kg. 2-2.5lbs for a haft, 1-2lbs for a head. A heavy butt or other weight-adders like metal strips wrapping the haft will take it over 2kg. That 2-2.5lb for the haft is for 1.25" ash; thicker hafts can easily push it over 2kg.

I see that the Hanwei and Deepeeka pila are under 2kg (1.4kg and 1.7kg). Deepeeka also do a weighted pilum, about 3.5kg. Anybody here thrown these things?

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 04 Oct, 2012 6:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo Nieminen wrote:
Caesar, Gallic Wars:

The shield of Pulfio is pierced and a javelin is fastened in his belt. This circumstance turns aside his scabbard and obstructs his right hand when attempting to draw his sword: the enemy crowd around him when [thus] embarrassed. His rival runs up to him and succours him in this emergency. Immediately the whole host turn from Pulfio to him, supposing the other to be pierced through by the javelin.


Nitpick: there has to be a messed-up transcription somewhere here. The guy's name is not "Pulfio." It's Pullo--Titus Pullo--and "his rival" is Lucius Vorenus. Some of you may know them from Rome, except for the few who have known them for even longer.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Thu 04 Oct, 2012 2:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Probably an OCR error. Those quotes are from various online translations, mostly old translations now out-of-copyright. If one wants to make some serious use of them, best to consult the original. Perhaps looks for modern translations, too.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Fri 05 Oct, 2012 7:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

btw, how resistant Bronze Cuirass was against piercing and slashing weapons (pillum,arrows, sword slashes and thrusts) compared to standard Lorica Hamata? i guess Bronze was less effective metal, thus iron or steel Pilum shank would probably had less issues penetrating than if facing the Iron/steel armors.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 05 Oct, 2012 2:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Don't guess. There is plenty of relevant research available. Properly cast and work-hardened bronze is as good or better compared to all iron armour and weapons except for those made from high-quality hardened steel. A bronze cuiass would provide better protection than both an iron cuirass and a hamata of a similar weight.

This might be a good start. There is a whole section of the protective capacity of bronze armour.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26686
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Tabari





Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I am not very convinced that the abandonment of archery in favour of javelins had to do with the increased prevalence of armour. The Assyrians and their opponents often fielded thoroughly armoured armies and yet archery was still prevalent. Han Chinese armies also tended to be well armoured and yet archery was undoubtedly paramount.

I think the switch to javelins has more to do with the development of shields and more effective shield walls that rendered arrow volleys far less effective.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2012 2:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ahmad Tabari wrote:
I think the switch to javelins has more to do with the development of shields and more effective shield walls that rendered arrow volleys far less effective.

I examined that and discarded the idea.
1. There is no noticable change in shields or shieldwall tactics when achery was phased out in favour of javelins.
2. All variants of shield were perfectly capable of stopping arrows yet archery remained the preferred method of ranged combat for almost a thousand years.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Tue 09 Oct, 2012 2:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2012 2:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As long as there are plenty of good targets for archers, you want to keep them if you can, even if they're not so effective against enemy armoured infantry. (So the important thing isn't how the Han/Assyrian/etc army was armoured, but how their enemies were armoured.)

Archery is good against cavalry, at least until the horses are well-armoured, and good against unarmoured infantry. Good range, good rate of fire, good accuracy. (Similar things can be said for slings.) So keep archery (and/or slings) if those targets are there in sufficient numbers. Add field artillery, high-power crossbows, javelins, or increase the draw-weight of bows (and, later, ad guns), until you have enough to deal with well-armoured infantry. Not many cavalry in classical Greek battles.

That said, having shields does help infantry be "well armoured".

Long-shanked javelins are good against shields - if the head goes through, the shank can follow. Javelins without long slim shanks won't get this as an extra benefit (just the extra energy from being much heavier than arrows). Long shanked spears are used in East Africa, where large hide shields are/were common.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Tue 09 Oct, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As a further point, a new weapons system won't be adopted unless somebody thinks it solves a problem, and the problem is big enough to be worth the expense.

The same thing can apply to making a previously minor weapon system a major weapon system.

Consider the hypothesis that the javelin became a major weapon due to armour. The problem isn't the armour or even killing/wounding armoured infantry; the problem is defeating armoured infantry. If you have plenty of good cavalry, and can dominate the area around the battlefield, you might not need to be able to do much to armoured infantry in formation. While one can encounter the occasional Xenophon, the Parthians did do better than that against the Romans.

Mobility, willingness to retreat and lure infantry forces further into the desert, and cavalry superiority can make up for not being able to do much damage to armoured infantry. So various mostly-cavalry armies that fought against mostly-infantry armies might not have seen being unable to do much damage to armoured infantry as a problem. If you don't have the space to evade slower enemy armies, and don't have the speed to pursue them, then you want to win on the battlefield by killing them.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Graham Shearlaw





Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Wed 10 Oct, 2012 10:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

one point archery does have a over thrown weapons is it small and light ammo, a major plus for mobile fighters.
View user's profile Send private message
Bartek Strojek




Location: Poland
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Likes: 23 pages

Posts: 496

PostPosted: Wed 10 Oct, 2012 12:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Most foot archers probably weren't all that mobile though.

But it's still very good point, perhaps undervalued ones - for the same weight and encumbrance, arrows (sling bullets/whatever) mean much, much more ammunition man can carry and shoot during battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 10 Oct, 2012 5:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

For what it's worth, javelins don't seem to have been considered worthwhile in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Western Europe. The prevalence and importance of archery increased at the same time as protective gear become better and more widespread. Over the same period, javelins became less and less common. Military writers continue to recommend the bow well into the sixteenth century, but I can't recall seeing any support for thrown javelins in English-language texts from that era. The Irish loved their darts, but there's no evidence they were particularly effective. A sixteenth-century English source describes them as more annoying than deadly. Lighter javelins wouldn't probably wouldn't hit significantly harder than arrows, but would have still had a much shorter range.

Technological determinism only goes so far. We need to remember to theorize weapons within their social context. As the Irish example shows, people fought with what they had and what they were used to. It also shows how culture influence fighting style; the dart was a mark of Irish identity. Maybe javelins rose in prominence in antiquity because folks who fought well javelins won some important battles.
View user's profile Send private message
Jon Pellett




Location: Kamloops, BC, Canada
Joined: 01 May 2007

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed 10 Oct, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo Nieminen wrote:

Polybius, Histories, Book VI:
...In addition they have two pila, a brass helmet, and greaves. The pila are of two sorts: stout and fine. Of the stout ones some are round and a palm's length in diameter and others are a palm square.

So are these stout pila stakes for planting in the ground or what?
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Tabari





Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Wed 10 Oct, 2012 10:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Ahmad Tabari wrote:
I think the switch to javelins has more to do with the development of shields and more effective shield walls that rendered arrow volleys far less effective.

I examined that and discarded the idea.
1. There is no noticable change in shields or shieldwall tactics when achery was phased out in favour of javelins.

But didn't the Mycenaeans fight in looser formations than archaic and classical Greeks? Wouldn't that have made them a relatively easier target for archers than their descendants?

Quote:
2. All variants of shield were perfectly capable of stopping arrows yet archery remained the preferred method of ranged combat for almost a thousand years.
Oh I am not questioning the ability of certain shields to stop arrows. I am thinking more in the lines of shield sizes. It seems to me that generally speaking, the smaller shields are, the more likely is archery to be prevalent. For instance, during much of the European "dark ages", large round shields and shield wall formations were the norm, and unsurprisingly archery was of little importance. So long as a shield wall was not attacked by archers from the flanks or the rear, arrow volleys had relatively minimal impact. But once the need for increased infantry mobility caused the abandonment of shield wall tactics and associated large round shields, we see archery making a come back in continental Europe. In the Aegean, the reverse seems to have occurred.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 11 Oct, 2012 12:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ahmad Tabari wrote:
But didn't the Mycenaeans fight in looser formations than archaic and classical Greeks? Wouldn't that have made them a relatively easier target for archers than their descendants?

Everything about Myceneaan tactics is speculation based on dodgy illustrations and surviving equipment. There is nothing to suggest a looser formation than in other time periods. There are pretty detailed shield wall formations described in the Iliad.

Quote:
Oh I am not questioning the ability of certain shields to stop arrows. I am thinking more in the lines of shield sizes. It seems to me that generally speaking, the smaller shields are, the more likely is archery to be prevalent. For instance, during much of the European "dark ages", large round shields and shield wall formations were the norm, and unsurprisingly archery was of little importance. So long as a shield wall was not attacked by archers from the flanks or the rear, arrow volleys had relatively minimal impact. But once the need for increased infantry mobility caused the abandonment of shield wall tactics and associated large round shields, we see archery making a come back in continental Europe. In the Aegean, the reverse seems to have occurred.

Full height shields seem specifically intended to stop arrows. Bronze Age shields don't get smaller until archers stop dominating the battlefield.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Effectivity of Roman Pila
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum