myArmoury.com - Effectivity of Roman Pila

Posts: 2,698 Location: Indonesia

Thu 11 Oct, 2012 2:37 am

Matthew Amt wrote:

Jaroslav Jakubov wrote:

Regarding Pillum weight, only info i found was that there were 2 Pila carried by Legionary, light and heavy.

That's true for the Republic, but by the Empire the weight differences seem to be gone.

Recently there's been some interesting discussion on the ancmed mailing list about Roman military organisation and equipment in the mid-Republican period, and some of the posts are relevant to this issue. Like these:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancmed/message/80214

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancmed/message/80219

So there's no consensus either on whether each legionary in the Republican army carried two pila of different weights.

Profile PM

Bartek Strojek

Quote

Posts: 496 Location: Poland

Thu 11 Oct, 2012 4:37 am

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:

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.

There was Prussian/Lithuanian/Mazowian weapon called "sulica" in 14th-15th century that apparently became very popular among Teutonic knights as well. Supposedly, Grand Master himself, or some other important figure had used it, acording to Długosz at least.

[ Linked Image ]

The problem is that not much more save "some shortish spear" is known about it, and if it was regularly used as javelin.

Profile PM

Gary Teuscher

Quote

Posts: 704

Thu 11 Oct, 2012 9:18 am

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.

Well, maybe for foot use javelins fell out of widespread use.

However, both Jinetes and Stradiots made much use of the javelin, and effectively. And these troops had good sucess against more typical western european foes, such as France.

Profile PM

Benjamin H. Abbott

Quote

Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico

Thu 11 Oct, 2012 9:38 am

Gary Teuscher wrote:

Well, maybe for foot use javelins fell out of widespread use.

However, both Jinetes and Stradiots made much use of the javelin, and effectively. And these troops had good sucess against more typical western european foes, such as France.

True enough. Froissart noted the armor-piercing ability of Spanish javelins. I think agree with everybody else that heavier javelins have greater odds of penetrating defenses than arrows and even crossbow bolts, but their other disadvantages apparently outweighed this for infantry in the age of the plate. Holding all other factors equal, skirmishing against bows or crossbows with javelins would have been a truly miserable experience. It's also unclear that you're better off with a two or three powerful shots versus twenty-four (or more) weaker ones; Fourquevaux recommended the close-range missile/bolt barrage to overcome lower-quality harness.

In crude war-games fashion, we could say that while infantry javelineers may have done slightly better against heavy infantry than archers under the right circumstances, they suffered a heavy disadvantage against archers unless also heavy infantry themselves (the roman model).

Profile PM

Gary Teuscher

Quote

Posts: 704

Thu 11 Oct, 2012 12:07 pm

Quote:

In crude war-games fashion, we could say that while infantry javelineers may have done slightly better against heavy infantry than archers under the right circumstances, they suffered a heavy disadvantage against archers unless also heavy infantry themselves (the roman model).

IMO the other problem not overly mobile (meaning infantry) missile troops face is a weakness against melee cavalry. And while javelin men could melee against cavalry slightly better than archers, this was outweighed by thier inability to inflict long range damage on cavalry. Properly supported, archers can inflict damage on cavalry at range and be protected by their own heavy infantry.

Just as an aside, one of the biggest problems "light" (meaning javelin armed troops functioning in a loose formation) troops face in melee - they just do not have the concentration of troops that the heavies do, that is inherent because of their looser formation.

And if the light troops bunch together in a tighter formation like heavies - they lose their battlefield mobility, making them javelin armed heavy infantry that don't fight as well as similar armoured heavy infantry.

Profile PM