Weapons thread (so Ian doesn't get annoyed)

[Redpossum]

Grimsta said: errr slightly off topic, but when I did Javlin throwing my PB was 47 metres, so im sure a Roman SOldier could throw the lighter pilum the same, or further distances.

Magobarca says: Could be, but the Roman/Etruscan/Iberian would be encumbered with a shield, helmet, sword, and armor, while you were not. So, there may just be a difference in how far a SPORT Javelin and a Javelin/Light Pilum made for WAR could be thrown. I bet the Light Pilum and/or a War Javelin might just weigh more than a Sport Javelin, I don't know for sure.

Good info. and thoughts on the subject though.

Maybe we should start a Weapons Thread so Ian doesn't get peeved.

Magobarca

I am definitely with Mago here.

The modern sport javelin is little more than an aluminum tube, with a "head" to add weight forward and thus ensure stability.

That's a far cry from a war javelin made with materials available to the ancients. (I would remind you all, as a minor aside, that aluminum was a rare and costly material prior to WW II.) Furthermore a war javelin has to have weight if it's to achieve any penetration at all.

I stand by my initial estimate of 30 yards, max.

[magobarca]

Hi Possum,

For a heavy pilum 25-35 (or 30) yards/meters sounds OK for game purposes, you know, just a decent estimate more or less. There would be Legionaires and other troops that could throw farther than average.

Maybe a light Pilum say 35(or 30)-40 more or less?? just to make it simple for a game.

Magobarca

[quintusvarus]

Ave!

Intrigued by the question I have done a quick bit of research. One wargame site suggested 40 metres as effective, but that seems ourageoudssly long. The Legio XXIV webpage suggests 20+ paces which fits in with the discussion above, dependent on the weight of the pilum and the strength of the thrower. Remember also this was an offensive weapon, fitting the Roman battle style, which was intended to break down the front ranks of an enemy just before impact, both attacking and defending. There wasn't much point for the legionary to throw too far as it would allow the enemy to reform prior to hand-to-hand contact, effectively nulifying the advantage gained. Once combat was engaged the rear ranks could disrupt the enemy's rear by throwing their pila over the engaged fronts. Velites would however, use the javelins they had to break up advancing enemy or to kill at a distance and hold them up. There is a good example of this in the Osprey Elite series book on the Celtic Warrior. One other point we don't train the way legionaries did with overweight training weapons and shields so archaeological reconstruction cann't be dogmatic about accuracy on this.

[Redpossum]

Erm, actually, the way I read it, the pilum was intended to force the enemy to discard their shields.

The idea was just covered in detail by some poster here a few days ago, but basically the tempered head stuck in the enemy shield, and the untempered metal shaft then bent. This left the enemy with a weight on their shield too awkward to let the shield be used normally. And the fact that it bent meant two things. One, it was harder to pull out than a straight shaft. Two, it couldn't be thrown back with any effectiveness.

Of course, against an unarmored enemy with no shields, I'm sure no romans cried if the pila merely killed them

[kyle]

Lol Possum, I like it were you say no romans would've cried if a pilum killed a unprotected soldier.


Ok heres a question for you math wizards out there. How much force would you have to part onto the pilum to get it to go 30 yards and then penertrate a sheild.


Assuming most of the legionaires could do this.

[sum1won]

Depends on the shield, and angle of impact.

What?

[kyle]

I was foolish, dangit

[sum1won]

I seem to recall hearing that the primary purpose of a pilum was to break up a charge, just as other similar heavy missle weapons. However, it was refined to be as big of an obstruction and problem as was possible if it did not kill the enemy who it hit- the bend prevented removal, making it a hindirance, and if it hit the ground, it often still bent, ruining return fire and making an obstacle.

[kyle]

True, Am I correct in saying this that the sheilds that are used by the celts in LA, are made of wood?


If they are made of wood would this be a bad assumption, that the pilum would travel through the sheild more?


If they are made of wood then they wood be fairly light yes? I venture to say the pilum was about 4-5 pounds, if it hit something light wouldn't it push that object back thus it might be able to do some additional damage to the sheild barrer?

[sum1won]

Wood is actually pretty good at resisting some applications of force, and if your shield is big enough and thick enough to be worthwhile, it will be rather heavy, even if made from wood (most likely a hardwood, making it heavier. Several advantages of wood shields is that they do not vibrate from blows, dont overheat, and tend to be lighter, and due to the physics, can take blows better, not to mention being far cheaper. They dont last as long, but nothing is perfect.

[magobarca]

Batlle shields were not composed soley of metal, they were either made of joined wooden planks and/or plywood, and then covered with leather, thick cloth, and sometimes metal. The shields of the Celts and Romans were wood and without a metal sheet covering the entire face. They were not that heavy, maybe up to 10 pounds, but could absorb considerable punishment and be repaired. Sometimes they had metal bosses and sometimes they didn't, sometimes they had wooden bosses and sometimes they didn't. Sometimes they had metal rims or edging and sometimes they didn't. Hoplite shields and mdieval shields were usually heavier, up to 25 pounds or so for a big man and smaller and lighter for a smaller man.

The light pilum of the Republican Roman Legionaire was of course designed to be thrown farther than the havy pilum that was used for a shorter range. The purpose of the pilum was to break up te enemy ranks by killing and maiming the enemy,and by sticking in the enemies' shileds and making them hard to use or useless.

Speedius is right in that once the lines clashed the rear ranks of Romans and the enemy would throw their missiles over the heads of their comrades in front of them, causing more confusion, mayhem, and irritation in the enemy's formations.

A pilum or throwing spear or javelin was not meant to be thrown through a shield, although they could pierce shields and there are acounts of these misile weapons pinning the shileds of any enemy together when the enmy was in a shieldwall type of formation. These missiles weapons were meant to drop out of the sky upon the enemy at an angle where their shields would not be protecting them, in other words they weren't usually thrown directly at an enemy in a strailgt line flat trajectory but were arced overhead. think of these missile weapons as ancient close range mortars, close range area artillery.

Magobarca

[quintusvarus]

Ave

Possum wrote

"Erm, actually, the way I read it, the pilum was intended to force the enemy to discard their shields.

The idea was just covered in detail by some poster here a few days ago, but basically the tempered head stuck in the enemy shield, and the untempered metal shaft then bent. This left the enemy with a weight on their shield too awkward to let the shield be used normally. And the fact that it bent meant two things. One, it was harder to pull out than a straight shaft. Two, it couldn't be thrown back with any effectiveness.

Of course, against an unarmored enemy with no shields, I'm sure no romans cried if the pila merely killed them "


The battle tactic was I think as I described (see also Sum1won's reply). The primary designs of the pila were intended to prevent them being thrown back - not a good thing!-, to hinder the enemy and to break the formations. The long metal shaft of both light and heavy pila prevented them being hacked of short thus hampering the shield which would slow the opponent, and break up a concerted charge as the enemy (those not dead or wounded) would as Possum noted have to discard their shields. The soft metal of the shaft could also bend rendering those pila that missed useless for hurling back. The light pila were probably of a socket construction where they met the shaft. Many of the heavy pila were tanged with pins holding them to the wooden shaft. One of the pins would be wooden designed to break on impact, so that even if the metal shaft did not bend, the joint did and again the pila were useless in the immediate situation. Heavy pila could also be augmented with a lead weight cast as a pierced ball (possibly around the shaft?), immediately behind the tang fixing. This increased impact and penetration. The whole point of breaking up the enemy front was to make killing them easier, if they were shieldless so much the better, but even those who retained their shields were vunerable if in small pockets or isolated as there was no-one to guard their unsheilded right side. Roman soldiers were trained to stab not thrust striking at groin, belly armpit (when raised arm for slashing stroke), and throat. By maintaining their own line, the legionaries could defend themslves and the man to their right with the scutum. Essentially Roman fighting technique was intended to give them such advantage that they were engaged as nearly as possible to butchery rather than combat - this is shown at its best in Paulinus defeat of Boudicca!

Shields - the discussion has covered Celtic shields pretty well, Roman shields were constructed from layers of wood in a ply arrangement, covered with leather (or possibly cloth) with a central metal boss, and possibly with metal or leather edge binding. The training they received also made the shield an offensive weapon. Only legionaries had the classic retangular curved scutum (prior to c. 50AD it was oval), Auxiliary troops, archers and cavalry used flat round or hexagonal shields.

Fuller details of all of these points can be found in the Osprey publications, Connolly's various books, and on a variety of good Web sites.

[magobarca]

Pila weren't originally designed to bend or break, that came as latter day inovations. Pila were designed to kill and maim, as any weapon has this as its primary object, anything else is of secondary importance or benefit.

Thrust = stab in reference to the gladius etc., thrust does not = a lunge as in fencing in or context.

I think there is some recent evidence showing that some Auxilia may have used the rectangular Legionary scutum. I am almost positive I just recently read this somewhere.

Magobarca

[quintusvarus]

Ave Magobarca

I would be interested in the reference if you can recall it.

A footnote to the pilum discussion. The Roman infantry tended to use a variety of spear types in the later empire as the barbarian recruitment policy changed weapons types and tactics, including pila type javelins, javelins with short heads, heavy thrusting spears, and weighted darts carried in clips on the inner face of the shield. Most things I have read also suggest that the gladius was replaced by the longer Spatha, a slashing rather than stabbing sword

[magobarca]

I either read about the Auxilia with a rectangular shield on the web or in a box, but most probably on the web. I am thinking that this Auxillia unit was stationed in Egypt or thereabouts. Shouldn't be to hard to find, just type in the appropriate words in a search engine and it may pop-up.

I can't rcall if there was a picture of the shield, a painting maybe, but it seems there was.

Yeah, you're right about the Legionary weapons changing. I am not that intereseted in the Empire, particularily the Late Empire, but more enjoy the Republican Period. The Vellones, the Slave Legions raised after cannae and equipped with captured gallic and italian weapons are interesting, and it is not known if there were 2 or 4 of these Slave Legions, or if 2 of them were in fact the 2 penal Legions raised at approximately the same time. Seems that there were 4 Slave legions, or 2 were reformed, and 2 Penal Legions. Neat stuff.

There are enough varied units in LA, Legion Gold, Spartan, GoT, the and the Great Battles series to depict these troops and the vast mix of Roman Allies and Enemies. Great games.

Try searching for that info., and I will also give it a quick shot. It was within the last year that I stumbled upon the possibility of Auxillia using rectangular Legionary shields, and now that I am thinking about this, it may have been at a wargaming site.

Magobarca

[honvedseg]

There is some debate as to the accuracy of the original historian's account of the bendable pilum. It may be true, it may not. It has also been suggested that one of the two "bolts" through the splice block, holding the head to the shaft, might have been made of wood. The force of impact would have sheared the wooden pin, causing the head to pivot freely on the remaining bolt. The pilum would be useless from an immediate standpoint, but could be fixed and reused after the battle merely by replacing the wooden pin. The subtle difference between a bendable metal shaft and a pivot would have been easily missed by a casual observer such as most of the historians of the time. At any rate, there wouldn't be a lot of time for recovering thrown pila before the lines made contact anyway.

After having a pilum stuck through his shield, the bearer would have had the point of the pilum hovering a few inches short of his face or body. The opposing Romans would have the opportunity of stepping on the shaft of the spear dangling from the shield, thereby pulling the shield down and out of position, or of slamming into the shield in an effort to drive the protruding point home. It was safer to just drop the shield and fight without one. Some of the units appear to have slipped a pierced lead ball of up to 4 lbs. onto the shaft of the pilum up to the splice block, and then wound the leather grip just behind the weight. It would have made a much nastier impact when thrown at pint-blank range, but certainly would not have been very popular with the troops on a long march. In the later Imperial period, the German "angon" and other javelin designs mostly replaced the pilum.

The rectangular semi-cylindrical plywood shield, faced with either cloth or leather, appears to have replaced the earlier oval or round-ended semi-cylindrical shields used by the regular legions. Eventually, the later auxilia began to use the same equipment as the legions, until there wasn't a lot to distinguish them. These changes in equipment occurred continuously over a period of centuries, probably with a fair amount of variation between different units as well as over time and distance. We tend to picture the Romans as having two or three distinct "styles" of equipment and formations over the course of the empire's existence, but there were probably dozens (or hundreds) of changes and short-lived variations, many of which were "borrowed" from whoever the Romans last faced in battle, much as the modern US army "borrowed" ideas in tactics and equipment from the WWII German army, along with the equipment actually appropriated directly from defeated adversaries. The longer "spatha" was initially used as a cavalry sword, but may have seen service with the later legions as well, especially after the empire began to recruit large numbers of Gauls and Germans, who would have been more familiar with the longer blades.

[magobarca]

It seems that Marius or someone later introduced the breakable wooden pins to the latter day pila, and the earlier Republican heavy and light pila didn't have the wooden pins because they were made differently than the latter day pila.

It seems that the Marian style latter pilum was adapted because it was too hard to temper the metal shaft properly so that it still had enough strength to penetrate before it bent, and they all didn't bend anyway due to this difficulty. Sometimes the opposing armies formed up fairly close to one another, and if you are in pilum range then you could expect to be at close quarters with the Legionaires very quickly, so you wouldn't have that much time to pick up a pilum and throw it back at the Romans because after they threw their pilums from a close range the Romans usually advanced to close quarters very quickly. Plus, if a lot of your close order troops were bothering about picking up pilums in order to throw them back at the Romans, that could disorder your close combat formation. There is at least one account of the Gauls doing this, maybe at Telamon, so it was done, but not always.

Here is info on the Auxillia Infantry shield types:

See shield numbers 8 (Auxillia raised from Roman citizens), and 30 (non-citizen Auxillia), both are rectangular, not oval, although this as you know is a rarity. Also, it would be good to check the latter Notitia Dignitatum, just in case.

http://www.redrampant.com/roma/auxshields.html

----------------------
http://www.esg.ndirect.co.uk/Gentlemen.htm

12th or 13th paragraph down tells of the Auxillia on Trajan's Column with a rectangular Legionary shield, but this is generally regarded as an error of the sculptors, since TJ's Colmn has other 'oddities' on it.

-----------------------------------

Here are main Google search pages for 'Auxilia using rectangular Legionary shields' and 'Auxilia shields', respectively:

http://tinyurl.com/fmwgj

http://tinyurl.com/gnrjj

-----------------------------------

Finds at Hadrian's Wall may indicate some Auxillia wore Legionary equipment, although whether this is referring to new or older passed-down equipment I don't know off-hand.

http://www.geocities.com/dbplastic/plastic/escaxs.html

Would have to go from this wargamer's site to Google again.

-------------------------------

A conversation from this site, http://tinyurl.com/obrnj :

Actually, it may have been a little more complicated than that.

A few examples:

-Gnaeus Musius (Legio XIIII aquilifer) - oval scutum.

-M. Flavoleius Cordus (Legio XIIII) - oval scutum

**-Annaius Daverzus (Cohors IIII Dalmatarum) - rectangular shield

-C. Castricius Victor (Legio II Adiutrix) - oval scutum

-C. Valerius Secundus (Legio XIIII signifer) - oval shield

-Q. Luccius Faustus (Legio XIIII signifer) - oval shield

-Mainz column bases - four scuta are shown - at least three appear to be intended to show scuta with curving or even pointed top and bottom edges. Of these three two appear to be straight sided and one may have slightly curved sides. The fourth scutum may be rectangular or it may too be intended to represent a shield with straight edges and curving top and bottom edges.

-Mainz column base - one oval shield is shown which appears to be intended to be flat. The soldier carrying it is generally identified as an auxiliary.

-Adamklissi metopes - several legionaries appear to be equipped with shields with curving top and bottom edges and straight(ish) sides.

-Adamklissi metopes - axilia are equipped with flat oval shields.

-A roman shield found in Doncaster was flat (suggesting an auxiliary unit) and had parallel straight sides and slightly curving top and bottom edges.

**-Three THIRD CENTURY scuta from Dura were originally rectangular and curving. Most modern reconstructions of early imperial shields are based on these.

-Other third century shields from Dura are flat and oval.

**-Trajan's column makes a (perhaps formulaic) distinction between rectangular curved legionary shields and oval flat auxiliary shields.


I hope this helps

Crispvs
-----------------------

Miniatures AtlasHispanic Auxilia with rectangular shield (EIR08) ... Built using recycled Roman Bricks and Arches and given A Lozenge Slate Roof. this example of Romanesque ...
www.miniaturesatlas.com/ cat/scale25mm/nationalityrome/all.htm - 81k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.miniaturesatlas.com ]
-----------------------------------------

http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkf ... =278.topic
-----------------------------------

Enjoy,Magobarca

[magobarca]

More on pila:

http://tinyurl.com/n54sc

http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/lrarmy.html

In very Diocletian times the weighted dart/javelin the plumbata or martiobarbuluswas used.

magobarca

[kyle]

I like how this topic is going

[magobarca]

honvedseg Posted: 09 Mar 2006 15:03 Post subject: Pila

These changes in equipment occurred continuously over a period of centuries, probably with a fair amount of variation between different units as well as over time and distance. We tend to picture the Romans as having two or three distinct "styles" of equipment and formations over the course of the empire's existence, but there were probably dozens (or hundreds) of changes and short-lived variations, many of which were "borrowed" from whoever the Romans last faced in battle, much as the modern US army "borrowed" ideas in tactics and equipment from the WWII German army, along with the equipment actually appropriated directly from defeated adversaries. The longer "spatha" was initially used as a cavalry sword, but may have seen service with the later legions as well, especially after the empire began to recruit large numbers of Gauls and Germans, who would have been more familiar with the longer blades.
----------------------------------

Using, adapting, and altering the ideas and methods and objects of other people is part of a process called learning. This is SOP (Standard Operating procedure) in our personal, civilian, and military lives and environments.

The Soviets used the USA inventor Christie's tank design, particularily the suspension system to produce the Fast tanks, or BT series of tanks, which evolved into the T-34 series which then evolved into the T-44 through the T-80 series of tanks. The V-12 engine of the T-34 was adapted from an Italian aircraft or automobile engine if I am not mistaken. The latter versions of the P-51 Mustang fighter had a british Rolls-merlin engine in it because for some strange and i believe still unknown reason the excellent Amerrican Allison or Packard (or Packcard/Allison, i forget) engine just did perform in the P-51 Mustang fighter as it was supposed to. The US Sherman tank used a British gyrostabilizer for its main gun enabling it to fire much more accurately while moving to a much better effect than Nazi and Soviet tanks (and the short 75mm on the Sherman was just a tad better than the 76.2mm gun on the T-34, and the US 76mm and 76.2mm (3-inch) and the Brit 76.2mm were just a tad less effective than the Soviet 85mm on the T-34/85, etc.). utilization of enemy equipment in its originally manufactured or modified form hads always been SOP, and the Nazis were the best at doing this it seems. During WWII the German 80mm mortar ammo could be fired from Soviet 81mm mortars, and during the Vietnam War US 81mm ammo could be fired from Chicom and Warsaw Pact 82mm mortars, etc. Older equioment and uniforms are used throughout a 'phasing-in-of-new-stuff-period' in some armies, or until simply used-up or worn-out in other armies.

Both the Soviets and NATO adapted some Wehrmacht tactical doctrine, just as the Wehrmacht adapted foreign ideas, and the Soviets adpted some aspects of NATO doctrine and NATO of Sovie doctrine ...

Attempt to think as your enemy thinks to possibly determine what he may be thinking. put yourself in the other person's shoes, as the old adage goes. Can e be very wise to do this. Never assume anything either.

The rectangular Legionary shield may never have completely replaced the oval Legionary shield even within the same Legion, and particularily this seems to more-so be the case in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and chainmail armor wasn't completely replaced by the lorica segmentata (sp?) either it seems. The l.s. armor was phased-out rather quickly anyway, being replaced by the use of chainmail and scale maile yet again. The spatha did become the standard sword of the latter Empire, and it could be for the reason you state; an influx of Gallic and Germanic recruits, along with perhaps a more frequent use of an open order of ranks fighting style, although the Republican and Imperial Legions did at times fight in this open order in rough terrain etc.

Interesting stuff. Glad I wasn't there.

I made it though both the Roman and Gallic Campaigns in LA. Need more.

Magobarca