Roman Pilla

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I took a few semesters of Latin. I got the um, i, o, um, o a, oram, is, a, is and all that good stuff for 3rd declension neuter nouns. Lol... Im so rusty though.

Anyway, im sure the iron that pila are constructed out of has been so corroded over the centuries that testing the quality of the material may not only be unreliable, but also harmful for the piece of armnament.

Still, wouldnt mind some field experience. Maybe I can buy a couple and throw em at my dog or something and see what happens.

not that I would ever do that of course... *ahem... sure I wouldnt.

[Matthew Amt]

As I understand it, metallurgical analyses of pilum heads have not shown that the points were specially hardened. They were possibly a little harder than the rest of the iron shank simply because of the hammering, if there was no final annealing. The shank should not really be thought of as "soft"--try biting one--just "unhardened".

I tend to refer to the iron part as the point (the pyramidal business end), the shank (long skinny part), and the tang (where metal is wider and rivets to the wood), all three being one piece of iron. On the sockted types, there is a socket rather than a tang.

I think the reference to the rivet being replaced by a wood peg under Marius suggested that the iron shanks were simply too thick to bend regularly. Surviving ones from that era do seem to be beefier, not really meant to bend at all. However, most of the tanged types have extra-wide tangs that actually project beyond the wood block and for flanges to hold everything together securely. So even with one rivet, nothing is going to flop or swing! But clearly they did not generally want anything to really break.

Anyone wanting to use a Roman pilum against the guys who threw it would have to drop his own weapon to do it. If you are reduced to using the wrong end of someone else's broken weapon, that's not a "battle", that's a "massacre". I suggest running. Fast. I'll be right behind you--muahahahahaaaa!

Valete,

Matthew

[Crispvs]

I am afraid I am about to make most of the above posts redundant. Sorry chaps but it has to be done.
There are several suggestions above about tests being done to test the theories about pila. Well, to remove the apparent veil of secrecy which seems to have prevented this information leaving the British Isles - Tests have been done!!!!
Specifically, for several years Peter Connolley has been testing reconstructed pila and has demonstrated fairly conclusively that they were, in all probability, NEVER designed to bend or break. He points out that the idea of the bendy pilum appears nowhere in ancient literature and is simply an extrapolation of Plutarch's statement that Marius, seeing that the pila were being thrown back, replaced one of the rivets with a baked wooden dowel which would snap on impact, making the pilum head swing sideways so it could not be returned. Unfortunately, Plutarch's statement, written around two hundred years after Marius's death, is not bourne out by archaeology, as finds from Numantia and Alesia, have two iron rivets and as far as I am aware, none exhibit the empty rivet hole which would be required to support Plutarch's claim. Furthermore, many of them have flanges worked out from the sides of the tang, which seem to have been specifically designed to prevent any sideways movement. Furthermore, the Augustan period pila from Oberaden were secured to their shafts by three rivets, again demonstrating a desire to prevent lateral movement.
As for the idea of the pilum bending to prevent it being thrown back, in addition to pointing out that the bendy pilum is not actually mentioned by Plutarch, Connolley has spent a lot of time getting people to throw reconstructed pila (correctly forced from iron rather than being milled from steel as most modern reconstructions are) at pieces of wood and metal. He has discovered that if the shank of the pilum is soft enough to bend even slightly, it will not penetrate the target properly, the force of impact having been largely spent on the act of bending the iron. If a pilum is to penetrate to any effective depth the shank must be rigid so that the full weight of the weapon, including that of the shaft and shank is directly behind the head, forcing it forward. Any bending of the shank dissipates this force. Caesar makes it clear when describing an attack by the Nervii that pila were capable of penetrating at least two shields at once, pinning them together and forcing the Celts to throw them away.
As to Plutarch's statement about replacing one of the rivets with a dowel, Connelley believes that Plutarch has confused his information. What he suggests may actually have happened is that Marius may have equipped many of his soldiers with a type of javelin which was common in Northern Italy where he was training his army. This type of javelin has a rod-like tang which is pierced by a single rivet. Plutarch, perhaps being familiar with a pilum which had two rivets, may have heard of Marius using a pilum-like javelin with only a single iron rivet, and postulated a reason why one of the two rivets he was used to might be missing. Obviusly this last part cannot be proved, but Connolly has shown that Plutarch may have been mistaken and his tests certainly meen that any ideas of pila designed to bend or break should be laid to rest and forgotten. As Connolley points out, the long iron shank is designed to allow the head to penetrate further, not bend so that it hardly penetrates at all.

If anyone wishes for a more in depth view of all this, send me a PM with your postal address.

Crispvs

[Anonymous]

WOW. Thats pretty amazing.

So basically there is no evidence supporting the fact that these were disposable weapons? Just that they were heavy enough to cause penetrated shields to be unusalbe cause they could not extract the javalin. Wow very interesting.

I'll have to pm you and get some more information.

[Matt Lukes]

Very interesting! I figured the whole bending thing was just a theory- possibly based on finds of bent pila shanks or something- but I had no idea it had been disproved by experimentation. Thanks Crispvs

[Matthew Amt]

Thank you, Crispus! That is indeed very enlightening. Don't worry, I LOVE research that makes us all realize that we were all wrong!

Not to be arguing too much with Peter Connolly, but I have thrown my pilum through a shield (and it stuck firmly in the post that the shield was leaning against), but on other throws it has also bent. I'm pretty sure it's the same pilum, not one of my other ones. It *is* forged from steel stock, by the way. I would love to see more accurate measurements of suriving pilum heads so that we can make closer replicas.

Valete,

Matthew

[arklore70]

I think a question was raised earlier as to how to simulate pila volleys. If you click on the attack on the Roman Fort , you can see how one group simulates this for needle-felt style combat.

http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/2005/montans.php

There are some pretty awesome pics on this web site, so it is just fun to also browse through the pics. Some of the horsemanship is awesome.


If pila were thrown at the close ranges that we think they were thrown, they would have a tremendous amount of kinetic energy behind them, which would give them the ability to pierce shields and people rather nicely. On a miss, they would bury themselves in the ground, point first.

Having thrown a real pillum, it takes a bit of effort to pull it out of the ground when thrown. I can only imagine it would take at least as much effort to remove from a shield. This action alone would make a person vulnerable to a second volley, or vulnerable to the mass Roman Infantry formation closing in for the kill.

I can see how they were not meant to bend, or bend only slightly enough so that the point would not be able to penetrate again with out some minimal hammering out.

The effort required to throw one back, might be too much and leave an opponent too vulnerable to a second volley or the tip of a gladius.

Cheers!!

Mike

[Magnus]

Interesting insight Crispvs. I would think also that a fair bit of work hardening would go into the iron shaft....Hey Matt L, do you know if the romans heat treated their weapons in anyway (in regards to hardening the iron)? Depending on how much the shaft was work hardened, one would think the shaft could be come a bit brittle unless they tempered it.

[Matthew Amt]

Well, I'm not Matt L., but a pilum head would have been hot forged for the most part. Beat on it while red hot, and when it cools down too much to work easily, re-heat it. If the last part to be formed is the point, and the last few hammerstrokes are done at "black heat" or while the metal is no longer glowing, that will give the point some work-hardening that the rest of the shank doesn't necessarily have. That's my understanding of the process, at least! It's probably possible to tell if a piece has had a final annealing (not tempering!), but I don't know any details.

Valete,

Matthew

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Salvete.

I may be missing the point here
but as I am reading Caesar's account
of the Conquest of Gaul now I would like to
give the account I'm reading.
Quote:"The Gauls were much hampered in action because a single spear often pierced more than one of their overlapping shields and pinned them together: and,as the IRON BENT,they could not pull them out."

This probably doesn't answer anything, but
Caesar seems to agree that intentional
or not-they bend.

[Magnus]

Does anyone (Matt(s)) know if the roman's quenched the pila tips in order to harden them...or the whole shaft for that matter?

But it seems to me that regardless of the HRC hardness of the iron/steel:

1. a botched throw is going to produce a bent shaft...sometimes.

2. A pilum shaft can still penetrate a shield without bending, but not always.

3. A straight, accurate, and well powered throw, may penetrate a lot, or only a small amount, depending on the shield type and it's construction.

4. Different shield materials may have a higher cause to bend shafts or resist pilum tips from penetrating.

5. Given the diameter of the iron/steel shaft of the head, is it not possible that any centrifical force that the pilum gains would automaticall cause it to bend, once the pilum impacts and sticks to a target? The weight of the rest of the pilum (wood and spike) would cause the steel piece to bend at it's weakest (thinnest) point, or softest point if left unhardened.

6. The angle of impact...shallow vs deep...could also have an effect on the shaft bending, rather than a perpendicular impact to the shield's surface.

All my ideas above tell me that the pilum can have any number of things happen to it's shaft based on any number of factors, sometimes having nothing to do with the construction of it at all. So how then, can we say with any certainty, that the pilum will bend or won't bend, in any given situation unless they are all tested for? How can we also say, what it was specifically designed to do, unless it's written somewhere that "The pilum's purpose, upon impact was to....yadda yadda yadda."

It seems to me that the accounts of the shafts bending could simply be that...testimonials of the shafts bending on impact, simply because they did. It doesn't necessarily mean they were purpose built for it...but it doesn't prove the opposite either, right?

[Anonymous]

Perhaps despite current day's best methods to simulate the exact likeness of a pilum is just undoable and that these ancient weapons are truely lost to us.

I dont think that Caesar would make a reference to pila bending like that if it was only a botched pilum or throw. It almost sounds as if he knew they were designed to bend/break/whatever.

Even though pila have been recreated in modern times, perhaps something has been lost as to the exact methods used to create pila. I mean the Darkages brought about not only a long time with 0 technological advances but it also lost much of the technology that already existed.

Maybe some scientist or metalurgy expert can provide some input, but I dont know any wink: .

[ambrosius]

I am afraid I am about to make most of the above posts redundant. Sorry chaps but it has to be done.
If anyone wishes for a more in depth view of all this, send me a PM with your postal address. [Crispvs

Or you can read the genuine article in the latest issue of JRMES 8)

Ambrosius

[Anonymous]

I am afraid I am about to make most of the above posts redundant. Sorry chaps but it has to be done.
If anyone wishes for a more in depth view of all this, send me a PM with your postal address. [Crispvs

Or you can read the genuine article in the latest issue of JRMES 8)

Ambrosius

What is this JRMES and where can I find it?

[Marcus Mummius]

JRMS=Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies

You can subscribe for it or search for it in a specialised library. My university's archaeology library only has two numbers...