+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence (/showthread.php?tid=16421)
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Paullus Scipio - 02-17-2010
Nicholas wrote:
Quote:IIRC the Caesar "light legionarii" are described as "expedita" in Latin (excuse spelling which may be incorrect) and that Adrian Goldsworthy believes that this refers to them marching without packs, etc. but otherwise armed and armoured as normal. So essentailly troops ready to fight if suddenly attacked and not burdened with other kit.
The quote from Galba suggests to me that the light troops were not legionarii at all as Anthony is trying to keep his legionarii concealed.
Here is a definition from a Latin dictionary, and as can be seen, it supports Adrian Goldsworthy's and others (including me) view that it refers to ordinary legionaries unencumbered by marching gear ('impedimenta').Note also the reference to 'four light armed legions'. That Four whole Legions of Caesar's army were 'light armed troops' is all but impossible - again 'expedita' here must mean 'unencumbered'/ready to fight, and indeed this is how S.A.Handford in the Penguin version translates this phrase:"..Without a moment's hesitation he started out with four legions in light marching order and all his cavalry..." who go on to carry out a memorable march, 50 miles in 24 hours, with 3 hours rest.
Another clear example in Caesar occurs in "African War" 75, where Caesar's column is harassed by his former friend Labienus. His light Infantry and cavalry then begin to harass the Legions "under the impression that they would be tired with carrying their kit/burdened with their packs ('sarcinae') and incapable of fighting. Caesar had taken this into account, in fact, and had ordered 300 men in each Legion to march without packs/unburdened. ('expediti').
expedio -ire -ivi and -ii -itum [to free from a snare , disengage, disentangle, set free; to get things ready for action]; fig., [to release, clear, set free, set straight]; in speech, [to clear up a point, explain]; 'res expedit', or impers. 'expedit', [it is expedient, useful, advantageous]. Hence partic. expeditus -a -um, [unshackled, unimpeded]; milit., lightly equipped,[ in the sense of unencumbered]; in gen., [free, ready]; n. as subst. [clear ground]; of abstr. things, [clear, settled, ready]. Adv. expedite, [freely, easily].
I also believe, like Nicholas, that the 'light troops' ( archers,slingers,javelinmen?)in the Galba quote are just that, since Anthony is trying to conceal his Legionaries...
Byron wrote:
Quote:Arrian seems to be describing pila,A small digression - I would agree ( as I suspect most scholars of the subject do) that it is almost certainly 'pila' that Arrian is describing, notwithstanding Vortigern/ Robert's view. Significantly, even he admits the possibility that 'pila' are being described, and the lacuna emended 'spears ending in thin iron shanks' is not as cut-and-dried as Robert portrays...... He and I had an excellent debate on the subject here on RAT some time ago, on several threads.[see e.g. "Arrian and the Kontos" March 2008 where Robert's argument appears - unfortunately my detailed rebuttal has 'disappeared' when RAT changed over, but I can restore it !! ]
Confusingly the 'root' of the word 'kontophoroi' could have one of two possible origins, one of which ('kontos'/bargepole = two-handed lance) can be rejected leaving the other root, 'akontzw' / thrown weapon at' for the source of Arrian's made -up new word for a legionary weapon.Fortunately we need follow this no further for present purposes, since here we are concerned with the possibility that the 'longchophoroi' ( Gk:'longche'; Lat:'lanchea' = dual purpose, thrusting or throwing, short spear ) might be 'light armed cohorts'.
In general, Roman infantry of the early Imperial era seem to have carried either 'pilum' (heavy iron-shanked throwing weapon) - the typical traditional weapon of the legionary, or the 'lanchea' - the dual purpose throwing/thrusting spear, similar to hunting spears, and typically carried by auxiliary infantry. Despite the Sanders Von Dorst commentary, Arrian is the first occasion when 'lanchea' armed legionaries are referred to ( In Tacitus; it is Legio III AND its auxiliaries who attack the Sarmatians...the 'Romans' (both legionaries and Auxilia) move up, "...throwing their' pila' or using their 'lanchea' and...".In Josephus, it is only the commanders bodyguard who are equipped with 'lanchea', and again these may have been auxiliary, like Trajan's 'singulares' .Similarly the 'lanchea' armed troops in Caesar's army are probably 'Auxilia'.
Now the 'pila' was a specialised short-range armour piercing heavy throwing weapon 7-8 ft long, while the 'lanchea' was a short spear, around 5-6 ft long which could be used for thrusting or thrown like a javelin ( though having less range than a pure 3-4 ft long javelin, but more range than a heavy throwing weapon.)
As the number of 'civilised/armoured' opponents decreased from the 1 C AD onward, the need for the specialised 'pila' declined, ( Germans,Dacians and Parthians were largely unarmoured ), so gradually it seems that a number of the legionaries were re-armed with the more generally useful 'lanchea'. In Arrians "Against the Alans" we see, paradoxically but logically, that the troops with the longer heavier weapon (pila) provide the front ranks to fend off the Sarmatian horsemen, while the troops with the shorter, but longer ranged weapon,(lanchea) throw over the front ranks.Later still we hear of 'Lanciarii' in the Legions. We see 'lanchea' armed 'Heavy' legionaries later on Marcus Aurelius' column, and on through Severan monuments, the Arches of Galerius and Constantine, and 'Lanciarii' appear later ( late 3 to early 4 C AD).....
Certainly, by the 4 C a Legion contained more lightly equipped troops, referred to by Ammianus and also Vegetius, who describes light troops who dart out in pursuit, whom he calls 'ferentarii'/active troops and 'Exculcatores'/stampers out......
Thus John's four examples turn out to be highly unlikely to be 'light armed legionaries' after all.
It would seem that 'light troops' within the Legions ended with the gradual conversion of the last 'velites' to 'Heavy' legionaries toward the end of the 2 C BC, and the beginning of the 1 C BC, and that these did not reappear in the Legions until the 4 C AD, and that in the meantime, 'light troops' were provided by Auxilia/Allies ( much the same occurs with cavalry).
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Paullus Scipio - 02-17-2010
Crispus wrote:
Quote:Also, regarding the lead weights. If you can point me to an archaeologically attested example of a lead weighted pilum (and I do not mean plumbatae) then I would be very grateful. Until then however, I shall continue to regard them as an imaginative interpretation of a sculpture of a pilum (on which no paint survives) shown being carried by a Praetorian guardsman on the Cancellaria reliefs from Rome, supported by extrapolation by a number of third century AD stelae. And before you ask, no - I have never been happy to see them in our display.
I would be inclined to agree with Crispus here. There are in fact more depictions of the 'ball' below the tang on the 'Pila' - for example, the Legionaries on the Adamklissi monument from Trajan's Dacian Wars are thus equipped. I believe the assumption that these were 'lead' comes by analogy with 'plumbata'. In fact they could be any material, from clay ( perhaps a little unlikely as being rather impermanent) through wood to Brass/Bronze, and just possibly Lead. Has anyone had experience of trying to throw a 'pilum' with a cricketball/baseball sized lump of Lead attached ? ( I don't think that stelae such as the 3 C Aurelius Mucianus one from Apamea show two such 'balls', but rather the tang's wooden surround with a single 'ball' below.) On balance, I tend to think the most likely candidate as wood, or just possibly, brass/bronze..... and whether the 'ball' was to add weight, or was just decorative, is an unknown......
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - jkaler48 - 02-17-2010
Possible light armed legionaries depicted:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
Oval shields often Javelins instead of Pila no Armor
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Paullus Scipio - 02-17-2010
Quote:Possible light armed legionaries depicted:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
Oval shields often Javelins instead of Pila no Armor
Whilst you may be right, I think it unlikely that troops 'ready for action' are depicted on these stelae, but rather, like earlier stelae, they show soldiers in "undress".
One important clue is that they are all helmetless - even 'Velites' wore helmets, and in fact I can't think off-hand of any depictions from any era of Roman Legionaries in battle without helmets. As is shown by the Marcus Aurelius column which commemorates victories over the germanic Marcomanni ( AD 172-175), the distinctions between Legionaries and Auxilia are beginning to blur, for we see legionaries in 'lorica segmentata' with oval shields ( hard to tell if flat or dished) as well as traditional 'scuta', and 'lanchea'. This is seen further on the Triumphal Arch of Septimius Severus (203 AD) where it is quite hard to pick one from the other, and of course the real distinction between the two - citizenship - disappeared when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free people in the Empire in 212 AD.
Another important clue is that similar contemporary stelae, such as Severius Acceptus ( Istanbul) or Julius Aufidis ( Veria) are shown dressed similarly - but with helmet, weapons and armour shown separately, demonstrating that they are shown in 'undress' rather than 'battle ready'.
It is important to note that the weapons carried on those 'stelae' are NOT javelins ( pure throwing weapons 3-4 ft long), but rather dual purpose 'lanchea' (5-6 ft long).
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Crispvs - 02-17-2010
I am not sure that I can accept your identification of all of these as lightly armed legionaries. Three are third century stelae and may indeed depict light armed men of the period, although I can't think of any third century AD stelae which show the deceased in armour anyway and I can't think of any which show any shield shape other than round or oval.
However, I do not believe that either P. Flavoleius Cordus or C. Castricius Victor are light infantry. An oval shield is certainly better for soldiers who have to move through wooded areas or areas with a lot of brush or undergrowth than a rectangular shield but out in the open this advantage is of no consequence. There is ample evidence to suggest that we should not place too much emphasis on the exact shape of a shield so oval shields are not so helpful as identifiers of light troops as might be thought. It is probably also worth noting that we only have four figural stelae for soldiers of the Fourteenth Legion, and all four of them have oval scuta. Admittedly the other three are all standard bearers but it remains the case that there is no definite depiction of a member of the Fourteenth Legion with anything other than an oval shield, although it is true that one of the Mainz column bases does show a straight sided (I hesitate to call it rectangular) scutum which appears to have the same blazon as C. Musius has on his shield. Therefore this may represent a fifth Legio XIIII shield which is not oval but without an inscription of some sort the identification must remain unproven. Whatever the case, an oval shield would not necessarily indicate light infantry and it must be admitted that Flavoeius Cordus' shield is depicted as being very wide. Flavoleius Cordus' lack of armour is also no indicator, as it is quite usual to find legionaries of that period depicted unarmoured on their stelae. It is also not possible to say with any conviction that the shafted weapon he is carrying is not a pilum as it has sustained damage at exactly the point where we would expect to see the pyramidal expansion on a pilum (which might in itself indicate that this is what it was, as a part which sticks out further is more likely to sustain damage. It is true that there appears to be a throwing strap on the weapon, but I cannot think of any good reason why this could not be found on a pilum, even if there are no other comparable examples.
In the case of C. Castricius Victor, he is actually one of the very few soldiers to actually be depicted on his stele wearing a helmet. He is also wearing a mail shirt. Thus he is depicted fully equipped with helmet, armour sword, shield and shafted weapons. The only other infantryman I can think of who is so heavily equipped on his stele is C. Valerius Crispvs. Therefore, to my mind it seems unlikely that Castricius Victor is depicted as a light infantryman. It is true that he seems to have two shafted weapons, which is interesting, but at least one of these appears to be a pilum. Again then, it would seem that the oval shield is no secure identifier of light infantry.
As Paul says, 'expeditia' would suggest simply marching without packs or baggage, which would suggest that each man would still be equipped with his normal kit, including his usual shield, whatever shape that was, rather than having been issued with special kit for the role. I think it is worth considering the possibility that at Caesar's time and for some decades or even centuries later, while true that the Romans certainly recruited light infantry auxilia, the soldiers in the legions might be expected to be flexible and to undertake a variety of battlefield roles, according to the situation and so might on occasion be expected to march expeditia or to use alternative weapons in particular situations. This may be emphasised by looking at some other equipment. Was every soldier equipped with a manica and greaves, or were manicae and greaves issued according to occasion to those who would need them for a particular role? After all, these items are nowhere near as well represented in either the sculptural or the archaeological evidence as some other items. If some soldiers could be expected to 'go heavy' on some occasions, they might in other situations be expected to 'go light'. I suspect therefore, that flexibility may be the key to understanding legionary light infantry.
Crispvs
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Crispvs - 02-17-2010
Sorry Paul, we obviously 'crossed in the post'. I should learn not to watch television and write RAT postings at the same time.
Crispvs
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - jkaler48 - 02-17-2010
If there were no dedicated Light Armed cohorts or troops and you treat the Ancient references as describing Light Armed as regular Legionaries performing a "additional duty" rather than a separate military occupational specialty or branch it leaves the mystery of the different curved shields and missile weapons that have little or no ancient source material to explain them. I am not saying that that can't be the case but that the light Infantry theory would be one way to explain the different equipment seen on the grave markers. The Legion could very well have carried different sets of specialist equipment in the baggage to reequip regular Legionaries as needed but again little or no ancient source material. You could speculate that the Scuta seen in the carts on Tragen's column belong to the regular Legionaries seen with Oval Shields with Legionary insignias who are acting in a light armed role
for the occasion but that is far from being any kind of proof.
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Paullus Scipio - 02-17-2010
John wrote:
Quote:it leaves the mystery of the different curved shields and missile weapons that have little or no ancient source material to explain them.....I don't think there is terribly much mystery about different weapons being in use simultaneously. The wide variety of helmets likely to have been worn in the 1-2 C AD in a single legion is one example. Similarly, if we look at first-second C AD monuments, we see a variety of 'scuta' in use. Beginning with the Republican 'ovoid' curved shield with 'spina' and barley-corn wooden boss(1), the first modification seems to have been to lighten it by shearing off the top and bottom, leaving the sides curved.(2) Next, the sides were straightened to produce the familiar rectangular 'Dura' type scutum(3) and finally the wooden barley corn boss(sometimes with metal reinforcement) and 'spina' gave way to a circular metal boss on a square flange, without 'spina.(4) However, these three types did not supercede one another immediately. Indeed the old Republican ovoid type 1 continued in service into the early 1 C AD, as shown on funeral stelae. Praetorians continued to use this early type down to Domitian's time ( Louvre relief c. 50 AD and Cancellaria relief c. 80 AD), but by then it might have been 'traditional' as, for example, the Queen's Brigade of Guards still wear 19 C traditional fur busbies and scarlet jackets on parade. Types 2,3 and 4 are all depicted on Trajan's column and the Adamklissi monument and are still all found on the Marcus Aurelius column. Similarly, archaeological finds show that 'pila' in the same period came not just in 'tanged' and 'socketed' types, but that there was considerable variety of fastening within these two broad types, not to mention variety in length of metal shaft and type of head.....the same variety appears in 'gladii'( 'Mainz', Fulham, 'Pompeii' and other types all in service alongside one another) and 'pugiones' too. Unlike Trajan's column, Adamklissi and the Marcus Aurelius monument show a wide variety of body-armour in use too - we see 1-2 C AD Legionaries in 'segmentata' ( strips), 'squamata' (scales) and 'Hamata' (mail).
The conclusion must surely be that differences in equipment are not really pointers to role, except in the very broadest sense.
As is well known, 'uniform' had a different connotation in the pre-industrial era....and even today, just give a casual glance at any news report of Afghanistan or Iraq, and you will see that whether the troops who are supposed to be 'uniformly' equipped are American, British or Australian, no two of them are identically equipped and a wide variety of gear is carried...
Quote:You could speculate that the Scuta seen in the carts on Tragen's column belong to the regular Legionaries seen with Oval Shields with Legionary insignias who are acting in a light armed role for the occasion but that is far from being any kind of proof.Unfortunately you are right - it would be speculation. Most consider the 'Auxiliary' types on Trajan's column with oval flat shields and 'thunderbolt' devices to be 'Cohortes Voluntariorum Civium Romanum' - Auxiliary cohorts of citizens ( unlike the normal auxilia, not citizens until discharge) founded by Augustus following the loss of Varus' Legions, several of which are believed to have taken part in Trajan's Dacian campaigns. I do not believe there is evidence for 'alternate' sets of equipment being carried in the baggage, and for example a curved 'scuta' and flat oval auxiliary shield are essentially the same - both 'body-shields'.
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Gaius Julius Caesar - 02-17-2010
Quote:
I would be inclined to agree with Crispus here. There are in fact more depictions of the 'ball' below the tang on the 'Pila' - for example, the Legionaries on the Adamklissi monument from Trajan's Dacian Wars are thus equipped. I believe the assumption that these were 'lead' comes by analogy with 'plumbata'. In fact they could be any material, from clay ( perhaps a little unlikely as being rather impermanent) through wood to Brass/Bronze, and just possibly Lead. Has anyone had experience of trying to throw a 'pilum' with a cricketball/baseball sized lump of Lead attached ? ( I don't think that stelae such as the 3 C Aurelius Mucianus one from Apamea show two such 'balls', but rather the tang's wooden surround with a single 'ball' below.) On balance, I tend to think the most likely candidate as wood, or just possibly, brass/bronze..... and whether the 'ball' was to add weight, or was just decorative, is an unknown......
I think it would be even less likely to be brass or bronze, with all due respect. we would more likely have remanents of them than a soft mallable lead ball.
And Yes, I do own a pilum wit ha lead weaight, and I can promise you, it is well weighted to throw , either directly in close proximity of the enemy lines, where it would most certainly punch through a shield into the opponens as well, or lobbedup over the sheild, or as John so apt points out, from a fortification down into the unlucky besieger assaulting your fortification.
Experimental archaology? Is it not a term oftem bandied about? I have no degree, but I have held, and marched 12 miles with one.
And I would say it would be guaranteed to punch through a shield, whereas I am a little skeptical about the unweighted ones to be honest.
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - jkaler48 - 02-17-2010
Why then transition to "squared" form of shield at all while retaining an oval form in simultaneous use unless there were advantages in different roles.
Wide variation in equipment details perhaps but Gladii are all close in length, Helmets for Infantry nearly all have the same basic features like Brow guards neckguards cheekpieces.
But shields (Square vs Oval) and thrown weapons (PIla vs Spears) seem to be unalike enough as to have functional differences.
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Paullus Scipio - 02-17-2010
Quote:Paullus Scipio:3vbn6ho9 Wrote:I would be inclined to agree with Crispus here. There are in fact more depictions of the 'ball' below the tang on the 'Pila' - for example, the Legionaries on the Adamklissi monument from Trajan's Dacian Wars are thus equipped. I believe the assumption that these were 'lead' comes by analogy with 'plumbata'. In fact they could be any material, from clay ( perhaps a little unlikely as being rather impermanent) through wood to Brass/Bronze, and just possibly Lead. Has anyone had experience of trying to throw a 'pilum' with a cricketball/baseball sized lump of Lead attached ? ( I don't think that stelae such as the 3 C Aurelius Mucianus one from Apamea show two such 'balls', but rather the tang's wooden surround with a single 'ball' below.) On balance, I tend to think the most likely candidate as wood, or just possibly, brass/bronze..... and whether the 'ball' was to add weight, or was just decorative, is an unknown......
I think it would be even less likely to be brass or bronze, with all due respect. we would more likely have remanents of them than a soft mallable lead ball.
And Yes, I do own a pilum wit ha lead weaight, and I can promise you, it is well weighted to throw , either directly in close proximity of the enemy lines, where it would most certainly punch through a shield into the opponens as well, or lobbedup over the sheild, or as John so apt points out, from a fortification down into the unlucky besieger assaulting your fortification.
Experimental archaology? Is it not a term oftem bandied about? I have no degree, but I have held, and marched 12 miles with one.
And I would say it would be guaranteed to punch through a shield, whereas I am a little skeptical about the unweighted ones to be honest.
I stand corrected then....I have not thrown a lead-weighted 'pila', and as you rightly point out, experimental archaeology is certainly very useful for determining what is possible/practical. We must allow lead as a possible material for the mysterious 'ball'. However, many experiments have established that unweighted 'pila' can easily puncture a typical shield. Out of curiosity, what effect does the lead ball/weight have on the range of the 'pilum' ?
John wrote:
Quote:But shields (Square vs Oval) and thrown weapons (PIla vs Spears) seem to be unalike enough as to have functional differences.Oval/ ovoid/tablet shaped/rectangular neck-to knee body shields all essentially serve the same function, I would think, so we will have to differ here....do you have evidence that a flat oval auxiliary shield, for example, was used in any way different from a rectangular scutum? Especially when different shaped 'body shields' were being used side-by-side in the same unit.....
As to 'pila' and 'lancea', both could be used for thrusting or throwing, and were. The difference was that the longer,heavier 'pila' was optimised for short-range 'shield/armour piercing, while the shorter, lighter 'lancea' was longer ranged, and a more 'generic' weapon, easier to construct.
'Spears' (Lat: 'Hasta' ; Gk:'Dory' ) 7-9 ft or more long and unsuitable for throwing, did not come into general use until Late Roman times ( often accompanied by 'plumbata/martiobarbuli' as throwing weapons).
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Gaius Julius Caesar - 02-17-2010
I'm obviously not a fully-fit legionary, but, it is certainly adequate to hit the enemy with a horizontal throw at about 15 to 30 feet for myself, the impact would stop them dead. The use of the other pila with a longer range would have already diminished their charge before reaching that range.
It would be a real moral crusher, even for the 'naked fanatics'......obviously these are just supposition.
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Crispvs - 02-17-2010
Ah, but have you actually thrown it? In twelve years I have only thrown my pilum five times, and each of those times only a short distance for safety's sake. On virtually every other occasion since August 1998, during displays we have exchanged our 'live' pila for blank poles before charging forward and throwing them.
I have held your pilum Byron and it is extremely heavy for a weapon which is intended to be thrown. I am certain it would drop much faster than an 'unweighted' pilum when thrown and to throw it a comparable distance would require a truly mighty throw. I am not convinced that this is necessary in any case, as a pilum has the pyramidal expansion and the long iron shank, both of which already make a typical pilum fairly 'blade heavy'. Also, don't forget that an object does not have to be particularly heavy in its stationary state to be capable of great damage when moving at speed. As someone currently sitting on board an oil rig wearing your particular hat, I am sure you understand the effect of mass times velocity, especially when the resultant impact weight is focussed on a small point.
It also occurs to me to wonder whether we are possibly misinterpreting some sculptures. For the third century AD stelae, are we seeing pila with added weights or are we possibly seeing pila whose shafts have been lathe turned to a shape which had become normal by that time? Without the original paint to give us some clues about how these stones were originally coloured, we simply do not know. Similarly, there is nothing to prove that the apparent weight on the pilum on the Cancelleria reliefs is not simply a lathe produced feature which has then been decorated with an eagle. Let's not make too many assumptions about what we are seeing.
Crispvs
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Gaius Julius Caesar - 02-17-2010
Quote:Ah, but have you actually thrown it? In twelve years I have only thrown my pilum five times, and each of those times only a short distance for safety's sake. On virtually every other occasion since August 1998, during displays we have exchanged our 'live' pila for blank poles before charging forward and throwing them.
I have held your pilum Byron and it is extremely heavy for a weapon which is intended to be thrown. I am certain it would drop much faster than an 'unweighted' pilum when thrown and to throw it a comparable distance would require a truly mighty throw. As someone currently sitting on board an oil rig wearing your particular hat, I am sure you understand the effect of mass times velocity, especially when the resultant impact weight is focussed on a small point.
It also occurs to me to wonder whether we are possibly misinterpreting some sculptures. For the third century AD stelae, are we seeing pila with added weights or are we possibly seeing pila whose shafts have been lathe turned to a shape which had become normal by that time? Without the original paint to give us some clues about how these stones were originally coloured, we simply do not know. Similarly, there is nothing to prove that the apparent weight on the pilum on the Cancelleria reliefs is not simply a lathe produced feature which has then been decorated with an eagle. Let's not make too many assumptions about what we are seeing.
Crispvs
One assuption is less practical than the other.
Crispus, it is my life of wielding heavy weights on an offshore rig that gives me some practical knowledge of the range I could throw it, and also the damage it will do. I say I am certain a fully fit ancient would have even less of an issue with it. I didn't say it required a great distance, as it would smash through the enemy shield and also the preson behind it.
Having thrown my own heavy pila, which is nowhere near as ideally weighted as the weighted one, I will
stand by my prediction of its outcome when used in anger. In fact, if Len makes me another I will make the comparison of what happens to a scutum......can I borrow yours? :twisted:
Re: The light armed cohorts discussion and evidence - Crispvs - 02-17-2010
Well, I am sure you *could* throw it the distance you say, but what is the need for that weight of impact that is not already satisfied by the weight of impact a normal pilum would deliver? Also, I strongly suspect that you are now trying to justify the existence of lead weighted pila on the basis of a reconstruction, rather than looking at the evidence and examining all of the possibilities before moving on to make assumptions. Granted, a lead weight would increase the weight of impact, but I ask again, is there any conclusive evidence for these apparent balls being made of lead which you can show me? I know that the idea has been around for a long time now, but that does not give it any more weight as a fact. You do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut when a tack hammer will do the job quite satisfactorily. The lead weighted pilum remains a factoid, just like the bendy pilum.
It is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in the world of reconstruction we must start with the evidence we have, rather than the evidence we suspect we are missing. There is no evidence either for the Romans using Brillo pads to clean their armour but their absence from the archaeological record does not immediately suggest that they did. :twisted:
Crispvs