11-29-2007, 09:47 AM
I enjoyed your post very much Paulus. A laude to you.
Very true. Javelins / pilum definately had their uses, but its a little naive to make them them the end all be all of combat. The pilum is a form of javelin. Its not some magical Excalibur version of it. Many, many armies before the time of Rome and long after utilized javelins and some forms were not too dissimiliar from the pilum in design. Would the Romans have decimated the Franks because they had pilum and the Franks had angons? I think not for that reason. To treat the pilum, gladius, etc. with reverence beyond what it deserves makes little sense. In fact, I think it can take away from them credit where it is actually owed when you reduce an armies value to catchy bits of military tech. It isn't exactly like comparing modern high tech. Romans are known for their pilum, gladius, scutum, etc. but that is mostly our visualization of their army and it doesn't mean that the gladius is superior to all other short swords or the pilum a better javelin and that they would decimate all armies that do not have this type of equipment. Most people do not think horse archers when they think medieval English armies either. It doesn't mean the Huns would decimate the English army just because they are more famed for horse archery. Equipment discussion is only useful when one is thinking of its uses in a tactical manner and not the katana is the perfect sword and beats all other swords type of thinking. Hey, we all have a fondness for certain weapons, but we have to be realistic.
Very true. Javelins / pilum definately had their uses, but its a little naive to make them them the end all be all of combat. The pilum is a form of javelin. Its not some magical Excalibur version of it. Many, many armies before the time of Rome and long after utilized javelins and some forms were not too dissimiliar from the pilum in design. Would the Romans have decimated the Franks because they had pilum and the Franks had angons? I think not for that reason. To treat the pilum, gladius, etc. with reverence beyond what it deserves makes little sense. In fact, I think it can take away from them credit where it is actually owed when you reduce an armies value to catchy bits of military tech. It isn't exactly like comparing modern high tech. Romans are known for their pilum, gladius, scutum, etc. but that is mostly our visualization of their army and it doesn't mean that the gladius is superior to all other short swords or the pilum a better javelin and that they would decimate all armies that do not have this type of equipment. Most people do not think horse archers when they think medieval English armies either. It doesn't mean the Huns would decimate the English army just because they are more famed for horse archery. Equipment discussion is only useful when one is thinking of its uses in a tactical manner and not the katana is the perfect sword and beats all other swords type of thinking. Hey, we all have a fondness for certain weapons, but we have to be realistic.
Derek D. Estabrook
