spear or pilum?

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

There is a third possibility, which Robert hinted at, and I think it's a very real possibility. If we assume that, for some bizarre reason, Arrian has decided to call the pilum a kontos, has he lazily inserted a topos which properly belongs to the thrown pilum, but is inappropriate here because his men are not going to throw their pila?
And, if we acknowledge that the "bending" is just a topos that Arrian has inserted because he read it in Caesar, maybe the weapon isn't a pilum at all! How can we tell?

Robert wrote:-

I was preparing a reply specifically about Arrian and the possible use of a topos in one of his passages.

Gentlemen, this is surely 'special pleading' and clutching at straws, most unlikely in the extreme! hock:
Firstly, all commentators on Arrian that I have seen in over forty years are agreed that the Ectaxis is a genuine set of Roman Battle Orders, or Military Briefing.What place would a 'topos' or literary flourish have in such a document ? So why should we 'acknowlege' something you've just made up on the basis of no evidence whatever. This is just "what if ?" stuff. Highly unlikely, to say the least!
Secondly, it is not thrown pila which bend. A thrown pilum ,as physics laws would tell you, is only subject to longitudinal forces along a linear path. It simply penetrates/lodges in the target without bending. It is not until sufficient lateral forces come into play that there is any prospect of bending - such as if the head is lodged firmly in the ground, when it may bend under its own weight, or if held in the hand, lodged in something, and then lateral forces come into play.( Arrian evidently knows this, which is why he mentions it). This has been backed up by practical experiments, notably by Peter Connolly, and here on RAT by Jef Princeel. Sure enough, if you read your Caesar properly, in the battle against the Helvetii ( Bello Gallica I.25), he describes individual pila penetrating more than one shield. The Gauls are unable to pull them out as the iron bends. Lateral forces at work as the Gauls try to disentangle their shields.
Thirdly, accepting ( which I don't) that this is a 'topos', why on earth, if Arrian is going to insert a 'topos', he chooses one about a pilum, if the troops were armed with something else? Surely it would be a 'topos' about what they actually had? Duncan's point here, if true, simply re-inforces the pilum idea ...and I don't follow the logic of 'it's a 'topos' about a pilum, lazily and randomly inserted, so maybe the weapon isn't a pilum at all?' In the words of Mr Spock ( whom I've just seen on another thread), "That's illogical, Captain!" :lol: :lol:
Duncan wrote:-

After all, why would they use words that, everywhere else, imply a thrusting spear?

Incorrect! As we have seen, in each instance Robert and I described, where the writer was writing in Greek from the 1st C AD on, kontos could be, and on balance of probability was, a pilum-type
weapon, not a 12 ft cavalry lance for which there is no other evidence.

But Robert's point is that Josephus and Arrian don't say pilum (or a recognised Greek equivalent), so how do we know that they meant pilum?
You say you're "reasonably certain", Paul. But how can you be?

First, there is no recognised greek word that translates pila, for the same reason there is no latin word for sarissa - see previous posts. At least three different words - hyssos, xyston and kontos are used by different writers.
Secondly, during this time, all the iconographic evidence is for Roman troops armed with 'pila and lancea' and all the contemporaryLatin literature (e.g. Tacitus) unequivocally refers to pila and lancea, no evidence whatever elsewhere for Roman troops being generally armed with anything else... that's what I mean by 'holistic' - looking at all the evidence, rather than just the document itself and saying 'it could mean...'
That's why I am 'reasonably certain'........As I have remarked elsewhere, we cannot 'prove beyond doubt' about such matters, but we can decide, on the limited evidence we have, where the 'balance of probability' lies.

But that's precisely the point, Paul. What if they aren't talking about the pilum?

...that of course is possible, but based on all the evidence we have, or at least all that which Robert and I have set out, plus archaeology and icongraphy it is probable and likely that Arrian's kontophoroi were pila armed, and that subsequent writers in Greek followed this usage.

Robert and I have both set out our 'wares' in the form of evidence from texts, and our reasoning, and the thoughtful reader must make up their own mind, as ever ! :wink: :wink: