Rome, at it's height, during a period in which it had almost infinite funds chose to equip their soldiers in this fashion. They were sent into the field with the very best weapons, or what they thought of the best, at their day. When the Empire faltered, and money became debased, and the army began having problems...we see their ENTIRE kit changed. This wasn't for efficiency, as it coincides too perfectly with other internal problems. This was a financial decision. They had to cut corners, and could no longer afford the luxuries.
The Pilum is so effective it could penetrate a shield all the way up to it's wooden shaft, and possibly into the warrior holding that shield. That warrior wouldn't have time to pull it out, and he'd have to discard his shield, or have a very underwielding heavy stick hanging off of his shield, placing him at a terrible disadvantage. These weapons probably killed and maimed massive amounts of men. They're probably one of the most underrated battlefield weapons of all time, and there's just absolutely no chance that small Plumbata darts had the same effect.
As far as the pilum, you don't hand two of them to each legionnaire and call it a day. They need to throw these things a couple hundred times to become proficient. They would need to be replaced. They would require standardization and some standardization to ensure that a legionnaire would throw something familiar to him.
A sword in the Middle Ages could cost a fortune. These weren't soft iron, and they did not bend when impacting the shield. They were too expensive, and too hard to build for them to be a fire-and-forget weapon. They'd salvage the ones that they could after the battle and re-use them. They had so much metal so that the opponent could not chop them off at the hilt. Iron would protrude from his shield, and he'd be unable to remove it before lines would clash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EVrKWXHO9U
Please watch this video in which he compares a cheap mass manufactured replica vs a handmade authentic pilum. It's clear that a lot of work went into constructing these, and that they were very, very efficient and dangerous weapons that could double as spears at a moment's notice. Everything from the tapered point, to the very thin tip, and the balance to achieve optimum results. After you watch that video, you can't come away thinking that plumbata were superior.
Not only that, but Ballista, and their handheld variants, started disappearing. Was the Ballista an ineffective weapon? It could hurl a bolt that could penetrate armor and pin a man to a tree at 1,500 yards. It's handheld copies came to dominant Europe and were so effective the Pope deemed them against Christendom. Cost, skill, and lost knowledge are the only reasons for those weapons to fall into disuse. The crossbow is one, if not the most, dominant weapon of the Middle Ages. Why was it abandoned by the Late Romans? Certainly not because of ineffectiveness. Europe reinvented the wheel; a weapon capable of penetrating the heaviest plate of its day.
The Scutum remains the best riot shield we use today. The oval shield, yes, has advantages on horseback...but also due to simplicity and cost. The Vikings used small round shields for their shield walls, even though their fighting style was similar to the Romans. I'm sure they'd have preferred the Scutum had they had the means, resources, and knowledge to produce them.
I'd also like to add that I think desertion rates were exponentially higher in the Late Empire than during Pax Romana. Desertion was something plagued the US army up until the mid 20th century, and most armies through history. People sometimes felt like going on, and would leave. The Late Empire's mercenary armies were probably more prone to this, and a soldier walking off with his kit consisting of darts, a small shield, a spear, and a simple sword was probably less costly than if they were to walk off with the kit of an early Legionnaire.
Please watch that video to understand how painstaking it was to construct a good pilum, and just how massively effective a pilum volley must have been. They seem to have had no problem piercing almost any obstacle of the day. Augustus loved his soldiers. He did not haphazardly equip them. I think we can assume that the Pax Romana legionnaire was the most effective fighting force up until gunpowder.
We have evidence for crossbows up to around 146ad and then they disappear until the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but that's what I was able to dig up. Why was such an effective weapon discontinued for 900 years?
The Pilum is so effective it could penetrate a shield all the way up to it's wooden shaft, and possibly into the warrior holding that shield. That warrior wouldn't have time to pull it out, and he'd have to discard his shield, or have a very underwielding heavy stick hanging off of his shield, placing him at a terrible disadvantage. These weapons probably killed and maimed massive amounts of men. They're probably one of the most underrated battlefield weapons of all time, and there's just absolutely no chance that small Plumbata darts had the same effect.
As far as the pilum, you don't hand two of them to each legionnaire and call it a day. They need to throw these things a couple hundred times to become proficient. They would need to be replaced. They would require standardization and some standardization to ensure that a legionnaire would throw something familiar to him.
A sword in the Middle Ages could cost a fortune. These weren't soft iron, and they did not bend when impacting the shield. They were too expensive, and too hard to build for them to be a fire-and-forget weapon. They'd salvage the ones that they could after the battle and re-use them. They had so much metal so that the opponent could not chop them off at the hilt. Iron would protrude from his shield, and he'd be unable to remove it before lines would clash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EVrKWXHO9U
Please watch this video in which he compares a cheap mass manufactured replica vs a handmade authentic pilum. It's clear that a lot of work went into constructing these, and that they were very, very efficient and dangerous weapons that could double as spears at a moment's notice. Everything from the tapered point, to the very thin tip, and the balance to achieve optimum results. After you watch that video, you can't come away thinking that plumbata were superior.
Not only that, but Ballista, and their handheld variants, started disappearing. Was the Ballista an ineffective weapon? It could hurl a bolt that could penetrate armor and pin a man to a tree at 1,500 yards. It's handheld copies came to dominant Europe and were so effective the Pope deemed them against Christendom. Cost, skill, and lost knowledge are the only reasons for those weapons to fall into disuse. The crossbow is one, if not the most, dominant weapon of the Middle Ages. Why was it abandoned by the Late Romans? Certainly not because of ineffectiveness. Europe reinvented the wheel; a weapon capable of penetrating the heaviest plate of its day.
The Scutum remains the best riot shield we use today. The oval shield, yes, has advantages on horseback...but also due to simplicity and cost. The Vikings used small round shields for their shield walls, even though their fighting style was similar to the Romans. I'm sure they'd have preferred the Scutum had they had the means, resources, and knowledge to produce them.
I'd also like to add that I think desertion rates were exponentially higher in the Late Empire than during Pax Romana. Desertion was something plagued the US army up until the mid 20th century, and most armies through history. People sometimes felt like going on, and would leave. The Late Empire's mercenary armies were probably more prone to this, and a soldier walking off with his kit consisting of darts, a small shield, a spear, and a simple sword was probably less costly than if they were to walk off with the kit of an early Legionnaire.
Please watch that video to understand how painstaking it was to construct a good pilum, and just how massively effective a pilum volley must have been. They seem to have had no problem piercing almost any obstacle of the day. Augustus loved his soldiers. He did not haphazardly equip them. I think we can assume that the Pax Romana legionnaire was the most effective fighting force up until gunpowder.
We have evidence for crossbows up to around 146ad and then they disappear until the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but that's what I was able to dig up. Why was such an effective weapon discontinued for 900 years?
Christopher Vidrine, 30
