Triple line

[Ironhand]

It is a logical idea, but a pretty thin untested one considering I don't know anyone who has chucked pilum or javelins at ranks of well armoured men with killing intent so its hard to say what exactly would have happened or the casualty rate. Its hard to just take purely from contemporary sources since it varies wildly in battles. Some battles javelins, slings, archers choose one seem to kill with incredible efficiency and others seem to have little effect. I'm sure all of us could name countless examples if we were to take either side. I think its hard to argue that pilum was ineffective since javelins / pilum were in widespread use for a very long time and combat tends to weed out what doesn't work. Still, not enough evidence to say just having pilum would have lead to a massacre in itself or would even be on the list of deciding factors. A good tool yes, but to focus on it too much is a bit naive and a mistake a lot of historians make in summing up ancient armies. Like most weapons it has to be used in a proper manner to be effective and I honestly don't see the pilum being the sole decider unless it came down to skirmishing units outmaneuvering a phalanx. I'm sure I'm missing a lot but hopefully on long hours with no sleep this post will make as much sense in writing as it does in my head. And I don't sound like a total idiot.

[Scipio Bristolus]

Interesting that it is quoted that the Macedonian spears could penetrate armour. Were these held two-handed with the shield strapped to a forearm? I'm comparing this to C17th descriptions that said that the (admittedly much longer) pike couldn't be driven through armour or a buff [leather] coat even by the strongest pikeman.

As to using swords 'n' shields against the phalanx, in the early C16th the Spanish used sword and buckler men (inspired by the Romans I think) with some success against landsknecht pike formations, such as at Ravenna, though they sometimes got flattened along with everybody else. So it is possible to get in amongst them.

[Tarbicus]

Interesting that it is quoted that the Macedonian spears could penetrate armour.

That might depend on whether you think all legionaries wore full blown hamata, or did they mostly wear a simple pectoral plate?

[Aryaman2]

Interesting that it is quoted that the Macedonian spears could penetrate armour. Were these held two-handed with the shield strapped to a forearm? I'm comparing this to C17th descriptions that said that the (admittedly much longer) pike couldn't be driven through armour or a buff [leather] coat even by the strongest pikeman. .

Can you please quote those descriptions of 17th centruy pikermen unable to pierce even buffcoats?

[hoplite07]

Imho, the phalanx isnt that easy to break and I dont see how throwing pila or using a spaced out 3 line formation is going to work against a Spartan phalanx in Thermopylae. I mean, its at least what, 8 ranks deep and approximately 35 men across in that narrow strip allowing no flanking. And now you think H2H sword combat alone could also pierce that? Come on now. You'd have to have superior numbers by like a factor of 5.

They say the pila bend on impact when they strike the enemy's shields, and they weigh them down so they can't use them. Well, if theyre so heavy then how were the Romans able to toss them like javelins? And the checkerboard formation was just designed to keep fresh troops up front quicker and easier, however, the Greek hoplites at Thermopylae didnt have a problem with this: They formed their own way of getting men up front in the middle of battle by making spaces within the ranks, and it worked effectively IMO knowing what happend there.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

thats not what i mean... i mean people getting pierced wounded by Pila will have to drop their stuff or fall over and i would love to see some pikemen try to march with pikes forward while several of them fall over, drop their pikes and fall against others in the rank...

my idea is a pila volley makes the initial distraction after which a swift attack from Roman side cancelles the entire use of the phalanx.. of course, some Romans will be pierced, and wounded, but since the mobility of a Roman Cohort is infinetly larger than that of any Phalanx, I do not believe a Phalanx can hold out for long with an all out assault by mobile Roman troops, ranging from Velites, Triarii to hastati........

M.VIB.M.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

The idea of the pila volley is attractive, however, IIRC Polybios never mentions such an effect and he is at pains to explain the Roman military system to the Greeks to explain why it won.

This suggests to me that it didn't have the effect that we, 2000+ years on, might think reasonable.

[M. Demetrius]

One of the great things that went in favor of the phalanx was the very effective shield and armor choices for the line. Pila might not have been as effective against convex bronze hulled aspides as against flat, leather covered Gaulish shields.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

That also is an option of course Demetrius, and well I must say i have an open mind concerning this so all info is welcome..

Of course a transcript of Polibyus or some other authors would be very welcome!

M.VIB.M.

[Tarbicus]

They say the pila bend on impact when they strike the enemy's shields, and they weigh them down so they can't use them.

Who says? And please quote primary sources. . :wink: Connolly did tests that prove the pila would go through the shield, and it was the shape of the head that meant it wouldn't be retracted. The examples of pila being thrown and hitting the grounf "I believe" broke, but they were only small examples cited by Caesar.

It's a good subject to raise again. I might be wrong. But only primary sources please. If a modern pilum is made to bend then it only means it's been designed to bend - it doesn't mean it's been forged and constructed like the Romans did.

[Hibernicus]

Thanks Michael for the reference to VIRTUS.. I will look up that book!

Legio IX has three "precepts" that we practice :

FIDELITAS - VIRTUS - MAGNANIMITAS

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

They say the pila bend on impact when they strike the enemy's shields, and they weigh them down so they can't use them.

Who says? And please quote primary sources. . :wink: Connolly did tests that prove the pila would go through the shield, and it was the shape of the head that meant it wouldn't be retracted. The examples of pila being thrown and hitting the grounf "I believe" broke, but they were only small examples cited by Caesar.

Well, Caesar does say in BG 1.25 that the iron parts of the Roman pila bent on impact and made Gallic scuta unusable (is this the example, Jim, you are referring to?). However, what was the case in the time of Caesar appears to be different from the earlier pila. Polybius 6.23.10-11 describes a pilum as a sturdy construction:

Each [pilum] is fitted with a barbed iron head of the same length as the haft. 11 This they attach so securely to the haft, carrying the attachment halfway up the latter and fixing it with numerous rivets, that in action the iron will break sooner than become detached, although its thickness at the bottom where it comes in contact with the wood is a finger's breadth and a half; such great care do they take about attaching it firmly.

It was Marius, who, according to Plutarch, Marius 25, introduced an innovation to the structure of the pilum so it would bend on impact, which implies that that was not the case before:

1...Marius introduced an innovation in the structure of the javelin. Up to this time, it seems, that part of the shaft which was let into the iron head was fastened there by two iron nails; but now, leaving one of these as it was, Marius removed the other, and put in its place a wooden pin that could easily be broken. 2 His design was that the javelin, after striking the enemy's shield, should not stand straight out, but that the wooden peg should break, thus allowing the shaft to bend in the iron head and trail along the ground, being held fast by the twist at the point of the weapon.

G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier, 58-59, suggests that Caesar rejected Marius' modification and instead left the iron part (except the point) non-tempered, and thus soft and liable to bend.

The bottom line of all this is that the evidence suggests that in time of the Macedonian wars pila were not designed to bend and did not bend.

[Tarbicus]

Another reference to pila 'mutating' into non-returnable goods was when the shaft was modified to break, not bend IIRC.

However, the 'bending' of the pilum mentioned by Caesar that had pierced multiple shields does not mean it was intended to bend, but as likely just a result of piercing so many shields. That's what Connolly thinks anyway, and I reckon he has a fair point. But if a pilum pierces a single shield it's nigh impossible to retract anyway, especially under battle conditions, so it makes the shield useless. No need to for it to bend.

[PMBardunias]

But if a pilum pierces a single shield it's nigh impossible to retract anyway, especially under battle conditions, so it makes the shield useless. No need to for it to bend.

In support of this point, I would note that if the weight of the pilum caused the shaft to bend, the bend would be OUTSIDE the shield. The part within the shield would not bend unless somehow leaned on- perhaps by tugging if it pierced two shields.

It is more likely the springiness of the wood held it fast than any notion that the pila shaft bent on the inside of the shield like a turned down nail.

[hoplite07]

Well if it renders the hoplites' shields useless, then yeah, I'd have to say the Romans win.