Login

08-07-2004, 07:16 PM

Natuspardo, 
 
Let me know if you need help with your thesis, even if only to proofread. I want to use this battle as an example of typical Roman engagement in my book on Romano-Byzantine armies. 
 
Perry

Crispvs · 08-10-2004, 05:44 PM

Perry, 
 
I'm not the late Roman expert that Robert and Aitor are and I have never read most of the literary sources for the period, but I think that most of us are familiar with the fourth century Gamzigrad tombstone, which shows a sword-less infantryman in an Intercissa helmet armed with a spear. This is not to say that I agree with I.P. Stephenson however. I was severely disappointed when I read his book. It is neither about the late empire or particularly well informed. I believe it was written immediately after Stephenson had finished university. 
 
I do not necessarily feel that there is any reason to argue over whether or not the pilum was still in use when we know that the form of the pilum changed considerably over time and Vegetius specifically mentions the spiculum as having formerly been known as the pilum. If the pilum varied between contemporary examples (as we know it did) then surely it follows that anything which is 'pilum-like' is just a pilum under a different name. Whatever the size and exact shape, if the principle of the design is the same the it should be considered as the same weapon. As regards the ability of the pilum to bend or break, I am inclined to think that this is a factoid based on two references to something which may have been a 'good idea at the time' but not of lasting benefit. The first reference is in Plutarch's life of Marius, when he says that Marius had noticed that pila were not bending on contact with the enemy and so therefore he decided that one of the rivets should be replaced with a baked dowel which would snap on contact, meaning that the head would fall sideways after contact, making it useless to throw back. The second reference is (I believe, although I do not remember reading it myself in either BG or BC, but then it's been a long time) in Caesar, when he says that the shanks were left untempered below the heads. These two literary references have to be held up against the archaeological evidence. The pila excavated at Alesia and Numantia (thus covering the same period as Marius and Caesar) have tangs which are equipped with flanges which seem specifically designed to stop the pilum head from slipping sideways and at least one has a collet, which would also prevent sideways movement. These tangs also have two iron rivets. The Oberaden pila, of Augustan date, are fixed by three rivets through the tangs (presumably to prevent movement) and also have collets. A number of collets, probably from pila, have also been found at Kalkriese. To this evidence we may add practical experimentation. Peter Connolly has done a good deal of practical experimentation with reconstructed pila and has concluded that if the shank were able to bend or break, the weapon would be unlikely to be able to achieve penetration. It is worth noting that on the Oberaden pila the diameter of the shanks at the point of contact with the tangs is about the same as the maximum diameter of the heads, thus meaning that if the head could penetrate an object then the entire length of the shank potentially could too, and here we may recall Caesar's reference to pila giong through two shields at once and pinning them together. 
The attempts by Marius and Caesar (and possibly no-one in between or after) to make the pilum break or bend on contact do not reflect the purpose of the weapon but are (possibly unrelated) attempts to stop the weapons being thrown back again before the armies had closed. The excavated examples and Connolly's experiments argue against bending or breaking having been the design principle of the pilum and Caesar's reference to pinning shields together so that they had to be thrown away may bring us closer to the real purpose of the pilum and its later variants. Sorry that this discussion has referred mainly to the first century BC in what is supposed top be a 'late' thread but I hope you will agree that it is relevant. 
 
Crispvs Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 8/10/04 7:55 pm

08-11-2004, 10:12 PM

Thank you for the input Crispus. 
 
There are pitfalls in accepting a single source such as the Gamzigrad without comparing it to other evidence. If Stephenson used this one gravestone upon which to base his theory, then I would be hesitant to trust anything that he says. 
 
Connolly's practical approach has my respect because it does help to determine the possible characteristics of the equipment. Of interest, I just happened to see him in a documentary on female gladiators last night. He was interviewed in a room full of his reproductions. 
 
Your use of earlier evidence is good as we often have to compare evidence with what came before and after plus what was happening in related areas. 
 
I found another supporter of the theory that the Roman infantryman was a spearman. I refer to Hugh Elton author of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œWarfare In Roman Europe 350-425 ADÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Crispvs · 08-16-2004, 07:57 PM

Don't get me wrong. I am not one of the 'late Romans were exclusively spearmen' types. Too many Roman-manufactured swords have been found in northern European bog deposits (along with the well known example from Cologne) to believe that the Romans were no longer interested in swords. We know that the Romans could be intensive in their recycling of iron and the fact that most late Roman swords come from beyond the boundaries of the empire is likely to simply reflect the fact that by being used as votive deposits these swords were taken out of the cycle of manufacture and recycling that most other swords probably both appeared and disappeared in. I cited the Gamzigrad tombstone simply as evidence that at least one soldier seems to have been equipped with a spear and no sword. I do not consider that this means that every other soldier was equipped in this way. 
 
Crispvs

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me