08-10-2004, 05:44 PM
Perry,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 8/10/04 7:55 pm<br></i>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 8/10/04 7:55 pm<br></i>
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
