Advantage of the Pilum over Bows and Arrows?

[Sardaukar]

My view of issue is that pilum was more of "shock" weapon than "fire" weapon, to use those terms.

Since Romans usually charged to melee right after pila volley, it's use was lot more integrated to their heavy infantry combat tactics than bow & arrow.

While bow & arrow, or older times javelins used by velites etc. or stones used by slingers, could be used to weaken enemy, they were rarely decisive weapons. Even when enemy was weakened by missile fire, it usually required infantry or cavalry charge to break the enemy and aquire victory.

So, in my view, bow, sling & javelin were support weapons, but pilum was integral part of main infantry effort and thus lot more than just support weapon.

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

My view of issue is that pilum was more of "shock" weapon than "fire" weapon, to use those terms.

Since Romans usually charged to melee right after pila volley, it's use was lot more integrated to their heavy infantry combat tactics than bow & arrow.

While bow & arrow, or older times javelins used by velites etc. or stones used by slingers, could be used to weaken enemy, they were rarely decisive weapons. Even when enemy was weakened by missile fire, it usually required infantry or cavalry charge to break the enemy and aquire victory.

So, in my view, bow, sling & javelin were support weapons, but pilum was integral part of main infantry effort and thus lot more than just support weapon.

Agree with that fully, the user of archers and pila are two totally seperate weapons to fill a different purpose, pila IMO were used to break a charge or expose an enemy before a charge. also as mentioned pila had more penetrating power, with the weight of the javalin and design... and as also mentioned above its kind of hard to have the same protection from a scuta when your having to use both hands to fire your bow!! however i suppose a legionary could have used his bow in a similar fashion to the way medieval pavise crossbowmen would have fought, proping the shield on the ground and hiding behind it while reloading, or in this case preparing another arrow to fire... dont have any evidence of that, but i imagine in most case as people have stated if you were an archers in the roman army that was most likely your only job!

[P. Clodius Secundus]

This topic reminds me of modern jounalists and reporters who continally refer to anything with a tracks, and a cannon as a tank. Slingers and archers are classic missile troops just like self-propelled artillery pieces (M7 Priest, Abbot, M109 Palladin, & such) they have the ability to kill at much greater range by firing over the heads of the front lines. Their projectiles may lack the massive kinetic energy to penetrate the frontal armor of the enemy but they can devastate troops in the open and deny the enemy use of large areas. This is called sometimes refered to as Deep Battle. Carrying only minimal armor and defensive weapons they are not intended to stand their ground against infantry or cavalry unless supported by their own heavy troops or anchored by fixed defenses or terrain. Pila are direct support weapons, more like anti-tank rockets (modern javelin, TOW, Sagger) or tank guns, than today's artillery. They are designed to defeat the heaviest armor at closer, line-of-sight range. This leaves the enemy infantry at a distinct disadvatage since, like tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the delivery systems (miles) have ample armor and secondary weaponry to slug it out toe-to-toe. To chalk and cheese, apples and oranges, I'd add javelin and bo staff. Both use a long stick, but in vastly different ways.

[Lucius Duccius Rufinus]

Randi,

Excellent analogy there! good way of saying "different tools for different jobs!"

[john m roberts]

It would make sense to cross-train legionaries with missile weapons other than the pilum because they were involved in many types of combat, not just open-field battle. When holding the center of the line in open battle, the front-line legionary had to concentrate solely on the pilum-scutum-gladius combination. When defending a fortress, on the other hand, he might well have the leisure to employ other weapons before resorting to the sword. To fire into a mass of enemy soldiers only a hundred feet away or less, he needn't be an expert archer or slinger, merely a competent one. When the enemy are in assault range, he can simply put down the bow or sling and resort to his close-quarter weapons. Wasn't there a pilum muralis specifically designed for defending walled forts?

[Sean Manning]

Isn't there a big difference between the types of bow? The Parthians, who used composite bows, were first superior to Roman legionaries, until the adapted themselves and added archers to their units. That would suggest that at least composite bows are superior. The same happened in the fifth century: if I understand it correctly, with all their missiles, the Roman cavalry forces were unable to deal with the Huns, and the Byzantines had to adapt to their opponent. By doing this,they overcame the Avars.

There is, but each technology allows a wide range of bows to be constructed. You can make a tall yew self bow with a draw weight of anywhere from 20 to 200 pounds for example. There are a variety of designs of composite bow with different strengths and weaknesses. The type of arrow used is also important ... longer or shorter ones allow longer or shorter draws, and lighter arrows are usually longer ranged but suited for weaker bows. I've seen it argued that bows got stronger around Parthian times and again in Avar times and the evidence seems reasonably good.

Parthian bows may have been stronger or more efficient than earlier bows, but I think the Romans lost at Carrae because they hadn't fought a whole army of horse-archers before and were out-generalled. I would guess that Parthian skill and tactics were more important than a difference between their bows and whatever Crassus's auxilliae used.

[Robert Vermaat]

"different tools for different jobs!"

I'd say that the plumbata could combine some parts of both tools.

[Robert]

The whole discussion should be about effective range. First, lightly armed archers drawn up in formation behind the infantry drawn up in ranks would pepper the enemy front line with arrows. Then as the enemy and the own infantry closes, there is a point where kills by friendly fire become a major risk. I estimate that distance at about 40 to 50 metres (height of infantry versus trajectory of a 50 # + bow). At that point, the archers switch point of aim (and perhaps even type of arrow, heavy bodkins to barbed trilobates or biblades) to the rear of the enemy formation and targets of oppertunity (officers leading from the back). At this point, the javelins (pila) carried by the infantry come into play. Shorter ranged, but packing more of a punch, they break up the advancing front line of the enemy, crashing through limb and shield alike. So basicly this a combinaton of weapon systems, each with their own use in the set combat of the first and part of the second century. So these are complimentary, there is no distinct advantage of one over the other, they go together very well in this type of combat situation.

[Astiryu1]

I know this is a little late but I myself have trained with Javelin and Bow. I like the uses of both for different reasons. The Bow has a much longer range than the Javelin and generally is more accurate. The Javelin on the other hand is much more powerful and is easier to use in close combat. I will say i am no expert in either but I have trained for a number of years in both. I have had recurves since I was 10 years old. The versatility of both is much greater than modern rifles or handguns in so far as capable of trajectory and silence plus I have never heard of a bow or javelin jamming.

[rocktupac]

Archeological evidence suggests that massed sling fire was used to repel a concerted attack by Frisians against the naval base at Velsen, possibly in 28 AD. I'm really not sure what troop type, legionaries or auxiliaries, would have manned a naval fort, but from what I understand the first wave of the attack was driven off, at least partially by slingshot fire, while a second wave of attack actually broke into the fort and was fought off, I assume, with hand-to-hand combat. The retreating Frisians were harassed with continued sling fire. It's tempting to suggest that whoever was manning the fort at Velsen was well trained in the use of the sling and armed for close combat at well.

Gregg

This reminds me of a story in Livy (31.39.12-13). The famed Cretan archers eventually drop their bows, since their arrows are useless against Roman shields, and resort to throwing stones instead.

[ParthianBow]

I would guess that Parthian skill and tactics were more important than a difference between their bows and whatever Crassus's auxilliae used.

Not quite true, IMO. Yes, the Parthians' skill and tactics were hugely important (successfully driving off/destroying all of Crassus' insufficient numbers of cavalry), but the power of their bows was also vital because they were powerful enough to drive arrows through the legionaries' scuta and into their flesh (as is described in the historical record). Without this incredible firepower, and if the Roman officers had retained control, the majority of the legions might, IMO, have been able to just march out of there.

[Sean Manning]

I would guess that Parthian skill and tactics were more important than a difference between their bows and whatever Crassus's auxilliae used.

Not quite true, IMO. Yes, the Parthians' skill and tactics were hugely important (successfully driving off/destroying all of Crassus' insufficient numbers of cavalry), but the power of their bows was also vital because they were powerful enough to drive arrows through the legionaries' scuta and into their flesh (as is described in the historical record). Without this incredible firepower, and if the Roman officers had retained control, the majority of the legions might, IMO, have been able to just march out of there.

I'm not sure that requires remarkably powerful bows. Plutarch describes soldiers whose hands had been pinned to their shields by arrows (Crassus 25.6). That wouldn't require very deep penetration of the shield. Godehart et al. were able to penetrate 5 cm into replica scuta with light Scythian bows drawn only 60 cm (although they did their tests at 12 m range ... possibly the Parthians weren't able to come so close for fear of the legionaries' javelins). The difference betwen barely penetrating a shield, and penetrating 6" or so and impaling arms and hands, might be fairly small.

Possibly the Parthians drew stronger bows than the Romans were used to, but part of that has to do with them being better archers than average. That said, I don't claim to be an expert on the Parthians. Agreed that most of the Romans might just have gotten away if they had kept together.

[ImperatorMachinarum]

First Post on RAT

I actually am fascinated by Roman Legions taking on mobile missile type forces. I have closely followed discussions on other boards where Chinese nationalists essentially postulate that the Han Army would have decimated Roman Legions due to crossbows possessing a decisive advantage. In conjunction with this, I hear references to Carrhae often enough.

The fact is that Rome eventually solved the Parthians. After all, Roman legions ultimately razed Ctesiphon, several times, with Parthian forces unable to stop the assault. I personally believe that in due time the Romans developed optimal combined arms tactics, adjusting to the serious threat of Parthian bows. I've read often enough that slingers were enough to keep horse mounted archers at bay, not to mention the legions possessing their own formidable missile assets. Likewise, Romans must have used optimal combinations of heavy and missile cavalry.

In the end, heavy infantry balanced by other combat arms allowed the Legions to close in with enemy main bodies. If enemies were wholly mobile, like the Parthians, well, then the enemy simply had to give way, hence Rome being able to capture Ctesiphon and other heartland cities several times. One way or the other, the Legions neutralized missile fires.

I truly believe Roman Legions would have done similarly against the Han Army, negating crossbows, closing in and applying the power of heavy infantry. This of course would have involved volleys of pilla and their ensuing shock. Indeed, it is no small irony that even today in the US military, the Infantry is considered the Queen of Battle. All other combat arms ultimately support the Infantry when it comes to defeating an enemy, as you must close with and destroy him, occupying terrain for a decisive win.

For me, heavy infantry augmented by combined arms is what made Roman Legions consistently the best fighting force of its day. It was irresistible in taking the fight to the enemy, particularly when pressuring cities, towns, and key terrain. Nomadic armies simply couldn't give engage such forces without heavy losses. Alexander the Great fought similarly against mobile steppe type forces like the Scythians.

Anyways, well met all.

[Astiryu1]

The modern Infantry unit is mainly archers now in the most general terms. The effective range of an M4 is about 300 meters. The Bayonet is for close combat and grenades have replaced the javelin. What we call battle now the ancients would call skirmishing. There are some exceptions but this is generally warfare now. I would love to see a heavy infantryman with full body armor ( ex:dragon armor), a riot shield and stun baton. This would make warfare a little more humane in my eyes. Bow= Long range concentrated fire ( sniper ) Javelin= Short range hindering/destructive fire. To replace a berserker I would have a man with a gas mask and CS grenades ( Tear Gas ) run into a mob pulling pins! :lol: Talk about shock troops!

[ImperatorMachinarum]

You make some good points. But it is interesting that even the modern US military has to engage in close combat in order to clear and seize terrain. Take for example the battle of Fallujah, where the US Marines went house to house, literally storming them under covering automatic and grenade fires.

Likewise, in ancient times, attacking an enemy center of gravity, say his cities, towns, forts, or critical terrain, was ultimately achieved by heavy infantry. The only exception might have been dealing with steppe peoples, whom don't present such static centers of gravity. Although a steppe force on the steppes might not be able to hurt a Legion reinforced with combined arms, it might be difficult for a Legion to force nomadic cavalry to fight on suitable terms.

I imagine this is why the Romans could ultimately conquer Parthian cities. Roman legions simply moved and stormed them, impervious to horse archers that could not close. Rome also had the geographic fortune to be situated such that horse forces would have to fight through heavy infantry, so it was more difficult the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, as missile forces were important. However, even in the US Civil War, guns could not stop infantry or cavalry charges. Missiles were not capable of totally stopping massed infantry coming after you...assuming you were fairly static.