Advantage of the Pilum over Bows and Arrows?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Mate,

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.

Ancient tactics and modern tactics are incomparable. Modern suppressing fire and that of ancient times are totally incomparable due to range and power. A stedy shield wall could hold out against much if not all missiles (save field artillery), walls could only be scaled or undermined. Totally different from what the US military can do today.

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.

Towns were centres of gravity especially in the East, because logistics would be centred there. Roman heavy infantry never 'simply moved and stormed' Parthian cities - only those that could be besieged for a long time could be taken. Hatra (I think I recall) was stormed but the Romans were heavily defeated, and other towns wee also never conquered. Most town in the East were won or lost by treaties.

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.

I don't understand that. Could you elaborate?

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.

Guns can, when you hve enough of them with enough range. Machine guns are even better. Arrows may not be able to stop an enemy dead, but they can stop movement. Arrows combined with massed javelin fire can stop an enemy, especially cavalry. If you continue to put heavy misslie fire on an enemy during battle (which was the Roman way), you can prohibit that enemy from moving around (the flanks), charging or putting enough power in the push forward.

[Robert]

Robert has a very valid point there. Read up on WWI and the use of well placed machineguns, stopping any and all massed infantry attack by simply wiping them all out. The English were very succesfull repelling massed Zulu attack with concentrated fire. The machinegun totally changed the way infantry could be deployed against defensive positions.

[Astiryu1]

I believe a volley of stones,javelins and arrows could be quite disconcerting to charge as well ! Defending cities really changed in WW2 when the German Luftwaffe simply flew over the French Maginot Line. Until that period fighting was still infantry based. I do completely understand having to have boots on the ground but most decisive battles are in the air in modern warfare. Even the Romans fought decisive engagements at sea ; for instance the Naval battle between Mark Antony and Octavian ( Actium if I am not mistaken ). Though in retrospect D-Day was mostly about the Infantry. I am looking for more info on the Romans entering Britain. I understand there are conflicting theories on whether it was invasion or a diplomatic takeover. I have read some of what is on RAT but haven't found much.

[Astiryu1]

Ancient tactics and modern tactics are incomparable. Modern suppressing fire and that of ancient times are totally incomparable due to range and power. A stedy shield wall could hold out against much if not all missiles (save field artillery), walls could only be scaled or undermined. Totally different from what the US military can do today.

Walls could also be bored through. The Assyrians I believe had a auger like device (just bigger) to roll up to a wall and do it's thing until a hole big enough for a man to get through was there. There is also the onager that after repeated shots to one point on the wall could make a hole. I haven't found any scource materials on that actually happening but believe it did.

Please correct me If I am wrong as my basis is Rome:Total War. It works so well in the game that it would be a travesty if no one ever tried it in real life.

Robert has a very valid point there. Read up on WWI and the use of well placed machineguns, stopping any and all massed infantry attack by simply wiping them all out. The English were very succesfull repelling massed Zulu attack with concentrated fire. The machinegun totally changed the way infantry could be deployed against defensive positions.

Agincourt comes to mind. Massed English Longbow attacks against the French Cavalry wiped them out. That day was a bad day to be a horse.

[ImperatorMachinarum]

Ancient tactics and modern tactics are incomparable. Modern suppressing fire and that of ancient times are totally incomparable due to range and power. A stedy shield wall could hold out against much if not all missiles (save field artillery), walls could only be scaled or undermined. Totally different from what the US military can do today.

One: Ancient and modern tactics are absolutely comparable in certain respects, particularly when it comes to studying principles of combined arms, synchronization, speed, shock, and depth. The US War College has produced many papers on such topics, one in particular that I recall describing how Alexander the Great defeated mobile Scythian forces. The technology of war obviously changes, but space and time are always important within technological constraints.

Two: I actually think you are reinforcing my point, no puns intended, about the heavy infantry being effective in the Roman times. I merely bought up a modern example to highlight the importance of infantry in actually winning battles and even wars. Again, I was not at all comparing weapons capabilities in their respective eras against the said infantry.

Towns were centres of gravity especially in the East, because logistics would be centred there. Roman heavy infantry never 'simply moved and stormed' Parthian cities - only those that could be besieged for a long time could be taken. Hatra (I think I recall) was stormed but the Romans were heavily defeated, and other towns wee also never conquered. Most town in the East were won or lost by treaties.

Roman forces took cities like Ctesiphon many times. Nobody really knows how they were able to do this from a tactical and technological point of view. I am hypothesizing that once the Romans applied lessons from Carrhae, their heavy infantry could not be effectively opposed. They must have used a combination of missile and cavalry forces to keep Parthian horse archers at bay. One way or the other, the Romans solved the Parthians. I doubt it was all by treaty.

I don't understand that. Could you elaborate?

I was trying to point out that invading Rome with pure horse mounted archers was bound to fail, mostly because the terrain would force cavalry to have to fight through heavy infantry. On the other hand, invading Parthia involved traversing vast flat spaces, allowing horse archers greater mobility and freedom.

Guns can, when you hve enough of them with enough range. Machine guns are even better. Arrows may not be able to stop an enemy dead, but they can stop movement. Arrows combined with massed javelin fire can stop an enemy, especially cavalry. If you continue to put heavy misslie fire on an enemy during battle (which was the Roman way), you can prohibit that enemy from moving around (the flanks), charging or putting enough power in the push forward.

The Civil War did not feature small arms advanced enough to stop an infantry charge. Trust me, I fully understand what modern crew served and light machine guns can do. :wink: Again, my point was to highlight the long standing effectiveness of infantry, especially before the onset of modern firearms. That is why conflicts up to that point featured massed infantry charges.

Finally, I think you're once again reinforcing my overall point by citing how cavalry can be stopped by arrows, javelins, and...by inference...massed heavy infantry. That for me was for a long time a critical Roman advantage, lots of well trained, well armed, disciplined heavy infantry. I believe that is why Rome ultimately got the better of the Parthians...and why Rome could invade Parthia but Parthia could not invade Rome successfully. All things being equal, infantry augmented with combined arms in older teams were more potent than pure cavalry forces.

[Sean Manning]

Robert has a very valid point there. Read up on WWI and the use of well placed machineguns, stopping any and all massed infantry attack by simply wiping them all out. The English were very succesfull repelling massed Zulu attack with concentrated fire. The machinegun totally changed the way infantry could be deployed against defensive positions.

Agincourt comes to mind. Massed English Longbow attacks against the French Cavalry wiped them out. That day was a bad day to be a horse.

At Agincourt the single French cavalry attack was broken up by archery and a barricade of stakes. The archery alone wasn't enough, even though the cavalry were greatly outnumbered by the archers. Its not clear how many men and horses were killed, and it doesn't really matter because the cavalry were no longer an organized fighting force.

Anyways, Robert was talking about infantry attacks.

[Astiryu1]

Infantry in towns are generally superior to cavalry. Horses love open spaces and would be rather skittish and prone to panic in close conditions especially with battle. This would force the opposing cavalry to either dismount losing their main advantage or charge which was unlikely. That is my theory of the breakdown of the horse archer against Heavy Infantry. At least in towns and cities. Another aspect is horses get used to sights and smells and by linkage people. The different culture alone at close quarters could unnerve the horse. My example on smells comes from a Nam vet that would eat only rice and local animals so his feces would closely match that of the V.C. a paranoid guy but right on the money in enemy territory. He claims also that he cooked with C4 because it was odorless and smokeless but I haven't gotten to try that myself D
Anyway the horse has better smelling senses than we do. Training would play a role but there are breaking points in us as well as the horse. The US military as far as I know encourages soldiers to use Video Games, Movies and Books to improve understanding of military tactics. I remember in Basic Training being required to read Black Hawk Down and watching Enemy at the Gates. I liked those anyway and already picked them apart to some extent. The drll sergeant actually
smiled when he saw my notebook; then gave me push ups. Good Times,Good Times!

On the Agincourt topic I was referring to many missles at once no matter what they are fired from are very dangerous fired into an approaching force. The longbow is not a machine gun but the result would have been fairly similar. Lots of dead people and horses. The same could be said about any massed projectile.
Unless you are a nameless hero :lol:

[Paullus Scipio]

He claims also that he cooked with C4 because it was odorless and smokeless but I haven't gotten to try that myself . Not in the camping isle at Wal-Mart

...quite right too! The U.S. (and Australian) army used 'hexy' for cooking ( hexamine tablets - which you can get in Camping stores...

Unfortunately, they give off a strong smell of parafin, detectable a long way away ....

C4 is a great alternative, for the reasons given....and it burns considerably fiercer and hotter too !
You can boil a dixie of water in no time.....but don't turn your back on it, or you'll find that the bottom of the dixie has melted......!!!

[Astiryu1]

Friggin" Awesome!!!!!!!

Thank You for that I was hoping it was true.

I have rigged C4 in basic but it was a VERY controlled substance for obvious reasons.

Claymores are fun too; both kinds!

In my current camping as the Aussies say "No Worries" in regards to the enemy. But in Los Angeles I was homeless for a time and relied on sterno cans. It has a faint smell but no smoke. The smells of L.A. were much more noticeable.

But back to subject does anyone have a list of Joules per weapon maybe? Cross referencing that with range would pretty much settle it i think.

[Sean Manning]

But back to subject does anyone have a list of Joules per weapon maybe? Cross referencing that with range would pretty much settle it i think.

Hi Astiryu,

Don't forget that throwing spears and bows are good for different things. And the energy of a particular bow or javelin depends on who is throwing it, what type of arrow or javelin it is, and so on. Measuring things like that is definitely useful, but its always a bit fuzzy for low-tech weapons, and range and energy aren't the only factors.

I would be interested if anyone has done experiments with Roman-style bows! Peter Connolly did some experiments with one style of pilum and found that they were good for piercing shields, but that the "sticking into shields and weighing them down without penetrating" thing is probably a myth.

Sean

[Astiryu1]

Oh yes I completely understand I throw my javelins 2 to 3 times farther than my friends. Training helps but so does body type.
Length of arms and legs determine cast and power. Height would have a slight affect as well. I have done some research on modern Olympic javelin and hammer toss. They do have some great findings. But these are top of the line athletes. That just gives one something to aim for.

[ImperatorMachinarum]

I have seen a few studies about ancient and middle age missile weapons used against armor. Almost all of them tested bodkin point arrowheads. As you might imagine, findings are inconclusive, with many liberties taken with crafting and implementing the weapons and armor.

Moreover, there are difficulties applying any findings to estimating outcomes of battles in ancient times. I doubt that most ancient forces could make weaponry of consistent quality and leverage them with precision. For example, I typically hear Han Empire fans catalog a list of missile weapons that are superior to their Roman counterparts in range and force...with Han armies maximizing such standoff distance. I hear the same from Parthian fans with their bows.

There is just no way that a difference of a dozen meters of so in missile weaponry could be effectively exploited during the fog of a fast moving battle between foes on the offensive. It's not like they had laser range finders and GPS back then to inform archers of when the enemy was at stand-off.

:wink:

I imagine that missile forces made judgment calls, hoping to kill and disrupt as much of the enemy as possible. I definitely believe that such effectiveness was limited against heavy infantry, given the longevity of the latter throughout history. At the end of the day, the most decisive factors were military professionalism in leadership, tactics, and using the right force mix. It wasn't so much about a single weapons system, be it a gladius, pilum, or what not.

[Astiryu1]

As a "General Rule". If I were to lead a force into combat of any type I would want to know the capabilities of my group. Contests of skill are not unknown in most units and it would make sense to reward those who excelled. Training gives a good chance for all of these factors to come to bear. Personal skills vary but with a little practice a leader would know when to say "let 'er rip' within a couple of meters or so.

One question for Greek style javelins what are the specifications, ( length, weight, type of materials, etc. ) Thanks!

[Sardaukar]

While not really on topic (nor right period even), interesting article about arrows vs. different armours:

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci ... esting.pdf

Sorry if this has been posted before, I stumbled into it on other forum. 8)

[Astiryu1]

Link doesn't work for me but I am interested.