Latinitas`s questions topic for his school report

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

And there I thought I had Plutarch pegged as unimpeachable - oh prunes!

[Matthew Amt]

Here I am going to agree with you, and disagree with Matthew Amt about bending on impact......mainly because in the next issue of 'Ancient Warfare' magazine, I have written an article mainly about the pilum in the age of Marius, but in it point out that the ancient texts refer to pila bending on attempts to extract them ( not on impact)

Ah, okay, that does sound familiar!

and that modern tests by Peter Connolly show that even the thinnest pila do not bend on impact

Well, that's weird, because my pila have bent several times, on impact. And I don't think their shanks are any thinner than the cross-sections we've found in JRMES and other sources. On one memorable occasion, I threw my pilum at a repro Roman shield (made of layered strips of thin birch plywood, faced with thin leather), and it pierced the shield, *split* the 2x4 post that the shield was leaning against, and bent. It was a little scary.

...in other words, pila were NOT designed to bend, even if sometimes they did...

I actually tend to agree with this. Bending is just a handy side-effect of the thinner styles, and helps prevent their kindly return by the enemy.

Definitely looking forward to your article!

Valete,

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Matt wrote:

And I don't think their shanks are any thinner than the cross-sections we've found in JRMES and other sources. On one memorable occasion, I threw my pilum at a repro Roman shield (made of layered strips of thin birch plywood, faced with thin leather), and it pierced the shield, *split* the 2x4 post that the shield was leaning against, and bent. It was a little scary.

It split a 2" (50mm) x 4" (100mm)post?? AFTER penetrating a shield??hock: hock: That's an awesome demonstration of the penetration and power potential of the pila!!

Did it bend on impact, or after jamming in the wood, or after falling out following splitting the wood?? In any event, no surprise that it should bend in those circumstances!

One very important reason to not want the shank to bend or buckle on impact, is the simple physics - bending/buckling absorbs some of the force ( expended in deforming, instead of acting hammer-like in penetrating - think of trying to hammer a bent nail, or the force absorbing 'crumple zones' on a modern car).

[Matthew Amt]

It split a 2" (50mm) x 4" (100mm)post?? AFTER penetrating a shield??hock: hock: That's an awesome demonstration of the penetration and power potential of the pila!!

Yup. More like 40x90mm, since a "two-by-four" is only about 1-1/2"x3-1/2" these cheap days, but still... And I was not very far away, but I'm only a desk jockey!

Did it bend on impact, or after jamming in the wood, or after falling out following splitting the wood?? In any event, no surprise that it should bend in those circumstances!

It had to have bent after hitting the post. Trying to recall, but the point of bending must have been where it went through the shield. And it didn't fall out of the wood, in fact it was a little struggle getting it loose without risking more bending--I didn't want to break it! I probably took it home and heated it with my propane torch to straighten it. It's still serving just fine. Mind you, the post wasn't broken in half or anything, but it was a definite lengthwise split. I always say, "Imagine that's your *femur*..."

One very important reason to not want the shank to bend or buckle on impact, is the simple physics - bending/buckling absorbs some of the force ( expended in deforming, instead of acting hammer-like in penetrating - think of trying to hammer a bent nail, or the force absorbing 'crumple zones' on a modern car).

Oh, absolutely! The bending has to be the last effect, after the penetration and "reach", most likely the effect of the leverage of the shaft. "Give me a pilum and a place to throw it, and I will poke a hole in the world!" Isn't that the quote?...

Matthew

[D B Campbell]

The second meaning is, I believe, though others do not - Robert and I debated this at length - a 'thrown weapon' and derives from the Greek 'Akontis' - a verb meaning 'thrown or hurled' and secondarily 'strikes or hits'.

I'm no expert, but it looks as if you are confusing the ἄκων (and its diminutive, ἀκόντιον, akontion), a javelin so named because it has been sharpened to a point (ἀκή; the verb ἀκονάω means "sharpen", not thrown or hurled).

[PMBardunias]

One very important reason to not want the shank to bend or buckle on impact, is the simple physics -

You beat me to it! The pila can only bend on the outside of the shield, where the mass of the haft pulls it downwards. Obviously this does not jibe with the all too commonly seen image of the pila bent like a fishook on the inside of the shield, but there is a way to reconcile it.

Imagine what happens next after your shield has been penetrated by a pila and the metal shaft as bent at the point it pierced your shield. The first thing you do is grab the wooden haft, lifting it in order to pull it free. If you bring the haft up, when it was bent to the ground, and there is any wiggle-room for the shaft, this then turns the point past the bend inside your shield down. Voila! the pila is bent inside your sheld. You could not pull this out unless you held the pila angled down like a dental instument.

[Paullus Scipio]

="D B Campbell" post=283351]

The second meaning is, I believe, though others do not - Robert and I debated this at length - a 'thrown weapon' and derives from the Greek 'Akontis' - a verb meaning 'thrown or hurled' and secondarily 'strikes or hits'.

I'm no expert, but it looks as if you are confusing the ἄκων (and its diminutive, ἀκόντιον, akontion), a javelin so named because it has been sharpened to a point (ἀκή; the verb ἀκονάω means "sharpen", not thrown or hurled).

When it comes to Ancient Greek, I am even less of an "expert" than you, which is probably why you kindly take the trouble to constantly 'correct' my usage of Greek words.

My poor Greek is why I resort to asking those familiar with Ancient Greek, as well as various dictionaries and lexicons,and in this instance, I am not at all confused.

The verb root 'akontis/akontiz/akontwz' does indeed literally mean 'to throw/hurl a javelin/missile', and is so used hundreds of times in Greek Literature, e.g Xenophon 'Scripta Minora' Horsemanship VIII.10 or Cyropaedia IV.3.12 .

There are many other derivations from this root including 'akontisma'= a javelin throw ; 'akontistes'= javelin thrower or javelin-man; 'akontistikos'=skilled in javelin throwing etc etc, again all used very frequently in Greek Literature.(Xenophon, Appian,Polybius, Plutarch, Strabo etc)

Paul B. wrote

You beat me to it! The pila can only bend on the outside of the shield, where the mass of the haft pulls it downwards. Obviously this does not jibe with the all too commonly seen image of the pila bent like a fishook on the inside of the shield, but there is a way to reconcile it.

Imagine what happens next after your shield has been penetrated by a pila and the metal shaft as bent at the point it pierced your shield. The first thing you do is grab the wooden haft, lifting it in order to pull it free. If you bring the haft up, when it was bent to the ground, and there is any wiggle-room for the shaft, this then turns the point past the bend inside your shield down. Voila! the pila is bent inside your sheld. You could not pull this out unless you held the pila angled down like a dental instument.

As I mentioned earlier, Peter Connolly found, in repeated tests over years, that even the thinner, later pila with tapered shanks did not generally bend, nor was it necessary for bending to take place to render a pilum that had penetrated a shield difficult if not impossible to extract. The earlier flat barbed points, with short thick shanks did not bend, and the barbs made it very difficult to extract. Similarly the later 'pyramid' point was also all but impossible to extract after penetration. In both cases, following penetration of the head, the wood of the shield tended to swell around the shank.

Having said this, as Matt has pointed out, this was not a priority with the pilum and very much a secondary effect. This can be most readily seen with the lighter socketed variety of pilum, the vast majority of which seem to have been 'needle' or 'pin' pointed. This produced maximum penetration under the reduced impact velocities at long range, but was of course easy to extract, but this does not seem to have perturbed the Romans at all.....

[D B Campbell]

I'm no expert, but it looks as if you are confusing the ἄκων (and its diminutive, ἀκόντιον, akontion), a javelin so named because it has been sharpened to a point (ἀκή; the verb ἀκονάω means "sharpen", not thrown or hurled).

For completeness, I should have added that the host of words derived from akôn/akontion simply mean "doing what you do with a javelin" -- e.g. ἀκόντισις comes to mean "javelin throwing", although it really means javelin-using; ἀκοντίζω comes to mean "throw a javelin" or "strike with a javelin" (depending on the context), although it literally means use a javelin; and so on.

Really just a warning that it has nothing to do with contus or kontos, as suggested earlier in the thread. In case anyone gets confused. Now, back on track ...

[Paullus Scipio]

D. Campbell wrote:

Really just a warning that it has nothing to do with contus or kontos, as suggested earlier in the thread. In case anyone gets confused. Now, back on track ...

I guess you are obviously unfamiliar with the debate Robert and I had over the use of the word 'kontos' in Arrian's "Ectaxis kata Alanon" - but no, you corrected my usage and incorrect interpretation of the word 'kontois' in that very thread, ( inter alia) so perhaps you have simply forgotten.

The Greek word 'kontos'( in the sense of javelin) can have usage as meaning 'pilum', just as 'pilum' is translated as javelin in English, and there are several other authors writing Roman History in Greek, or using the Greek word 'kontos' in a context that can really only refer to a 'pilum'.

In the event it would appear 'kontos' can mean :-
1. A large pole (bargepole) used by Triremes etc to fend off
2. A slang name derived from the above to describe a 12 ft cavalry lance of steppe nomad origin with a thicker, stiffer, shaft hence used two-handed.
3. As a translation into Greek (javelin) of the Latin word 'pilum' e.g. as used by Arrian etc - or see for example Vegetius referred to ante....

D. Campbell wrote:

"comes to mean "throw a javelin" or "strike with a javelin" (depending on the context)..."

I see, we now agree that the root verb can mean throw or strike with reference to a javelin depending on context, but earlier you wrote:

"the verb ἀκονάω means "sharpen", not thrown or hurled)."

(my emphasis) and I who wrote:

"a verb meaning 'thrown or hurled' and secondarily 'strikes or hits'."

It seems we are now in happy accord!

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

"...(T)here are several ... authors writing Roman History in Greek, or using the Greek word 'kontos' in a context that can really only refer to a 'pilum'.

As someone whose (probably foolish) ambition is to attempt to study both languages over the next few years, I find this thought the most challenging.

It rather seems as if our ancient sources address audiences who are interested in events, narratives, characters and situations; not necessarily the exactness of terminology.

These sources seem rather like media reporters, indifferent to whether their meanings will date or not. There seem to be assumptions, on the part of these ancient writers, that "whether I call a spear by a name I think is momentarily appropriate (say, "kontos") or by another doesn't matter as long as my audience, which is generally familiar with the technology of the times, receives a mental picture of a lancea or a pilum (or whatever it is I want them to image) based on the situation I describe to them."

Trying to picture the audiences of Vegetius and Ammianus (the latter I have only really read in the Penguin translation) I get the impression they (the audiences) are of a world which was not, in the authors' minds, ever going to change substantially. It was, then, fair enough to lay some assumptions on the audiences.

And on us too - hoo boy :|.

[Paullus Scipio]

"...(T)here are several ... authors writing Roman History in Greek, or using the Greek word 'kontos' in a context that can really only refer to a 'pilum'.

As someone whose (probably foolish) ambition is to attempt to study both languages over the next few years, I find this thought the most challenging.

It rather seems as if our ancient sources address audiences who are interested in events, narratives, characters and situations; not necessarily the exactness of terminology.

These sources seem rather like media reporters, indifferent to whether their meanings will date or not. There seem to be assumptions, on the part of these ancient writers, that "whether I call a spear by a name I think is momentarily appropriate (say, "kontos") or by another doesn't matter as long as my audience, which is generally familiar with the technology of the times, receives a mental picture of a lancea or a pilum (or whatever it is I want them to image) based on the situation I describe to them."

Trying to picture the audiences of Vegetius and Ammianus (the latter I have only really read in the Penguin translation) I get the impression they (the audiences) are of a world which was not, in the authors' minds, ever going to change substantially. It was, then, fair enough to lay some assumptions on the audiences.

And on us too - hoo boy :|.

I'd agree broadly with this......though as ever the picture is even more complicated by the fact that some writers were militarily knowledgable ( e.g. Xenophon, Polybius and Arrian) while others were the equivalent of 'tabloid' journalists ( Seutonius, Procopius' "Secret Histories").

Nor is the phenomenon restricted to ancient times - how many times on TV or in newspapers have you seen reporters refer to "Tanks", with reference to ANY armoured vehicle from tracked armoured personnel carriers, to wheeled but turreted armoured cars, or even wheeled lighly armoured vehicles?

One can picture some thesis of the future; "When is a 'Tank' not a 'Tank' ?" describing how the word originally had a specific meaning, but later evolved to mean/refer to any generic armoured vehicle......:wink: :-) :grin: :lol:

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

"One can picture some thesis of the future; "When is a 'Tank' not a 'Tank' ?" describing how the word originally had a specific meaning, but later evolved to mean/refer to any generic armoured vehicle"

And, of course, that's happening in front of us now, isn't it, with all the reporting from Cairo?

As a former (secondary school) teacher, I have a rather jaundiced view of today's journalists and their output. In the "good old days", when an education seemed just that and not job-training farmed out to schools by employer-lobbied governments, journos seemed to have a greater respect for language and the need to occasionally be precise with it.

Which makes me wonder about antique writers post 3rd Century AD. And I know - apologies - this is drifting off-topic, but I wonder is it reasonable to think that the institutions in which one might obtain a creditable education in the empire were disrupted and degraded from the 3rd Century onwards? If so, would it also be reasonable to expect an increase in imprecisely- or even inaccurately-applied terminology (including military terminology) in the writings of later antiquity?

Poor Latinitas! You asked for answers and you got questions. But that's good too .

[Latinitas]

So my computer works again since it has crashed. Thanks for the previous answers, I`ve worked it out in the report.

Now I`m making a section about the different ranks of a centuria, but some things need to be better worked out. I would like to ask those things point by point:

- What is the watchword of the tesserarius? Based on what I`ve read, I would conclude that this is the order of the commandant, rather than a password or something. Is that true?
- Did the trumpet players (like the cornicen, tubicen and bucinator) wear bear skins?
- Were the trumpet players part of the principales?
- What was a cornu used for? It seems there is no consensus about it(?)
- what was a tuba used for? It seems there is no consensus about it too(?)
- Is it true that a bucina was used to announce watches?

BTW: some people think there is no difference between the bucina and the cornu, but based on the link below and Vegetius and my Latin dictionary, this opinion may be incorrect. Link: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...ccina.html

It may be a lot of questions, but hopefully those details, when worked out, will make my work better and better. Thanks in advance .