10-29-2011, 05:40 PM
Dear board,
I've been considering adding a pilum to my arsenal of Roman weapons, but am wondering which one to chose. The current options are from Armae, found under http://www.armae.com/antiquite/115bouclierslances.htm .
a) SP159 http://www.armae.com/antiquite/boucliers...romain.htm is the slightly more expensive option, advertised as fully functional, and features two rivets (which I believe is historically correct).
b) SP161 http://www.armae.com/antiquite/boucliers...usteen.htm , with three rivets, slightly smaller, and more difficult to transport, though other suppliers seem to sell it as a kit, with the iron part separate from the shaft. It's smaller (total 210, iron 62 against total 220, iron 80 for SP159), but heavier (2 kg against 1,45 kg) than the first choice.
My preference would, currently, be for SP159, but I'd like to hear opinions on historical accuracy, quality and ease of assembly/disassembly for transport before committing to either one. Any and all commentaries are welcome!
I've been considering adding a pilum to my arsenal of Roman weapons, but am wondering which one to chose. The current options are from Armae, found under http://www.armae.com/antiquite/115bouclierslances.htm .
a) SP159 http://www.armae.com/antiquite/boucliers...romain.htm is the slightly more expensive option, advertised as fully functional, and features two rivets (which I believe is historically correct).
b) SP161 http://www.armae.com/antiquite/boucliers...usteen.htm , with three rivets, slightly smaller, and more difficult to transport, though other suppliers seem to sell it as a kit, with the iron part separate from the shaft. It's smaller (total 210, iron 62 against total 220, iron 80 for SP159), but heavier (2 kg against 1,45 kg) than the first choice.
My preference would, currently, be for SP159, but I'd like to hear opinions on historical accuracy, quality and ease of assembly/disassembly for transport before committing to either one. Any and all commentaries are welcome!
M. Caecilius M.f. Maxentius - Max C.
Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493
Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)
Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493
Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)