Which pilum to chose

[M. Caecilius]

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!

[M. Demetrius]

Shouldn't the collar be a separate piece from the shaft/tang? It looks like they have welded or otherwise fastened the two together. Nice metalwork, though, to be sure.

[M. Caecilius]

Well spotted. This looks rather strange - does anyone know the pilum "in hand" to clarify this?

If the second pilum is the same as Depeeka AH3526N (cf http://www.history-revisited.de/detail/i...anze-pilum for the image of the disassembled pilum, https://www.armamentaria.com/store/index...ucts_id=77 for other images), the collar would be separate, which would certainly boost the option b.

The latter raises another question, though: the German seller specifically mentions that the pilum uses screws rather than rivets, and advises to hammer them flat to give a more accurate appearance; Armamentaria speaks of rivets, as does Armae (though the images show the bottom-end spike to be fixed by a screw).

[M. Caecilius]

I've been able to find a few feedbacks on AH3526N now, amongst other on this board. (http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...&id=189583), and an analysis at http://legvi.tripod.com/armamentarium/id250.html , both of which tend to praise the pilum in terms of quality and historical accuracy. Option b) it is, then.

[PhilusEstilius]

Where I am looking at some of these Pilum that are shown in the links I suspect that some have the woodshaft made from two pieces of wood and should of course be made from one piece.
This is where many make a pilum the easy way by just fitting a thick dowl rod into a block at the top of the shaft.
It becomes so much more authentic to make the whole woodshaft from one piece of wood, this is not a difficult thing to do but there is a bit more wastage of wood in the trimming down of the shaft.
The Ferrule on the top end of the shaft would not I think be welded nor indeed soldered as is shown in some of the pictures, it would be held to the top of the wood with a small rivet.

[M. Caecilius]

I just received AH3526N from Armamentaria today.

Ade, I'm wowed by the celerity - ordered on Saturday, and it arrived today despite the weekend and the national holiday (here at the receiving end, anyway). Many thanks!

The pilum shaft appears to be made of a single piece of wood, unless it's very well hidden. Nor is cap welded or soldered; there is no rivet, but it appears stable enough as it is, though I haven't tried to pick off any barbarians with it yet. I'm also pleasantly surprised to find that the butt end is not screwed on (as some sites/comments have indicated), but appears to be held by a rivet. Edit: they are screws, but it's hidden well.