Roman Pilla

[Anonymous]

My inquiry is in two parts. The first trying to clarify a historical discrepancy I have encountered and the second is to clarify a re-enactment interest.

The Roman pillum was the standard javelin used by Roman infantry units pre-marion and post, but I have found contradicting accounts of what made them special. I know that what makes them special is the soft iron they used to make them un-usable after their first usage, they would break on impact. However, I have heard from one source that it is the head that flattens and breaks on impact making it unusable, but other sources indicate it is the shaft that breaks because of the iron it is made out of. I have seen pictures of pilla and know that the tip is actually kinda long and is connected to a wooden shaft. I am simply curious about the physics of this weapon. Is it the tip that breaks, the shaft, or the wooden section, or some silly combination of all of them?


My second question is how do you re-enacters simulate these things in combat. Ive been reading the thread about the plumbata and it all seems interesting as well as dangerous. Do you use pilla as well as plumbata? I assume its based on the period in which your attempting to re-enact, correct?

Any links or pictures or helpful talk would be appreciated. Like I said I have been confused about this for awhile now, and I figure I have finally got an opportunity to get some of these confusions fixed.

[Marcus Mummius]

The metal shaft of the pilum is soft, the point hard. I don't think a lot of pila broke (can you imagine the work to make new pila each time?). If a pilum penetrated a shield it would bend due to the leverage, by doing this it is very difficult to remove it from the shield and the shields becomes unwieldy and useless (after the battle the pila could be recollected and hammered straight again). Another important thing is that the pilum can penetrate very deep into a shield and wound the warrior holding it through the shield. This is because it has a small piramidial point that makes the hole and a long metal shaft that is less wide than the point. A regular spear wouldn't penetrate a shield like this because a lot of the force is lost because the point gets wider. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

About using pila in reenactments events. I think it's one of the most difficult things to simulate... You can't use real pila so what would you use? Anything that would penetrate a shield when thrown is dangerous . If it can't penetrate a shield it isn't a good simulation of the pilum (like pila with a foam head and shaft).

Regards

[Matt Lukes]

Ave Odysseus,

Well I can help a bit with your first question- the idea (still a theory of course) is that the soft iron shank of the pilum would bend (not break) on impact, thus making it impossible for an enemy to just pick it up and throw it back. Also that they'd bend upon striking and piercing a shield making the shield virtually impossible to use and thus have to be discarded leaving the man far less protected. Of course the pilum was an offensive weapon so its primary purpose was to kill- this shield-removal effect was just a benefit if it failed to hit the target person. Because their shanks were soft iron, after the battle, the pila could be collected and simply straightened for re-use.

I've also it suggested that some pila had wooden one wooden peg holding the iron shank in the pyrimidal block that would break on impact making the shank loose in the block and once again impossible to throw back. I'm not 100% sure about this second one as the metal colette that's usually associated with the standard pilum would prevent it from happening, and the colette seems rather important to prevent the pyrimidal block from being damaged on impact.

As for the pilum use by reenactors, I've only ever seen demonstration throwing on a range- not when there's an actual opposing force. Some groups like Matt Amt's LEGIOXX use specially-made cheap pila for this- not their good ones. As for those who actually conduct mock battles, they'll have to speak for themselves as to what they do with pila.

Matt

[Anonymous]

Ah, thanks.

I guess when I always read that pilla became damaged beyond reusablity, I always just figured that they broke or were flatened so severly they couldnt be reused. I never thought that after a fight they were just picked up and recrafted... now that makes a heck of a lot more sense. Although just the concept that they were made with the thought in mind that they couldnt be reused in combat is simply genius.

Anyway, about the re-enactments, if you dont use pilla then how do things even out in a fight. Perhaps im thinking that re-enactments are actual battles such as paintball (just a hecka lot cooler) and its really just a performance like a Civil War Re-enactment. Now I just confused myself, lol. Honestly, Im beginning to feel stupid here lol.

On another point, those plumbata discussed in that other thread, are those just for show? Im only confused because people talk about testing them in combat situations and what not.

Somebody help a guy who is digging his grave deeper and deeper. :? lol:

[Matt Lukes]

Okay, Jef beat me to it LOL That's what I get for writing long-winded replies, eh?

M

[Anonymous]

Matt,

Thanks for your response, I wrote my last one as you were posting yours, so I missed what you wrote. But I think the idea that the wooden shaft breaking away from the metal part is extremely feasable. The shaft is what guided the pilla through flight and without it, would be extremely wobbly in the air, and probably not even hit something properly.

I also now understand how they destroy shields forcing the enemy to discard them making them more vulnerable to the next Pilla volley or CQC. OK, this all makes great sense thanks.

I guess im still kinda confused about the battle re-enactments... oh well, I would like to hear from people that actually use these those, it seems very interesting.


On a side note, am I spelling Pillum correctly? Is it 1 L or 2? Prior to writing this I looked it up online and found vague references to it, but they spelled it with 2 L's. But I notice its being spelled with 1 here. Clarification please

[Marcus Mummius]

You can only see how a weapon works by using it the way it was meant to be used, in a real combat situation(= to wound and kill someone else). As far as I know there are no groups that do that lol:

[Anonymous]

lol, I just fell victim to it myself lol.

Im gonna leave for awhile and come back... need to get some food anyway.

8)

[Matt Lukes]

Don't feel stupid- we all had to learn at one time As for 'combat' testing, people could simply be describing experiments vs. a target rather than agains a real person. Some I've read about used actual armor, etc., just without a person inside to see what the effect of the weapon would be. Also, because plumbata are so much smaller than pila, it's rather more possible to make a padded-tipped version for mock use (a pilum's probably too heavy for this).

[Anonymous]

You can only see how a weapon works by using it the way it was meant to be used, in a real combat situation(= to wound and kill someone else). As far as I know there are no groups that do that lol:

lol... that would be a problem.

[Matt Lukes]

I'm pretty sure it's Pilum (one l)- I've never actually seen it with two myself.

And sure the breakaway system is feasible, but having seen the damage that can be done to the pyrimidal block of a pilum when the colette fails, it seems far less likely to me that the colette would be purposely left off to allow the wooden pin breaking system to work. The tang of the shank is flat and thus will only move in one plane, so if the pilum impacts at 90-degrees to this plane, all the force will be applied to the block, likely breaking it. Even a little bend in the long shank would make the pilum difficult to throw properly, so also having a break pin seems unecessary to me... of course if it was really used, it was considered to be useful regardless of what I think :lol:

Matt

[Anonymous]

Hmm. Very interesting.

It does seem a bit superfluous to have the the wooden shaft break off to add to the effect of it being un-reusable when the soft iron part does that wonderfully effective by itself. Especially if it hurts the performance of the weapon being thrown.

Of course if I was an advancing enemy and had my shield busted by a lucky toss... I'd pick up the broken Pilum and be damn sure to break at least 1 Roman's skull with it before I went down.

Of course like Jef said, if you cant test it in combat you really dont know how it performs in combat. Or reactions to it.

I bet there were a few unlucky Romans who were on the wrong end of a broken pilum at one point or another.

[Marcus Mummius]

I too think that the wooden bolt system is a bit far fetched. I wonder if the tang of the pilum realy was soft iron, has this been analysed? Perhaps it just bended because of the long thin tang being subject to a lot of levering power...

[Anonymous]

I've always read accounts of the material being some sort of very soft metal that it would do some form of bending/breaking/twisting so I assume it was.

However, im not sure if we have any surviving relics to test it, and if we do, if they were tested. Hmmm.

Also, when you say "tang" of the pilum, do you mean the shaft?

[Marcus Mummius]

Yes I meant the metal shaft behind the pyramidal point

There are surviving pila but perhaps the metal has changed so much during the time they have been burried that it is impossible to test it properly.

And it is indeed pilum(plural -a)

Regards