Talk:Pilum

Gaius Marius and improvements to pila

Gaius Marius improved the pilums tendency to bend by replacing one of the metal rivets that attached the iron shank to the wooden shaft with a wooden one. He did not invent it; earlier pila bended as well on impact.

• I thought that the idea behind the wooden pin was that it would snap, making it impossible for the javelin to be used again even if the iron shank didn't bend.Cetot 17:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• My source claims the Republican Roman armourers tempered the tip of the pilum to make it hard and left the end that connects the shaft soft. When the pilum strikes, the rear end gives to the impact and bends the pilum. It is a difficult process and failure in the process would make the pilum too strong to break or too weak to kill. Marius did away with the tempering and replaced iron pins with fragile wooden pins. Upon impact the pin breaks and snaps the pilum.

-Jon Chin

• I updated the content not having read this page first (my bad) but, according to Plutarch, Marius did indeed introduce the use of wooden pins to cause the pilum to bend as you describe. BroMonque 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you make the reference more precise - chapter/paragraph number, that kind of thing? Gaius Cornelius 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the suggestion. BroMonque 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

history of the pilum

The pilum had been invented by the Etruscian to stop the Celtic attack in Northern Italy. But it was introduced to the troops too late to change the war. The Romans took this new weapon after their first war with the Celts and since then succesfully employed it. The pilum had two important aspects: kill enemy, especially armored troops and disable shields. The Celtic troops opposing the pilum armed Romans were mostly light infantry with long shields, not too broad and leather cloaks as protection. Sources are rare, but they probably used some javelins, but mosty relied upon lots of heavy swords supported by short spears with long blades. They formed first a closed shield formation against the enemy fire and then discharged into loose packs localy penetrating the enemy line and then moving sideways. The advantage of the pilum was, that it stuck in the shields and made them too heavy for usage or even nailed two shield together, depending how overlapping the shield formation was. Afterwards they heavily armed hastati attacked the shieldless light infantry of the Celts with their swords. This was another lesson from the Celts, to use more swords instead of spears. The heavy hastati were supported by the velites with light javelins. Later the lighter armoured princeps came into combat, either with swords. The main use of the pilums for this warfare was disabling the enemy of their shields, because they were heavily loaded in an unergonomical way and kill any enemy that stood in loose formation. The pilum was heavy and therefore slow, so it had to be used in volleys otherwise it could be avoided. This made it impossible to aim properly with this weapon.

The Celt themselves are viewed as one of the possible inventors of the Pilum. "The Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin" by M.C. Bishop (Osprey 2017) says: "There is still no clear conclusion to the debate, even after so many years of new artefactual discoveries and a more nuanced approach to the study of the pilum and its ancestors. A broadly 'Celitc' origin seems likely (whether through Northern Italian or Iberian Celts, or even at one remove via another Italian culture such as the Estruscans or Samnites)."

Is this the same thing as the pilium?

If so, we should merge them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.172.233.90 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

VANDALISM WARNING! This is subtle vandalism. There was never an article, Pilium. There's only a redirect putting you back to pilum. This was no there a few days ago. So, I'm taking out the vandalistic suggestion to merge with something that is not there.Dave 14:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look carefully at pilium's history page, you'll clearly see that when 65.172.233.90 edited the pilium page, it was NOT a re-direct. Travürsa (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pila bending myth?

In Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus, he claims that "contrary to deeply entrenched myth, the metal [of a pilum] was not intended to bend" (196). Yale University Press, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teades (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The article already includes the following:

Opinion among archaeologists used to be that the main function of the shank was to disable the pilum by bending, but it is now thought that the pilum was a weapon designed primarily to kill, the 'non-return' aspect being an added bonus.

Which I think it is fair to say reflects the current concensus. Is Adrian Goldsworthy going further than this? If so, and if backed by evidence, this should be added to the article. Gaius Cornelius 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the 'non-return' aspect being an added bonus. That was not a bonus, but a problem, because a broken/bended pilum must be repaired after the battle. No matter how much dangerous can be in the hands of the enemy. All recent discussions started by Peter Connolly in 2001 (see JRMES issue 11/12), and reported also by Goldsworthy, describe how many efforts did romans to avoid bending and breaks.

All recent academic discussions have re-read under a more critic light all ancient writings from Plutarch, Vegetius and Caesar. So it would be correct to remove that phrase.--Greatbeagle (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ofc. the pilum was designed to bend, sigh. However not necessaryly by the impaxct itself. Why do you think the shaft was not hardned if the romans easy could have hardned it??? And: do you know how you remove a pilum or spear from your shield quickly? Yes? Likely not, and Goldsworthy neither, or he would not write such selfinvented stuff. You put the edge of your shield to the ground and step on the shaft of the spear, a "typical" spear or javeline will get out of the shield or the shaft can be broken, a pilum likely has penetrated through the shield and due to its weight and construction of the tip will bend instead. While you can still uphold a shield, removing a bended pilum is even more difficult than removing it while it is straight. Hm, after googeling inside of his book "The Roman Army at War" I find there on page 198 that he agrees that a pilum is designed to bend ... I'm confused now. 91.198.67.77 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Goldsworthy doesn't go further in Caesar. He cites his own The Roman Army at War (1996), which I do not own but have on order. He also cites Bishop and Coulston's Roman Military Equipment (1993). I apparently overlooked the last couple of sentences of the Wikipedia article; it may be just fine. When I learn more, I will post here. Thanks.

Trent

Here is your citing. He quoted himself in Caeser (Which is his second and more complex book on Caeser I beleive)

A. Goldsworthy The Roman Army At War, 100BC-AD200 (1996), pp. 31-32.

He did also cite Roman Military Equipment (1993). His word carries much more weight then any website linked to this article or website I can find opposing this.

-JD (67.161.166.93 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

On another note, If Gaius Marius did infact change the pila to bend, why would Ceasers legions not have this feature near half a century later? Marian reforms being credited with such a thing is a guess at best.

Contradiction of length

The introduction claims the length of the iron head to be 60 cms, while Vegetius' commentary claims it to be in the region of 30cms. I claim no expertise in this subject, so hopefully someone more learned can elaborate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.202.214 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

7fyhvufu8ghhhgb9uhfr9fjjug gygyyygygo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.60 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Errors in weight and length

Of course the pilum varied in size and weight over time and depending on usage. However the claims here on this site and also on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin are partly badly wrong. A standard pilum used by a legionnaire is roughly 1.60m to max 1.80m and not as claimed over 2m. However cerimonial guards at a palace etc. partly had longer pilum. The pilum is usually a wooden shaft with roughly 1m length, perhaps 1,10m. The iron "head" is in fact a shaft from either iron or in older times copper, about 60cm to 70cm and a hardned tip (iron or steal); rarely shorter. I don't know the actual weight, but certainly not 3kg as mentioned in the Javeline article and definitely not 3kg to 5kg as mentioned in _this_ article. Do you really believe a normal person can throw a 5kg pilum 10yards? Or even the claimed 20 to 30 meters? Go out and take a rock or a brick and try to throw it as far as you can ... A typical throwing pilum has a weight of 1kg to 1.5kg, heavier pilum as mentioned in the javeline article "Pictorial evidence suggests that some versions of the weapon were weighted with a lead ball at the base of the shank " where usually training weapons or the "lead ball" is not a ball but a crest with some insignia, e.g. on a guards pilum. Note: 5kg is a bit more than 11 pounds. Sidenote: I'm german, and my size is 172cm, the longest pila I ever had in my hands are roughly 185cm, and before you ask me for "citations" ... we have plenty original pila all over the place in germany either in museums or in private property. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saalburg I assume the wrong "size" comes from misjudging pictures / reliefs. A typical roman at that time was perhaps 160cm tall. If you treat him like a 185cm man of our times, his pilum looks bigger, ofc.

91.198.67.77 (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incendiary pila

Has anyone material about these? I've seen a mention of them but I'm not a hundred certain that they were actually used by the Romans. Bazuz (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir Ian's edit

What was wrong with the reference I gave? Bazuz (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Alesia has nothing to do with Parthia.

The Siege of Alesia was during Julius Caesar's campaign in Gaul. It has nothing to do with and is nowhere near Parthia. Marcus Antonius would have been present though. 24.5.45.210 (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)