+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? (/showthread.php?tid=31405)
Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - CaesarAugustus - 02-28-2021
Often pilum is represented as a weapon that was meant to bend after its penetration, in order to be difficult to send back against roman legionaries.
According to Plutarch (Plutarch, "Gaius Marius", 25.2), Gaius Marius introduced an innovation, one of the two iron nails that held the iron shaft in place was replaced with a weak wooden pin that would break on impact causing the shaft to twist sideways. In this case, instead of bending, the weapon would have been broken.
So, was meant or not to be bent at the impact, originally?
It seems that its bending was not so frequent, or wanted. It is possible that the shape of its point was already effective for this purpose, making it difficult to extract from the shield, forcing the enemy to leave the shield, with no possibility of throwing it back.
But, what is interesting of its shape, the metal end of the javelin, before the wooden part, was part of the penetration design, made for the purpose to (possibly) reach the enemy behind the shield.
What do you think about this thesis?
Here some video from scholagladiatoria:
First video is about describing the idea. The second is showing how the pilum could easily penetrate a shield that could be probably better than most of the shields of the period. And the last is how it would behave against some kind of armors.
Useless to say, this are tests that are not conclusive, they depend on a lot of factors, such as the quality of what as been used, the fact that even armors of the same class were not meade exactly in the same way (same lorica segmentata found are different, same are essentially are iron, while others rolled mild steel on the outside and iron inside...).
Anyway, what is interesting to see is that the pilum is easily able to penetrate a shield, stopped only by the wooden part, that would justify its usage as penetration weapon, and its shape. Also, it has still enough force to possibly penetrate an armour, according to the type of armour.
The chain mail used in the tests have no way to stand the it. The pilum is able to easily break the rings.
The lorica segmentata instead, also considering its curved shape, and the fact that is partially overlapped, seems an opponent too tough for the pilum, unless thrown at very close range, But, even in this last case, the segmentata probably would absorbs the greatest part of the hit, but probably being damaged.
Really interesting tests!
Second video: shield penetration
Third video: armours behavior
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - Dan Howard - 03-01-2021
IMO it was never a deliberate part of the design. The shank was made from low carbon steel so it is natural for it to sometimes bend, just like low-carbon swords. There is an anecdote where one legionary, who was using his pilum as a defensive spear, ended up with it looking like a strigil, so we know that they had the capacity for severe bends. IMO there was no intention to deliberately cripple the weapon on impact until the introduction of Marius' wooden pin. Why would this even be needed if it was common for it to bend on impact?
The mail used in that video had nothing in common with contemporary mail armour so isn't a valid test piece. He also hung it the wrong way which stretches the weave open and compromises its protective capacity. Proper mail was worn rotated 90 degrees so that the material had a chance to absorb the impact and the links had a chance to bind around the weapon point. Mail was also not worn against bare skin - where is the underpadding? Roman contemporaries may not have worn a gambeson but they at least had a thick tunic underneath. IMO Roman mail had an integrated padded liner as well. He says that it is 6mm mail but it isn't. Mail manufacturers give the INSIDE diameter of their links while archaeological reports and museum catalogs give the OUTSIDE diameter. Those links are actually over 10mm in diameter so they are way too large, not "a little" as he claims. You also have to look at the level of penetration. If the weapon punches though the armour but only gives the wearer a minor injury then the armour has done its job. Stretched, broken, and mangled links are good because it means that they have absorbed energy that otherwise would have gone into the wearer.
This might prove edifying.
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - Crispianus - 03-02-2021
The problem I see with a wooden pin, is that the whole flang would have to move on impact to break, thus absorbing some force (since it would break on impact) making it less effective...
With a metal pin as well this wouldn't happen, unless there was a slot in the flang... I dont know of any originals that actually show this?...
Bending.. no doubt some did though its fairly obvious the main object of any thrown weapon is to cause injury to the enemy...
Shield wood... is important the complete dura scutum shown is made if I remember right from Plane (Platanus Orientalis) wood, its native range being extended by deliberate planting further west, a type of sycamore it is more resistant to splitting...
Modern timber is kiln dried, this is bound to have some effect on flexibility...
I dont know of any evidence that says that old fashion glues are any worse then modern glues for strength and flexibility!
mostly modern glues score in their ease of use...
There are more "ply" shields then the dura one shown.
My view based on practical experience, is the long shank was intended to allow the weapon to penetrate and potentially hit the wielder of the shield in some fashion, wounding, disabling or killing the target...
Secondary the wood can potentially close around the shank, effectively preventing its withdrawal making the shield useless in the long term, or difficult to withdraw making it a burden at close quarters at best...
Thirdly the shank may bend making it useless in the short term, but you could theoretically straighten it given enough time...
This applies to both Pilums and Angons.
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - Dan Howard - 03-02-2021
Has anyone actually made this style of pilum with a wooden pin to see what happens?
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - Crispianus - 03-02-2021
(03-02-2021, 12:54 PM)Dan Howard Wrote: Has anyone actually made this style of pilum with a wooden pin to see what happens?
Not that I've ever heard off, would be interesting to find out!
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - mcbishop - 04-07-2021
(03-02-2021, 12:54 PM)Dan Howard Wrote: Has anyone actually made this style of pilum with a wooden pin to see what happens?Yes.
Grab, M. (2011), 'Das marianische Pilum. Der "römische Mythos" im Test', in C. Koepfer, C., Himmler, F. W., and Löffl, J. (eds), Die römische Armee im Experiment, Berlin: Frank & Timme, 83–92
Mike Bishop
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - Bryan - 04-07-2021
(04-07-2021, 09:30 AM)mcbishop Wrote:What was the result of their tests?(03-02-2021, 12:54 PM)Dan Howard Wrote: Has anyone actually made this style of pilum with a wooden pin to see what happens?Yes.
Grab, M. (2011), 'Das marianische Pilum. Der "römische Mythos" im Test', in C. Koepfer, C., Himmler, F. W., and Löffl, J. (eds), Die römische Armee im Experiment, Berlin: Frank & Timme, 83–92
Mike Bishop
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - CaesarAugustus - 05-07-2021
(03-01-2021, 09:42 PM)Dan Howard Wrote: Why would this even be needed if it was common for it to bend on impact?Maybe I don't remember correctly, but I remember to have read that the hardness of the pilum changed, becoming soft in the last part, the one that should had bent. A possible reason is that this process was not accurate, resulting in pilum that were not bending as expected. While the wooden pin would have broken without problems.
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - Till_When? - 05-08-2021
Wouldn't the wooden pin also fragilize the pilum's integrity upon impact, reducing its penetrative abilities against shields and armor? For example, a metal nail pilum was able to pierce the shield and a chain mail suit, but wouldn't a wood pin one be likely to see this pin broken upon impact with the shield, reducing the momentum behind the tip of the pilum and thus its ability to pierce the shield's wearer's armor?
RE: Roman pilum: bending or penetrating weapon? - CaesarAugustus - 08-26-2021
(05-08-2021, 01:15 PM)Till_When? Wrote: Wouldn't the wooden pin also fragilize the pilum's integrity upon impact, reducing its penetrative abilities against shields and armor? For example, a metal nail pilum was able to pierce the shield and a chain mail suit, but wouldn't a wood pin one be likely to see this pin broken upon impact with the shield, reducing the momentum behind the tip of the pilum and thus its ability to pierce the shield's wearer's armor?
I think so. Probably it would have two negative effects. Some of the energy would be dispersed in the momentum. And the momentum would probably change the penetration trajectory, resulting in a likely increased friction and energy dispersion.
But, if its purpose was just to make the shield useless, that would not be really a problem. Simply, it would make harder to penetrate something behind the shield.