07-27-2004, 07:41 PM
While doing research on the 5th Century military, I came across several comments about the reduction in use of the pilum. My assessment of this theory is that it is based primarily on Vegetius. There certainly is a dearth of artefacts to either support or refute such arguments.<br>
<br>
Personally, I find that Vegetius is at best a dubious source given that he confused his data about the organisation of historical and contemporary Roman forces. His own lack of first hand experience with the military was probably a major factor in creating this confusion.<br>
<br>
Physical evidence of Roman military equipment is so limited that I find it difficult to accept some of the theories currently being discussed concerning the arms and armour of the Roman military. Much discussion is based on a few discoveries which have influenced the general representation of Roman troops.<br>
<br>
I am well aware of the studies done be such well respected scholars as HR Robinson, Mike Bishop and others. This is not the place to list the many references that I have read about arms and armour, although they extensive.<br>
<br>
I am curious as to why scholars are less inclined to view a continuity in terms of the arms and armour of the Roman army. My own impression is that the legions continued to be employed as armoured swordsmen, who were equipped with a variety of shafted missile weapons (pila, veruta, plumbata, etc.) to supplement their spathae and shields.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
Personally, I find that Vegetius is at best a dubious source given that he confused his data about the organisation of historical and contemporary Roman forces. His own lack of first hand experience with the military was probably a major factor in creating this confusion.<br>
<br>
Physical evidence of Roman military equipment is so limited that I find it difficult to accept some of the theories currently being discussed concerning the arms and armour of the Roman military. Much discussion is based on a few discoveries which have influenced the general representation of Roman troops.<br>
<br>
I am well aware of the studies done be such well respected scholars as HR Robinson, Mike Bishop and others. This is not the place to list the many references that I have read about arms and armour, although they extensive.<br>
<br>
I am curious as to why scholars are less inclined to view a continuity in terms of the arms and armour of the Roman army. My own impression is that the legions continued to be employed as armoured swordsmen, who were equipped with a variety of shafted missile weapons (pila, veruta, plumbata, etc.) to supplement their spathae and shields.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
