Login

10-01-2002, 09:38 PM

This is directed to Mike Bishop. As a follow up to my earlier post about pilum and spiculum, I read through "Roman Military Equipment" and noted in Chapter 7 (The Army in Crisis) the following conclusion: 
 
"Pila therefore continued in use during the third century, but they probably ceased to be the priority shafted weapon for legionaires..." 
 
Can you state your reasoning for this change in status, and if possible, what replaced the pilum as the priority shafted weapon? 
 
Perry

10-02-2002, 09:54 AM

Salve, 
 
An extensive answer to the spiculum vice pili questionis still in a draft form and will be posted later, but here are some of my ramblings. 
 
Linking literary evidence to other sources, such as depictions or actual finds of weapons, poses a number of other problems. There are few descriptions detailed and consistent enough to allow positive and unambiguous linking of remains with particular terms. Modern love of narrow classification and a certain desire to derive some kind of additional authority by using Latin or Greek terms have resulted in an at times misleading naming convention. The technical vocabulary of weaponry so beloved by modern popular publications tends to be divorced from usage in the various sources, assigning too narrow or plain wrong definitions to various terms. A study of terminology in the available source material gives a much more confused and inconsistent view. Various terms can be used to designate a particular type of weapon while on the other hand a single term can be used for a wide variety of different arms. To some extent that can be attributed to an author's disinterest or unfamiliarity with military matters (as might be concluded from use of only a limited number of terms for weapons (eg using dory all the time rather than applying different terms in different contexts)) or a wish to display literary talents (indicating one's wide vocabulary by avoiding repetition as much as possible), while separation in time and space can account for other discrepancies. The background of authors is another factor to take into account when examining their choice of words. 
 
One of the few terms that due to various more or less detailed descriptions can be positively linked to a particular weapon is that of pilum, which seems to have been applied fairly consistently to a heavy javelin with its head placed on a metal shank (in Latin that is, Greek authors use a wide and inconsistent nomenclature for this weapon). The term pilum did not drop out of use in the third and fourth century AD. It continued to be employed by authors like Ammianunus Marcellinus and Vegetius. While its use in Vegetius may be considered to some extent the result of using material from earlier times, Ammianus on the other hand appears to describe military affairs in contemporary terminology. Though he is at times alleged to employ literary language distinct from that in common use of his day, his choice of words matches that of fourth century military epigraphy which makes it likely that he was not in fact archaising his language. The question has to be raised though exactly what type of weapon Ammianus considered to be a pilum. An answer may be found in the work of Vegetius. He describes a weapon called the spiculum which he maintains was called pilum in previous times, which differs somewhat from that of the republican and early imperial period. Spiculum is a term that can also be found in Ammianus. Pictorial evidence for the pilum dries up in the course of the third century, but examples of weapons of similar design, heads placed on a metal shank, are known from third century and later sites. Pila in short continued in use by the Roman army of the fourth century, though their form may have differed from that of earlier periods, as it had varied in shape and construction before. They were supplemented, but not fully replaced with other shafted weaponry of various design and function. 
 
Vegetius, Epitoma 1.20 
 
 ... Missilibus autem quibus utebatur pedestris exercitus, pila vocabantur, ferro subtili trigono praefixa unciarum novem sive pedali, quod in scuto fixum non possit abscidi et loricam scienter ac fortiter directum facile perrumpit, cuius generis apud nos iam rara sunt tela. ... 
 
'... The infantry army used to use such missiles, which used to be called pila, furnished with a fine triangular head of nine inches or a foot, which when stuck in a shield could not be dislodged and when skilfully and forcefully thrown easily pierced body armour, javelins of which kind are now rare among us ...' 
 
The description of the pilum here matches that of the spiculum/ pilum in the following passage. 
 
Vegetius, Epitoma 2.15 
 
 ... Haec erat gravis armatura, quia habebant cassides catafractas ocreas scuta gladios maiores, quos spathas vocant, et alios minores, quos semispathia nominant, plumbatas quinas positas in scutis, quas primo impetu iaciunt, item bina missibilia, unum maius ferro triangulo unciarum novem, hastili pedem quinque semis, quod pilum vocabant, nunc spiculum dicitur, ad cuius ictum exercebantur praecipue milites, quod arte et virtute directum et scutatos pedites et loricatos equites saepe transverberat, aliud minus ferro unciarum quinque, hastili pedum trium semis, quod tunc vericulum, nunc verutum dicitur. ... 
 
'... This was the heavy armament, because they used to have helmets, body armour, greaves, schields, larger swords, which they call spathae, and other smaller ones, which they call semispathia, five leadweighted darts placed in the shields, which they throw in the first charge, also two javelins, one larger one with a triangular head of nine inches, and a shaft of five and a half feet, which they used to call a pilum, now called a spiculum, at throwing which soldiers used to train hard, in order that it, guided with skill and power, often transfixed shieldbearing infantrymen and armoured horsemen, the other one smaller with a head of five inches, a shaft of three and a half feet, which formerly was called a vericulum, but nowadays a verutum. ...[/i] 
 
Some references for Ammianus Marcellinus 
 
 Pilum: Ammianus 26.9.7; 27.2.3; 27.10.15. 
 Spiculum: Ammianus 16.12.46; 19.2.9; 23.4.2; 23.4.14; 24.4.16; 25.1.13; 25.1.17. 
 
For pics: 
 
Bishop & Coulston Roman Military Equipment (1993), page 123 fig 83, page 125 fig 85-4; page 160, fig 115 (nr 4). 
FuegÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨re, Les armes des Romains 236-7. Cf 100 short republican pilum heads. 
Dixon and Southern, The late Roman army page 112-113. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

10-02-2002, 12:27 PM

Ave Sander, 
 
Thank you for the information. I had already disected AM and V for information. I appreciate that it is difficult to piece together information concerning the equipment of the later military. I have been trying to locate other sources for such information which is why I posed my question. There has been some significant reappraisals about equipment from the days when later Romans wore leather armour (or no armour)and carried javelins. 
 
Perry

10-02-2002, 01:24 PM

Salve, 
 
Late Roman unit names at times indicate armament, such as for instance the lancearii, from lancea which was applied to various weapons, and the mattiarii, from matara, a term of Gallic origin for a spear or javelin. The lancea may have been either a weapon with a peculiarly shaped head, as used in earlier times by various officials, or a thonged javelin, which would better match armament attested for earlier legionary lancearii and lonchophoroi, while it is unclear with what type of weapon the matara is to be identified. It is not known for sure whether such unit names can be taken to reflect current armament rather than that of the time of original formation. 
 
There are indications that phalanx tactics were introduced into the Roman army in the third century by Caracalla and Alexander Severus. According to one description the troops of Caracalla would have been armed with a dory makron (large spear, presumably thrusting weapon) and an aichmÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨ (javelin) (Dio, 78.7), matching the armament introduced or intended to be introduced in Alexander's army during the final year of his reign. Another source indicates that under Severus Alexander six legions served as phalangarii with arma similia, which may either be similar arms as other legions or similar arms as phalangites (SHA) . An inscription mentioning a discens phalangarii in legio II Parthica seems to lend credit to the passages and the advanced age of the individual in question seems to indicate a retraining of part of the legionaries to handle different arms. The continued references to legionaries armed with heavy javelins suggests that this did not become a universal fighting style. 
 
According to Vegetius, the Ioviani and Herculiani ( legio I Iovia and legio II Herculia) were armed with leadweighted darts ( plumbatae or martiobarbuli) ( Epitoma rei militaris 1.17). However these weapons were not exclusive to these units and seem to be employed by other troops as well. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 10/2/02 4:32:30 pm

10-23-2002, 04:23 PM

Is there any primary source that indicates that the spear became the main shafted weapon after the 3rd Century? 
 
I still do not know why MC Bishop suggested that the pilum was no longer favoured.

10-23-2002, 09:52 PM

Ave! 
 
Well, this is only from personal experience, but having made both spear and pilum heads (poorly, I might add ) and thrown them at a number of targets, I must say that the spears tend to stand up better to repeated use (thrown or not) than the pilums do (without major overhaul). And, its a heck of a lot easier to stand there stabbing at something with a spear as a new recruit, than it is to practice over and over again throwing a pilum effectively! If you have never had the opportunity to throw a javelin in gym class, you're missing out on a hilarious exercise. Its a lot more difficult than it looks to throw one 5 to 15 yards and not have it turn sideways or go end over end on you. After 300 A.D. this focus on upkeep and advanced training might have started to slip, and hence, the legions started to adopt weapons that required less and less of them. Just a thought. 
 
I will say, though, that it's interesting to me to see the parallel between the fading out of the pilum and the tendency for the legionaire to wear less armor. Entirely coincidence? Insanely obvious? Utterly clueless? 
 
It seems to me that the original reason the pilum was created was to break through the heavily defended phalanx, by opening up gaps in the lines that the gladius wielding Romans could expose. But to capitalize on those gaps and survive the pikes in the ensuing press, the romans had to be continually well armored and disciplined. Thus, future campaigns were dominated by the heavily armored legionaire, and hence all tactics centered around getting that legionaire as close as possible to their enemy, as quickly as possible, hence the continued use of the pilum as a fire and forget weapon. 
 
But after 300 a.d. (in the era of less armor?), were the infantry as quick to close with their opponents? It would seem to me from my readings that the tactics were no longer 'press the center and break through', but relied more on cavalry flanks to win the day, vs. a heavy infantry press to overwhelm the enemy. Because of this, would you want to go throwing javilins into the ranks of your enemy, when you knew that you would not be there moments later to follow up on it with a heavy press (which lightly armed soldiers are not exactly motivated to do)? Seems to me you're just arming your opponents for a counter attack. 
 
Just a thought... 
 
Uale! 
 
Britannicus

mcbishop · 10-23-2002, 10:33 PM

> I still do not know why MC Bishop suggested that the pilum was no longer favoured. 
 
Beats me - I didn't know I had! 
 
Mike Bishop

10-24-2002, 01:44 PM

Was the period after 300 AD really one of less armour or is this just how some perceived it based on Vegetius? 
 
I tend to view the later period as one of little change in terms of clothing and armour. The styles may have changed but mail body armour, metal helmets and other items were similar to earlier military fashion trends. This is one reason that I question the decline of the pilum. 
 
Yes, there are some references to the tactical alterations of the 3rd Century with the introduction of the phalanx, although several philhellenic emperors may have tried to re-introduce Hellenistic military ideas. Otherwise, tactical descriptions seem very similar to earlier accounts. The formation used by Julian at Strassburg in 357 AD appears to be the same as that used by Agricola at Mons Graupius in 84 AD. 
 
Another question for Mike Bishop; in the next edition of your Roman equipment book, what do you say about the pila in the later centuries? 
 
Perry

mcbishop · 10-24-2002, 05:54 PM

> Another question for Mike Bishop; in the next edition of your Roman equipment book, what do you say about the pila in the later centuries? 
 
I'll let you know as soon as my co-author has written that bit (I do the earlier stuff). 
 
So far as I understand it, the whole issue surrounding the later use of armour derives from inferences based on Vegetius and the anonymous author of the De Rebus Bellicis. The whole business is dealt with in detail in 
 
Coulston, J.C. 1990a: 'Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th centuries AD', Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, 139-60 
 
Mike Bishop

StrategyM · 10-24-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:<hr>It seems to me that the original reason the pilum was created was to break through the heavily defended phalanx, by opening up gaps in the lines that the gladius wielding Romans could expose. But to capitalize on those gaps and survive the pikes in the ensuing press...<hr> 
 
The Romans had adopted the pilum long before they ever encountered the Macedonian phalanx and their own army started out as a phalanx formation. 
 
More likely, the battle of the Allia were the Roman phalanx got annihilated by the Celts provided the spur for the Romans to experiment with different ways to break up the charge of the Celts, leading to the development of the multi-line system with (initially) a small select body of Hastati armed with Pilums, the spear armed Principes forming the main body of the army, and a small reserve of Triarii. Success with this system against their Celtic and Samnite neighbors resulted in the increase of the number of the Hastati, and adoption of the pilum first by the Principes and eventually also the Triarii.

10-24-2002, 09:23 PM

Salue! 
 
What year would this have been? I have not heard or read about this battle (not surprising since the majority of my own research is around Hadrian's time) and would like to know more. 
 
Also, when you say a certain small number of Hastati were using the pilum, do we know in what form (light or heavy, four/six foot with/without throwing strap, etc...?), and is mention made of it being used to break the oncoming rush, or as a precursor to a press from the Romans? 
 
Very curious. I'm always interested in learning more about when a good idea first got started. 
 
gratis tibi ago! 
 
 
Britannicus Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gaiusaquiliusbritannicus>Gaius Aquilius Britannicus</A> at: 10/24/02 11:31:52 pm

***Praefectusclassis*** · 10-25-2002, 05:05 AM

The invasion of the Gauls, the defeat at the Allia and the sack of Rome is traditionally dated in 390 BC. Greets 
 
Jasper

10-25-2002, 02:14 PM

Salve, 
 
The case for increased reliance of the late Roman army on cavalry to decide battles in the third and fourth century AD is circumstantial and to a large extent not justified, as noted in this previous discussion. The army continued to rely on armored close ordered infantry as the main battle winners with light infantry and cavalry in supporting roles. The record of the legions in battle, both in victory (primani in the battle of Strasbourg) and defeat (lancearii and mattiarii at Adrianople) was better than that of the cavalry, which broke and fled in the first case and prematurely opened battle in the latter case only to abandon the foot soldiers when repulsed. According to Ammianus the Persians feared the Roman infantry during Julian's expedition, not the cavalry. 
 
The notion that discipline deteriorated in the later Roman army is unfounded. Well into Byzantine times the Roman army regarded discipline as its main hallmark. As in earlier centuries though discipline was unevenly maintained and the quality of the army varied over time. The army of the early empire was not as rigidly disciplined as modern popular publications tend to state, nor was the later army as undisciplined. There was in this respect, as in others, continuity through the ages with ups and downs rather than a rigidly maintained even level. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Caius Fabius · 10-25-2002, 11:30 PM

Sometimes, (with the compression of time effect mentioned elsewhere), we forget that Vegetius, writing a history of the Roman Army, in his day, is a lot like a modern young American* politicial student writing a history of the U.S. Army* from 1775-1945, without access to a library. He wasn't there and he has to rely on various notes and references and anecdotes that may not have anything to do with what really happened. 
I suspect it is better to read the accounts of people who were there, even though they may not have the whole story, than to read a later author who doesn't have the best sources to start with, and may not have a whole lot of experience with the military. He does the best he can, but would you prefer his account over a diary of someone who was there, or who lived closer to the events? I like the idea that if the stories don't support the archaeology, the stories are probably wrong. 
 
* You could use a political student of any nationality there, writing about their own country's traditional armed forces. 
"Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU, 1987

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me