Talk:Pilum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pilum article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

Contents 1 Gaius Marius and improvements to pila 2 history of the pilum 3 Is this the same thing as the pilium? 4 Pila bending myth? 5 Contradiction of length

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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)