"Roman Pilum Effect in Gaming" Topic

Many rule sets combine the pilum effect with general melee factors. If we were to treat them separately, would you think the effect should be calculated as separate hits added to the subsequent melee, or would it be better represented by using a mechanism whereby the pilums might stun the opponents and reduce their abiiity to fight in the melee. or both? The net effect may be the same either way, but interested to see what you think. Appreciate your thoughts! Cy

The pilum is a javelin which cancels the shield of the enemy.

Given the short range of the pilum and the methodology, I'd be most inclined to use it as a positive modifier for the user. Doesn't really matter whether they are receiving or delivering the charge the use of the pilum should make the gladius (or whatever) more effective in the shortly to follow melee.

What is this the pilum cancels the shield of the enemy?

A pilum is a whopping great armour penetrating spear that should mission kill the target (perhaps by pinning the shield to his chest?)

It is a missile weapon that was used at similar ranges to dart or javelin.

Well in Hail Caesar the 'Pilum' Rule awards the enemy a -1 to their morale save in the first round of H2H…

I prefer the more abstract effect you refer to rules generally using, but I would suggest disorder being the result of an effective pilum shower prior to contact.

But it is only worth doing if you think something depends upon the outcome …

Phil
Ancients on the Move

>>>What is this the pilum cancels the shield of the enemy

In those instances in which the shield 'catches' the pilum, the pilum shaft bends and in effect causes drag on the shield, making the shield harder to use.

I have seen rules that simulate Pilum by giving a positive modifier in the first round (only) of melee.

Vegetius :

As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches (279 mm) or a foot long, and were called piles. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty.

Or take a look at de bello gallico in capter 25 about pila and there use.

The Mission of the Pilum is to make the shield of the enemy useless…..
Not more not less.
The armor/ shield penetreting missile is the speciculum.

Greetings

umm – I have sat through enough lectures to realise that the pilum was a killing weapon and the stories about the bending of the metal is actually a lament about shoddy workmanship.

This was visited a number of times by Peter Connelly, and I prefer the actual killing power of the weapon being its primary aim.

If you can convince me otherwise, by quoting something about the design of Pila being modified to cope with changes in shield technology – to pin a shield, then I may change my position on this and accept that a large number of vary learned people got it wrong.

I quite like how DBMM handles roman infantry.

And I will turn to Wikipedia..

The late Roman writer Vegetius, in his work De Re Militari, wrote:

As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches (279 mm) or a foot long, and were called piles. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty.[5]

And later in the same work:

They had likewise two other javelins, the largest of which was composed of a staff five feet and a half long and a triangular head of iron nine inches (229 mm) long. This was formerly called the pilum, but now it is known by the name of spiculum. The soldiers were particularly exercised in the use of this weapon, because when thrown with force and skill it often penetrated the shields of the foot and the cuirasses of the horse.[6]

It may be argued that a short iron shaft has very few confirmations from archeology. Vegetius is writing about a one foot iron shaft because at Vegetius' time the pilum had disappeared and been replaced by similar shorter weapons such as the plumbatae or the above mentioned spiculum.

Results of experimental archaeology

Marching Soldiers
Thanks in part to experimental archaeology, it is generally believed that the pilum's design evolved to be armour-piercing: the pyramidal head would punch a small hole through an enemy shield allowing the thin shank to pass through and penetrate a distance sufficient to hit the man behind it. The thick wooden shaft provided the weight behind the punch.

In one description, 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. Gaius Marius is sometimes given credit for this modification.[7] It has been argued that later pila were constructed so that the iron shank would bend on impact. Having penetrated a shield through a small hole and its shank having bent, such a pilum would now be more difficult to remove, and, of course, impossible to throw back.

Further complications and injury could ensue if the understandably-reluctant enemy did not discard his precious shield quickly enough, as there would be a great press from the men behind him.

Opinion among archaeologists once held that the main function of the shank was to disable both shields and the pilum itself by bending, but it is now thought that the pilum was a form of "personal artillery" designed simply to provide a massive counter-shock against any charging foe.

Pilum should have some sort of a -chance-in effecting things pre melee I think, certainly disorder at least. Don't think the effects are set in stone either, should have to be rolled for.
I agree with them being designed as a killing weapon as well ….most definitely.

I go for Rudi's suggestion that the pilum disables the defensive abilities of a shield and should affect the defence of a random amount of targetted troops.
Thats how it would probably affect a Game.
The information and history is very interesting aswell at the moment though.

I found this really good joke on wikipedia and wish to share it before it is lost to the sticky interwebs.
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, and then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?"

In the rules we use ( Tactica) Before the Roman unit goes in it throws the pila a roll of six kills the enemy!! When in melee it can not throw, only in new melees! Mike Adams

I can only think of 2 battles where the Pilum's effects were even worth mentioning. At Telemon, the javelinmen (presumably velites) pelted the Gestatae (naked celts) with javelins, retired followed by the heavy infantry (presumably with Pilum). After this barrage, the gestatae broke and the rest of the Celts charged the roman line. No mention here of shields being rendered useless.

At Aquae Sextiae, Roman heavy infantry barraged Teutones with pila which were said to be "particularly effective" because of the height advantage (plunging fire so to speak). Again, no mention fo shields being rendered ineffective.

While I have no doubt that the pilum could cause such issues, I suspect it was more a weapon that could give you an edge for a short time but then that edge would wear off.

In game, I tend to give Roman troops a closing shot right before melee. I would only give each unit 1 shot per game, representing a barrage of 2-3 pila. I would also require the shot be taken if the unit is charged or is charging an enemy heavy unit. The general should not be allowe to do ad-hoc doctrine on the battlefield! The primary effect should be largely disruptive with some casualties depending on the target armor.

If you are going to treat pila attacks separately, I suggest treating it as a javelin attack with greater armor piercing ability.
Any shield nullification is a side effect of the attacks.

The condition of the troops throwing pila should be reflected in their effectiveness as well, chaps that have been worn down aren't going to be anywhere near as effective or coordinated as fresh units, and what pilum capability they could have left would be greatly diminished……if any.

Maddaz111 after sitting through lectures on the use of the pilum surely you know Vegetius a non-military man was talking up his ideal vision of the early Empire, when all Romans were Manly Men and the World Trembled at their Name.
I'd say the luxury of several standing armies and the ability to supply them the field indefinitely did more for their success than a disposable weapon. Plumbata similar effect ,higher rate of fire and much cheaper cost only you can't use them at close quarters. Though the train of thought regards using the pilum in this way has more to do with Legions being caught short than standard practice. Also notice that while the equipment of Rome's enemies stayed the same either shielded infantry or cavalry the pila was scrapped. If it was so effective then why the change?

Kodiakblair

The enemies of Rome did not stay the same, most were beaten, absorbed into the empire – or salt sown into their homeland.

However – I think the pilum had ceased to be a weapon of choice because the cost of manufacturer on a disposable weapon had reached a critical point. Allied with a rise in other tactics and methodologies it became a burden on the train.

But I honestly think the long metal head was designed to pierce the body behind the shield, and bending was a side effect to stop the spear being thrown back.

I think at most levels I would wish to game the pilum followed by sword would be a close combat weapon (not melee – as I don't think Hollywood hour long sword duels are realistic either) but then I am a semi lumper not a splitter.

Pila weren't disposable. They would be collected up after the battle and repaired, if necessary (and assuming the Roman's won!)

I don't believe the stories of the pilum shaft frequently bending, I think this is misreporting of what happened. When the pilum penetrates the sheild it punches a hole wider than the shaft, so the heavy wooden shaft hits the ground (and gets stuck), the metal shaft is still through the hole in the shield.

Basically you end up with a triangle formed between the pilum, the ground and the guy whose shield it hit. He cannot move forward because the wooden shaft prevents this. Only way to remedy this is to lose the shield.

I'm with normsmith.

Thanks for the comments. The effect may have been some of both wounding and entangling shields. In any case, a volley of pilums would tend to blunt the enemy momentum. I imagine it would also put the opponents in a defensive posture, covering torso and face, inhibiting their actions, allowing the legionaires to more easily close with their swords.

Hobbybox I meant disposable as in thrown rather than retained to use as a spear.
And Maddaz when I said the enemies stayed the same you'll notice I said shielded infantry and cavalry. I fail to see the difference between an early German tribesman with a shield to a Dacian or 4th cent Goth with the same. While I agree with you the Hollywood notion of fencing is nonsense.
My own view is missile barrage to disrupt charges or whittle down numbers then butchery. The Scutum covers most of the body so armed with helmet and gladius was ideal for hiding behind stabbing when opportunity arose. If you look at the size and shape of it the Scutum doesn't lend its self to parrying as say the Targe was. With shields like the Targe swordplay was a combination of slashing and stabbing requiring far more space than some think the Romans used, have a look at Brueggemans site here to see what I mean.

link

I like the way Justin Taylors Veni Vedi Vici rules handled it. The pilum is treated as an 'at contact only' missile weapon. Casualties caused by the volley of pila are removed from the enemy front rank and are not replaced for the first round of meelee. The Romans fight the surviving front rank figures in the 1st round of meelee, representing the disorganisation effect of the volley. In the second round of meelee the opposition may fill the gaps in the front rank end the fight continues.
The pilum is treated as a one shot weapon, unless the cohort retreats behind the line to reload from supplies (2 turns static). This works very well, even better, when the cohort replacement rule is used to replace the intial cohort with a fresh one (including a second volley of pila)
This allows fairly accurate use of the triplex acies formation, and works for individual cohort replacemen, or replacement of whole lines (as at Pharsalus)
Because Roman armies are usually outnumbered by barbarian opposition and can't be everywhere at one, it doesn't make this a super weapon, but can make the difference at the crucial point,(your skill required to get them there!)
I feel that many rules over the years have neglected to factor in the pilum, treating Romans as 'blades'.
In my view the scutum, gladius and pilum are a 'weapons system' and must be treated as a whole.
Just my point of view, and although we've heavily modified Justins Rules, this one of things I like most about them.

Maddaz111

Rome never sowed their enemies homes with salt. Those stories are apocryphal. Salt was far too valuable a commodity to be used in such a way (even used as a form of payment). It'd be like sowing your hated enemies fields with diamonds or gold so that they couldn't be plowed.

Plus, the cities that and regions frequently mentioned in those myths continued to be inhabited.

Totally Agree Gattamalata. Caesar against the Helveti when you look at the numbers and how they were spread out don't look so imposing. Delbruck reasoned about 16,000 warriors to Caesar's 30,000.

Caesar says more than once that enemy warriors charged so suddenly that the Romans didn't have time to throw pilum (plural pilae?).

This makes me think that pilum should only count when Romans attack. It was supposed to be a caracole-style attack, each rank throwing and then falling back into line.

Since early Roman legionaries are heavily armored often vs. unarmored tribesmen, perhaps pilum factor is not really needed?

The big choice is whether the Romans spend a long time throwing pila without contact, charging in when the opponent is wavering from a long missile exchange or that they throw pila and then rush in with the sword to fight and if that does not work, break off and then replace ranks, throw again, charge in again. Some of this debate is being covered in current Slingshots.

Only counting pilum when romans attack makes some sense. You need forward momentum to throw anything. Much above discussion relates to romans vs tribesmen. There would also be a lot of fighting with Pyrrhus, Carthaginians, etc who would be equally armored, or not. Hastati may not have been very armored, depending on period, etc. Romans didn't do all that well against Gauls until Marius, and of course Ceasar. This may have been due more to the fact that the legions were transformed into a professional army than to modifying the pila they used.
I agree the pila,scutum,sword is one weapon system, as opposed to hoplite long spear or pikes. Interesting to know if the romans shifted from the hoplite phalanx model based on influence from Samnites or Spanish. I think they did call the gladius the 'spanish sword'.

Lewis Gunner – Interesting point. I haven't seen the Slingshot discussion. I imadine it would depend what the enemy did. Facing a barbarian rush, may not be time, as mentioned above. Facing pikes/spears the preferred tactic might be to continue missiles until the opponents lose some cohesion or drawn to uncoordinated advances. This implies the Romans ability to be flexible, at least the first line.

I actually would have thought it more of a defensive weapon than offensive…..or rather more effective when coordinated en masse, which is easier to organise for commanders when stationary….. " Wait till you see the whites of their eyes " sort of thing.
The scutum definitely came about with the decline of the aspis, less need for overlapping shields with your neighbour e.g. phalanx formations and more of a manoeuvrable 'individual' approach where greater all around protection was of more importance….and yep probably picked up off the Celts while campaigning in the north of Italy.

Pila can be used defensivley and offensively – we have specific battle reports from the times stating both.

its worth also noting that there are occasions when the Romans are so keen on coming to melee, that the drop their pila before charging rather than spend the time throwing them, which suggests many things we could argue over endlessly.

there are occasions when the entire cohort / mainiple is reported as throwing their pila (similar to the total war PC game way), and others which show that pila were still being thrown after hours of combat, suggesting that only individual men or individual ranks within that melee could throw when they saw a reason.

so its a weapon which is used as and how seems appropriate, rather than in a simple 'they always did that' sort of way.

For me, I prefer subsuming it into melee factors because I see the logic of modelling pila separately as inconsistent unless you also allow warbands to issue a shower of normal javelins – which it is reported they did prior to contact,

And once you start doing that and you are also allowing rear ranks to throw overhead (which should be basicaly useless but very annoying), and frankly, I'd rather get on with the game than rolling dice for all this comparatively trivial effect stuff.

Plus you should be forced to model the effect of having to HOLD the second (or first) pila and your shield and your sword while in melee if you have not actually thrown them – or record that you had to drop it and so cannot get another throw once you have had a melee.

From accounts I have read both circumstances that LewisGunner is alluding to occurred, and as cytaylor points out, it will have depended on the reactions of the enemy. Both, long distance engagement with Pila and Lancea then moving to contact with the perceived enemy wavering, and the Pila being thrown then charging in with sword and shield, have been used by Roman units within the same period…

One other point to bear in mind: The Pilum could be used as a thrusting weapon and was used in this way, evidence on the Adamklissi showing a Legionaire despatching a Dacian witha downward thrust of his Pilum.

What the OP and other rules writers need to decide is the effectiveness of the Pila both "long distance" and "at contact" and as a thrusting weapon! The Pilum did punch through shield and armour. Any weapon that punches through your shield is going to make that shield ineffective whether the metal shaft bent or not! This would leave the enemy at a disadvantage and certainly vulnerable if their only defensive piece of equipement was a shield!

The rules need to look at this from a number of points: the weapon itself and it's destructive capability versus defensive equipment, the effective use of the weapon, and how it was actually used. The Pilum's primary design was to disrupt the enemy formation, to break up it's cohesiveness, to cause pyschological impact, to distract the enemy, to render the enemy's defensive equipment ineffective, to kill/wound/maim, all these and more was the primary aim (as indeed any missile weapon platform and particularly those designed to be hurled just before hand to hand excluding the unique design of the Pilum with regards the bending metal shaft if you believe it was deliberately designed that way). You must also add to this the morale, confidence, training and experience of the Roman unit throwing the Pilum – there is an account where during the civil war at Pharsalus the Caesarian Legions expecting the enemy to charge them (as was deemed normal practice at the time ) threw their Pilums at long distance maybe around 55m and then charged, meanwhile the Pompeians awaited the charge and then threw their Pilum just as the lines (30m) clashed. I suspect that the Caesarians took more casualties during that missile volley, although eventually they won.

If you apply such changes to your rules would you also include the following weapons in the same category: Angon, Francisca, Spiculum, Bebrae, Soliferreum / Saunion, etc.

Would you include these weapons or have different factors being applied: verrutum (verruta), hastae, Framea, etc.

I think you need to decide to what granularity you wish to go?

Lastly, there is the case to be answered in terms of the merit of weapon versus defensive equipment, however, no matter the weapon, it's the soldier wielding the weapon that makes the difference…..