how far could a pilum be thrown?

Thus, with these factors in mind, would it be safe to say that most casualties caused by legionaries of the late-Republic/early Empire were caused by gladius rather than pilum?

Beware - the bendy pilum works because of gravity, not impact. If the point bends on impact then the weapon is functionally useless since the point will not pierce but simply deflect

I don't think the point of the pilum was made of soft iron or meant to bend but rather the part connecting the head to the shaft. But yes, I agree that gravity would have played the major part

 

Thus, with these factors in mind, would it be safe to say that most casualties caused by legionaries of the late-Republic/early Empire were caused by gladius rather than pilum?

It would be interesting to know if anyone collected such statistics at that time but I seriously doubt they did. History in those days was considered a measure of a writer's eloquence and diction rather than his accuracy or attention to detail.

One thing I do know is that the wounds inflicted by the gladius hispaniensis were quite horrendous. Many hardened veterans were said to have thrown up when they saw the bodies of those slain by the gladius

Reenactors could easily duplicate distance and angle effects.

Not to stray too far off topic, I believe that caltraps would also be used against cavalry.

Thus, with these factors in mind, would it be safe to say that most casualties caused by legionaries of the late-Republic/early Empire were caused by gladius rather than pilum?

I would say so, after the the pilum has been released, a percentage of the pilum would probably be lodged in the enemies shield or had missed all together, then it's straight down to the nitty gritty, close quarter combat which would last for much longer than the flight of thousands of pilum's and probably have a bigger kill ratio.

Not to stray too far off topic, I believe that caltraps would also be used against cavalry.

Caltrops. Ouch. >.< I wonder how many injuries were caused by inadvertantly stepping on your own caltrops? It seems to me they would be a hazard to both sides.

Not to stray too far off topic, I believe that caltraps would also be used against cavalry.

 

Caltrops. Ouch. >.< I wonder how many injuries were caused by inadvertantly stepping on your own caltrops? It seems to me they would be a hazard to both sides.

I believe that Caesar used them at Alesia.

Thus, with these factors in mind, would it be safe to say that most casualties caused by legionaries of the late-Republic/early Empire were caused by gladius rather than pilum?

 

I would say so, after the the pilum has been released, a percentage of the pilum would probably be lodged in the enemies shield or had missed all together, then it's straight down to the nitty gritty, close quarter combat which would last for much longer than the flight of thousands of pilum's and probably have a bigger kill ratio.

Again beware, because its popularly assumed that a soldier can swing a sword at his enemies for hours on end tirelessly - a result of too many hollywood films there I think! Soldiers, even the fit ones, are going to get tired suprisingly quickly once you go hammer and tongs at each other with swords. The main fight would be pushing, shoving, and an occaisional stab when your opponent leaves a gap. Remember this isn't the arena - you haven't got freedom of movement and your unit is pushing behind you. Of course this is going to cause casualties. As for the pilum, I get the impression that the roman soldiers expected to knock down a proportion of the enemy at a distance. Realistically some opponents must have been injured or killed by them.

Thus, with these factors in mind, would it be safe to say that most casualties caused by legionaries of the late-Republic/early Empire were caused by gladius rather than pilum?

 

I would say so, after the the pilum has been released, a percentage of the pilum would probably be lodged in the enemies shield or had missed all together, then it's straight down to the nitty gritty, close quarter combat which would last for much longer than the flight of thousands of pilum's and probably have a bigger kill ratio.

 

Again beware, because its popularly assumed that a soldier can swing a sword at his enemies for hours on end tirelessly - a result of too many hollywood films there I think! Soldiers, even the fit ones, are going to get tired suprisingly quickly once you go hammer and tongs at each other with swords. The main fight would be pushing, shoving, and an occaisional stab when your opponent leaves a gap. Remember this isn't the arena - you haven't got freedom of movement and your unit is pushing behind you. Of course this is going to cause casualties. As for the pilum, I get the impression that the roman soldiers expected to knock down a proportion of the enemy at a distance. Realistically some opponents must have been injured or killed by them.

I totally agree, I'm not saying that the pilum wasn't a good weapon, quite the opposite, it would have been extremely effective. The sight of thousand upon thousand of pilum's reigning down on you with nowhere to hide must of scared the hell out of the enemy, but even after this first onslaught and all the pilum had been spent and a proportion of the enemy had been put out of action then the rest would still keep coming and would eventually meet their end at the point of the gladius.

I was just echoing what Votandi said earlier that in my opnion the gladius would have been responsible for more casualties than the pilum.

It depends on the situation. Imagine you're viewing the battle. The barabarians approach and ready themselves to charge. You can see the extroverts already hurling insults. They begin to run forward, not as a disciplined single rush, but with a few wilder individuals taking the lead and the less brave following behind. The romans call for pila salvo's. The spears arc gently and fall onto the enemy. Those that have shields raise them. The charge almost peters out because they're concerned about pila dropping on them. Many take the pila on their shields. Some are still injured nonetheless. The weight of a descending pilum knocks the shield back. Some shields are penetrated and still manage to injure the holder. Those shields are now useless, encumbered by a roman spear they can't easily remove and which is already useless for combat now the shank has bent under gravity. At any rate, not all had shields and many of those went down with spears in them. The barbarian yell loudly having survived and resume the charge. The romans ready themselves with swords. Barbarians pile in hard swinging their longer swords hoping for shock value - the roman legion fends them off with shields, stabbing into their faces, legs, and stomach as trained. At first, men go down quickly. Both sides fight energetically. Now that the charge is over and melee is under way, the barbarians tend to fall back to allow their swords free reign, sometimes withdrawing and rushing back in when they see a gap. The romans instead try to remain formed, supporting each other with a wall of shields. Those barbarians are tiring first because they're working harder and some have already withdrawn to the back. The romans cannot easily rotate and must continue to face their enemy. They too are tiring although they swing swords a lot less. The more aggressive are pushing and striking with their shields leaving a stunned barbarian open to stabbing.

So - and assuming I'm actually correct about this - there's an initial number of casualties due to the pilum which depends on the enemies protection, distance, and movement. After that, the gladius takes over and the bodies pile up at a slower rate, getting slower still after the initial energy and adrenalin of combat. Should the enemy break and turn to run, there while be a few moments were barbarians are struggling to get away through the throng of confused men and slipping on bodies lying beneath them - a moment where roman troops might cut a few down from behind in the panic, and there's a sudden blip in the casualty rate before the barbarians withdraw completely. If the rear ranks still have pila to hand now is the time, because the barbarians have almost no defence. The roman soldiers do not pursue - they're weighed down with shields and armour, and besides, there are auxillary cavalrymen lurking in the area for that task!

It depends on the situation. Imagine you're viewing the battle. The barabarians approach and ready themselves to charge. You can see the extroverts already hurling insults. They begin to run forward, not as a disciplined single rush, but with a few wilder individuals taking the lead and the less brave following behind. The romans call for pila salvo's. The spears arc gently and fall onto the enemy. Those that have shields raise them. The charge almost peters out because they're concerned about pila dropping on them. Many take the pila on their shields. Some are still injured nonetheless. The weight of a descending pilum knocks the shield back. Some shields are penetrated and still manage to injure the holder. Those shields are now useless, encumbered by a roman spear they can't easily remove and which is already useless for combat now the shank has bent under gravity. At any rate, not all had shields and many of those went down with spears in them. The barbarian yell loudly having survived and resume the charge. The romans ready themselves with swords. Barbarians pile in hard swinging their longer swords hoping for shock value - the roman legion fends them off with shields, stabbing into their faces, legs, and stomach as trained. At first, men go down quickly. Both sides fight energetically. Now that the charge is over and melee is under way, the barbarians tend to fall back to allow their swords free reign, sometimes withdrawing and rushing back in when they see a gap. The romans instead try to remain formed, supporting each other with a wall of shields. Those barbarians are tiring first because they're working harder and some have already withdrawn to the back. The romans cannot easily rotate and must continue to face their enemy. They too are tiring although they swing swords a lot less. The more aggressive are pushing and striking with their shields leaving a stunned barbarian open to stabbing.

 

So - and assuming I'm actually correct about this - there's an initial number of casualties due to the pilum which depends on the enemies protection, distance, and movement. After that, the gladius takes over and the bodies pile up at a slower rate, getting slower still after the initial energy and adrenalin of combat. Should the enemy break and turn to run, there while be a few moments were barbarians are struggling to get away through the throng of confused men and slipping on bodies lying beneath them - a moment where roman troops might cut a few down from behind in the panic, and there's a sudden blip in the casualty rate before the barbarians withdraw completely. If the rear ranks still have pila to hand now is the time, because the barbarians have almost no defence. The roman soldiers do not pursue - they're weighed down with shields and armour, and besides, there are auxillary cavalrymen lurking in the area for that task!

Great description of battle Caldrail, I felt like I was almost in there with them, I was getting tired myself, just reading it

Again i totally agree with what you are saying, but the question still remains 'which do you think would have been responsible for the most casualties, The pilum or the gladius?'

You've given an excellent argument for the effectiveness of the pilum and i totally agree with you but you haven't actually committed yourself to an answer.

One should also consider, though, that 1 casualty may be a combination of both the pilum and gladius. Because the pilum renders the shield useless, that person may get killed by a gladius, where if they still had their sheild they might have survived. I guess that in this case the gladius does the actual kill, but the pilum is instrumental in it.

Again i totally agree with what you are saying, but the question still remains 'which do you think would have been responsible for the most casualties, The pilum or the gladius?'

 

You've given an excellent argument for the effectiveness of the pilum and i totally agree with you but you haven't actually committed yourself to an answer.

I have committed myself. What I said was that the pilum causes a large blip of casualties once during the set-too, possibbly once or twice more with lesser effect. The gladius causes a slower number of casualties after the two sides meet with an initial hump in the graph, and continuing at a slightly diminishing rate thereafter until one side or the other breaks. So, the gladius wins handsomely provided the fight goes on for a while. If the fight is a short one, then the pilum has done the bloodiest work.

Depending on the time and circumstances, the enemy would have been damaged by slingers, archers and artillery prior to using the pila. The organized Romans could 'rotate' more easily than disorganized barbarians if they were pressed on a flank or even their rear or form a 'box' if pressed on all sides. A 'by the left flank' rotation would have been dangerous, as the Roman shields could not easily protect them from the onslaughts from their original front. Hopefully, a legionary would not be 'swinging' his gladius. His object would be to stab and twist into the upper body of the foe. The infantry would follow up as much as possible to prevent the enemy from regrouping and to get at the enemy camp (for the loot). The gladius was 'aimed' and personal, whereas other weapons were fired generally at the enemy. Most of the killing would have gone on during a rout.

The gladius is credited with killing more Gauls than were killed in all their subsequent wars until the machine gun of WWI.

Most of the killing would have gone on during a rout.

The gladius would seem an ideal weapon for close-quarters stabbing actions with an enemy coming head on, so in a rout I'm guessing a slashing/sling/hacking weapon would be more appropriate?

Most of the killing would have gone on during a rout.

 

The gladius would seem an ideal weapon for close-quarters stabbing actions with an enemy coming head on, so in a rout I'm guessing a slashing/sling/hacking weapon would be more appropriate?

If one could slash, one could stab or hamstring - just as easily - and it would be more effective. The Roman soldiers at Cannae were mostly hamstrung when they were routed.