how far could a pilum be thrown?

Well the texts speaking of shields and spears exploding might be literary exaggeration but it's mentioned by the texts so we can't discount it. Also we must remember that hoplite battle was really a large rugby charge where two lines of men in armor with a large round and bombed shield ran into each other, weapons and shields hitting weapons and shields. I would not be that surprised to discover that many shields and spears did indeed shatter.

About a rout indeed an army commander may choose not to pursue it's enemy, and this would lower the casualties but even so the moment when the enemy decides to flee is a time when he shall suffer the most losses by presenting his back to the swords and spears.

Well the texts speaking of shields and spears exploding might be literary exaggeration but it's mentioned by the texts so we can't discount it. Also we must remember that hoplite battle was really a large rugby charge where two lines of men in armor with a large round and bombed shield ran into each other, weapons and shields hitting weapons and shields. I would not be that surprised to discover that many shields and spears did indeed shatter.

Shields and spears do break - as I've already mentioned. But they don't explode. Hoplite combat isn't a rugby charge. You try running with those long pikes! It was a steady advance at walking pace, relying on the mass of men to push the enemy back (or harm him if he didn't). Lets be honest, if a forest of sharp objects advances on you its difficult to stop it.

About a rout indeed an army commander may choose not to pursue it's enemy, and this would lower the casualties but even so the moment when the enemy decides to flee is a time when he shall suffer the most losses by presenting his back to the swords and spears.

The reasons a commander may not wish his unit to pursue is that he no longer remains in control of his men and it renders them vulnerable to cavalry action. Roman legions were primarily heavy infantry, not skirmishers. They were best employed in ordered ranks maintaining supportive close order.

I think you make a mistake here : the hoplite spear is not as long as you think, you are thinking about the macedonian pike here, much longer indeed ! We are speaking of a 2 meters and a half long spear, the doru.

And we have proof the hoplite did charge like a rugby team : the battle of Marathon where it is said in many texts, including some written by fighters of the battle, that the Athenian did run to get on the persians.

I accept your point with good grace

This relatively small subject seems to have acquired a lot attention, yet we are no nearer resolving the query. Instead of asking ourselves how far a pilum could be thrown, how about we ask one of the many good re - enactment groups how far a pilum can be thrown? Then we will get our answer.

This relatively small subject seems to have acquired a lot attention, yet we are no nearer resolving the query. Instead of asking ourselves how far a pilum could be thrown, how about we ask one of the many good re - enactment groups how far a pilum can be thrown? Then we will get our answer.

Excellent point Neil!

From consulting various threads on another forum and more of Mr. Brueggeman's research I have deduced the following. From reviewing the results of reenactors who have practiced 3 or more times per week for at least a year, 60 feet (18.2 M) seems to be the limit on consistently accurate pilum throws. Further distances of 100 plus feet (30.4 M) can be attained but accuracy is greatly diminished.

Attempts from first time throwers have resulted in 70 ft. throws (21 meters) but without accuracy. Reducing throws to 30 feet (9-10 M) can result in very good accuracy after only a couple of throws.

I would expect that when not fighting, soldiers trained quite a bit with their pila so it would proably be reasonable to expect they could make the accurate 60 ft throws accurately.

There is also other theoretical data that suggests that you wouldn't want to throw pila further than that even if you could for timing reasons. There is a lot of other data available, but this is the most immediate stuff.

In re: reenactors practicing. The Roman soldier carried a heavier kit in training than on the march. I believe that he trained with a heavier pilum than he carried to a battle. Do the reenactors do like wise? If not, then statistics drawn from them are not valid.

In re: reenactors practicing. The Roman soldier carried a heavier kit in training than on the march. I believe that he trained with a heavier pilum than he carried to a battle. Do the reenactors do like wise? If not, then statistics drawn from them are not valid.

Good point Gaius! The discussions I've seen do discuss trying pila of different weights. One of the manufacturers, Deepeeka, makes (or made) one that weighed signficantly more than ones from the pilum kit that RLQM makes. Results with the Deepeeka one were much shorter and soon abandoned for what was considered by them to be more standard weight pila. The stats above are based on the lighter pila so I feel fairly confident that they reflect stats remniscent of battle.

Modern re-enactment is a useful resource but the technique of throwing a pilum a la legion isn't known - its being simulated as best as they can. The romans of course trained their men with experienced soldiers, many of whom may have seen combat for real. The important point to remember is that the pilum isn't being thrown for distance like a javelin. The impression I get is that a 'flat' throw intended for accuracy doesn't achieve the desired result. There must have been an element of arc in the trajectory, which I doubt was of a steep angle like modern athletics.

The short range ascribed by re-enactors is based on their experience and I accept their findings.

The point that I was trying to get at, is that the Romans trained with heavier equipment so that when it came to actual use, it would be easier for them to use the equipment.

Except for very close range, I don't think that the object of throwing the pila was to aim. It was to break up a formation in general.

The arc of the throw, and thus gravity, would determine the force with which the pila would hit the enemy. The greater the arc, the less dependent the force of the hit is on human strength. Human strength would determine distance.

The point that I was trying to get at, is that the Romans trained with heavier equipment so that when it came to actual use, it would be easier for them to use the equipment.

This was pretty much a standard training method of roman combat, both military and gladiatorial. The purpose of course is to build strength, a useful commodity in violence. I remember one time I was on the shooting range, firing .303 enfields. The recoil was evident and although I was hitting the target, I was not getting a close group (and therefore, not a markman award). For the last time I decided to fire a .22 rifle. Now that was pretty puny compared to the military calibre I'd been using, but it felt like I could literally reach out and place bullets on the bull-eye. Sadly I still didn't get a markmanship award because one bullet went straight through the hole made by a previous shot! The point of course is underline the use of heavier weapons for practice. It does work.