how far could a pilum be thrown?

What do you mean by "hamstring"?

What do you mean by "hamstring"?

To sever the Achilles tendon in the back of the lower leg. Subsequent to that wound, the Roman soldiers at Cannae, were said to have offered their throats to their enemy.

Ouch!! :: does a funny little dance:: That's gotta hurt!!

I thought that would be rather difficult considering it would require bending or squatting low in order to pull it off, leaving your back/top of your head vulnerable to the Celts' slashing/crushing weapons.

Ouch!! :: does a funny little dance:: That's gotta hurt!!

 

I thought that would be rather difficult considering it would require bending or squatting low in order to pull it off, leaving your back/top of your head vulnerable to the Celts' slashing/crushing weapons.

I am confused.

Well, to reach someone's achilles tendon (which is in the back of the ankle) you would have to be able to reach their foot. That would mean, either you have a long sword (which Romans didn't) or you stoop/bend over (bad idea usually) OR they have their foot somehow within your reach. Now, if you mean cutting the tendons in the back of the knees *that* makes a bit more sense. Far easier to reach, every bit as debilitating (if not more so).

I suspect this is the case as I can see absolutely no connection between the ankle and the term "hamstring" (which, I believe, is actually a muscle going up the back of the thigh).

The romans at Cannae weren't routed, they were surrounded and hopelessly disorganised. Not that it mattered. They were completely surrounded and couldn't run anywhere.

Remember that for roman soldiers to chase in a rout situation they must leave their shields behind - they have to run faster than the retreating enemy or they get away. In fact, I doubt roman infantry did much pursuing. It effectively meant relinquishing control of that unit as they rush forwards. This was why in sieges the romans were so murderous. Once sent into the breach there was no way to restrain their activities. The commander could only wait for the men to wander back to camp laden with booty and bloodstains. In a battle, this behaviour is not desirable at all, certainly not to the highly organised roman mindset. One of the primary uses of cavalry in this period, as in many others, was pursuing the enemy. It wasn't just about causing casualties, it was about persuading them not to rally anf come back!

Pliny informs us the republican gladii were strictly used in a stabbing fashion. Livy says that imperial sword play involved as much swinging as anything else. I find that interesting because it means the style of swordfighting was evolving, the men less conformal to the old manner of sturdy shield protected ranks stabbing their enemy down. Now it was a matter of hacking away in a more florid style. The sword shape confirms this, as the wicked long point of older designs was being replaced by shorter straight sided blades.

I think that both C & LW should re-read my two posts, which are general statements with an example. Also, a reading of descriptions of the Battle of Cannae would be helpful. 'Rout'?, 'hamstring'?, a dictionary would be helpful.

I know I'm kinda late to the topic here, but I thought I would share some interesting info on casualties and such.

Using data from the book From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, by Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz, it can be ascertained that victorious armies during prolonged battle suffered a casualty rate of about 10% (5% KIA, 5% wounded). Losing armies suffered an average of 30% of more but this was often because of being routed.

Using this data along with his own thorough research, Gary Brueggeman, who has done some amazing analysis of the roman army, estimated that maybe only 20-30% of pila hit anything (shield or soldier) and that maybe only responsible for 3% of all casualties (3 dead or wounded per 1000). The reasons for this all variable but very wide having to do with charge dynamics, number of ranks getting of their pila, etc.

Gary is supposedly working on a book of all his research and if he does I am definitely getting it.

Perhaps the pila broke up the charge of an untrained, ill equipped enemy. No matter the numbers, it would have been better to impose casualties on the enemy before the personal clash.

In modern warfare, it is preferred to wound an enemy, as it takes more of their soldiers out of the battle.

I agree completely Gaius! It has been argued that the initial clash between ancient armies often decided the rest of the course of the battle. If one side gained an initial advantage, it is very likely they would carry the day. As you have said, a pila volley en masse could very easily disrupt an enemy's morale or discipline before the initial clash making the Romans first contact all the more effective, despite any low incident of casualties directly attributed to the pila themselves.

As I said before, the pilum is a disarming weapon. It removes shields and men from an enemy formation. It doesn't need to kill them. After all, you're not going to charge a cohort of roman soldiers with a darn great stick hanging out of your leg. As for the morale, its as well to bear in mind that barbarian cultures often revolve around fighting and personal honour as a way of life. For that reason, they aren't easily routed, at least to start with. Fighting was very much in your face back then and this was accepted by both sides. Actually I do agree that casualties from pila are likely to be low, but 3% seems a bit too low to me. I wonder how the learned gentleman arrived at those figures.

Look at it this way. Imagine you're about to charge to romans. You're ready, keyed up, and spoiling to shed some of their blood. Despite your taunts and yelling they remain steadfastly quiet. Their front ranks step forward and throw a forest of spears at you. You might avoid one or two, but these fast moving objects are coming in at a volley. There are warriors either side of you trying to avoid them also. You probably can't step back either. Leg and foot injuries are possibly frequent. One chap beside you has his forearm pinned to the shield, another falls stunned because the shield knocked back against his head.

I think that barbarian warriors are likely to have a looser formation than the roman heavy infantry but that depends on whether they have shields. One benefit of shield carrying isn't just personal defence, it allows you to front a shield wall. Its an important advantage, because as modern research shows a shield wall is a suprisingly formidable barrier. That after all is another reason for that large curved roman shield.

Many barbarian cultures, gaulish and germanic, did not usually carry shields. They might throw stones at the romans before an attack. Don't laugh, stones hurt. Soldiers were killed in the trenches in Crimea from people lobbing stones into the opposing trench. Caesar records that his aedui allies were sent into quick retreat by stone-throwing german horsemen. In fact, the romans were well defended against stones. The same cannot be said about most barbarian warriors facing pila volleys.

I think 3% is too low. Anything up to 10% on the first volley depending on how many pila get thrown in the first place. That said, if the number of pila are restricted then obviously we see less casualties.

I would like to add the case of Caesar vs Pompeys men. I forget the battle, but from what I read there was one case where his unit refused to advance. He exorted and cajoled them, calling his men cowards and poofs, but they remained in place. He then dismounted, grabbed a shield from one legionary, and marched on his tod toward the enemy. They of course could not believe their luck. The call to ready their pila came and they threw the volley. Caesar took some on his shield, which he must have dropped there and then because of the weight of roman pila stuck in it. He managed to step over the rest that came close, and then caesar beckoned on his men. Having witnessed their commanders survival, they were once more invigorated to fight.

A charming tale (I don't know how true that was) but it strikes me that the pila volley was inaccurate. Despite all the training it was at the end of the day a mass effect weapon much like muskets of later era's. Of the hundred or whatever pila thrown at caesar, not one injures him. Of course, he was alone, he had freedom of movement, he was armoured and had a large roman shield. Barbarian warriors en masse did not.

PS - Hamstringing an enemy in rout is all but impossible. Injuries to the head, shoulders, and back are more likely. Please inform your dungeonmaster

PS - Hamstringing an enemy in rout is all but impossible. Injuries to the head, shoulders, and back are more likely. Please inform your dungeonmaster

My dungeon master tells me that you should re-read my posts and try, (try, try), to understand them. Sorry that I wrote in American.

Just to supplement a little:

...I wonder how the learned gentleman arrived at those figures

This is my take, I might be misinterpreting so if you find an error, it is most likely mine and not my sources. From re-reading some of Breuggeman's stuff and the relevant parts From Sumer to Rome the rationale seems to be that the majority of all casualties occured after the lines broke. Up to that point, the victorious army at least would suffer 5% dead and 5-10% wounded (figures based on historical accounts and analysis). Similar numbers are expected of the defeated army as well, at least until right before whatever caused their lines to break occurred. It is also assumed that casualties for the most part would be spread out throughout the entire course of the battle but with a heavier percentage during the initial clash. So, since the pila were most likely thrown at the beginning of the engagement and the initial clash was responsible for a slightly better than even average of number of casulaties, the pila are probably only responsible for a small number of casulaties

I think 3% is too low. Anything up to 10% on the first volley depending on how many pila get thrown in the first place. That said, if the number of pila are restricted then obviously we see less casualties...

Brueggeman's contention is exactly this. He contends that at best only the first 2-3 ranks of soldiers in a century would be able to get off their pila before the initial clash. The other 6-8 ranks (depending on the strength of the century) would not be able to get off their pila without risk of hitting their own ranks in front of them or being over or under ranged to the enemy. This number varies of course depending on dynamics of charging, lulls, enemy formation.

I also totally agree that the pila would have been effective at disarming without actually wounding or killing. I also personnally think that a larger number of pila hit something. I may have misinterpreted the initial numbers confusing hits with wounds/kills.

Anyway, overall interesting stuff, no!

The numbers given into the book you give does strike me as more able to represent a Greek hoplite battle than a roman versus barbarian battle. Indeed a hoplitic fight will see little weapon throwing, a run toward the enemy, a violent contact ( we are told of shields and spears exploding under the force of the impact ), then a long "quite" period when spears and then swords try to find holes in the enemy's defense, then when fatigue sets in either unit disorganization or shield wall breaking and the front being pierced, resulting in a rout and then a lot of casualities.

A roman fight would not go the same way for after an initial missile fire part the enemy would run toward the romans, usually in a disorganized mass, trying to use the speed as a advantage against the immobile romans. Then the pila volley would come and hurt, slow down some barbarians, confuse them for an instant, just enough for the legionaries to begin their own shorter run and allow them to crash into the enemy were the romans shorter swords would allow them to fight at closer range, inside the turn radius of most barbarian swords, and allow the romans a higher killing ratio. When enemies had shorter weapons, like in Spain or Thracia, and were thus able to fight more effectively against the Romans they did inflict higher casualties ( other reasons may have heightened the casualties rate, like the fact those barbarians preferred ambushes against which the romans had less success )

Shields and spears exploding? Not from an infantry engagement - there isn't enough energy and momentum involved. I wonder if thats more to do with sub-standard equipment. After all, not all wooden shafts are perfect.

A rout does not necessarily involve heavy casualties, although I admit the possibility is strong. A tired unit of roman soldiers might not be willing to chase, its commander might not be willing to allow it, and the enemy might simply run faster. Thats why cavalry are employed in this role.