I'd imagine a good deal of survivor bias going on in the historical records as well. Guys who survive might comment that it inconvenienced their shield, whereas everyone else was too dead to report on anything.
I don't think this hitting you after being slowed down by the shield would kill you but it could easily wound you to the point of being ineffective in combat. Getting hit in the eye or arms or legs or losing your shield could take you out of immedietly out of combat. It's all about breaking down the enemy line.
There is something wrong about what is written in the history books, those wooden shields are obviously not effective against arrows. Maybe a bronze shield?
We know that many types of pila were sturdy enough to be used as a stabbing spear in melee combat. So it is debatable whether "most" pila was actually intended to bend, or whether it bent due to other situations (such as improper removal of a pila stuck in an object). However, we did know that the Romans used lighter javelins that were more likely to bend and also used heavier javelins (eg. different types of pila) that were less likely to bend. For example, Polybius states that the light, 3-foot javelins used by velite skirmishers had thin points (hammered thin) that were more likely to bend on impact. However, he contrasts this against the 6-7 foot pila, and states that the pila had a stronger design and how well the iron shank and points were firmly attached the the shaft:"Each is fitted with a barbed iron head of the same length as the haft. This they attach so securely to the haft, carrying the attachment halfway up the latter and fixing it with numerous rivets, that in action the iron will break sooner than become detached, although its thickness at the bottom where it comes in contact with the wood is a finger's breadth and a half; such great care do they take about attaching it firmly." Scholars such as MC Bishop originally thought that the pila was supposed to bend on impact in his older works. However, in his more recent work, he revised his opinions in light of new evidence to say that the pila was probably not intended to bend on impact. According to his more recent works, such his “Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin,” many if not most Roman javelins are actually very sturdy and don’t bend on impact (with exceptions such as Marius’ wooden peg pila or the Velite’s very thin javelins). He states that most pila that do get bent are bent from people improperly trying to remove a pila stuck in another object by applying to much lateral force while trying to wiggle it out. The pila is perfectly capable of being stuck in a shield because of the shape of its head without needing to bend. There are plenty of experimental archaeology videos on UA-cam where people test the strength of the pila in close combat, and found that it works as a thrusting spear quite well. Furthermore, we have several sources that states or portrays the Romans used the pila as a spear/melee weapon in close quarters combat. This is even more evidence to suggest that the pila was actually sturdy enough to not bend easily. Examples includes the following: 1) Caear's writings about the Battle of Alessia where he states his troops used their pila like spears or pikes in his book, The Gallic Wars (Book VII?) 2) Plutarch describes Caesar's men at Pharsalus jabbing upwards at the faces of Pompey's cavalry with their javelins. "And this was what actually came to pass; for they could not endure the upward thrust of the javelins..." and "Whenever the cavalry charged, they were to run out through the front ranks, and were not to hurl their pila, as the best soldiers usually did in their eagerness to draw their swords, but to strike upwards with them and wound the aces and eyes of the enemy" -"The Life of Julius Caesar" and "The Life of Pompey" by Plutarch 3) Antony's invasion of Parthia: Plutarch in Life of Antony 45 talks about Mark Antony's legions using their pila to thrust at Parthians in melee. "But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout." -Life of Antony by Plutarch 4) We have reliefs on Roman artwork showing Romans using pila in melee combat stabbing at Dacian infantry. (See Tropaeum Traiani) 5) Arrian in Array against the Alans (2nd century AD) talks about legionary heavy infantry equipped with an iron shank weapon used to thrust at horses: "Fifteenth legion's infantry should hold the entire right center above the middle of the whole area, because they are by far the most numerous. They should deploy in eight ranks and their deployment should be close ordered...And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies near them, they can thrust the ironpoints of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third an fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness. The follow ranks should be of the javelineers." -Array against Alans by Arrian Thus, because many, if not most forms of pila were actually much sturdier than we used to think, this means that many would not be bent upon impact and could be retrievable after the battle.
Good comment, glad I searched through to find it. A pity serious comments tend to be underrated and buried. I will note that what bends pila isn't the resistance of the material (stabbing stuff), but transverse load. I also wrote a response to the video, going into such details, in my own comment, here: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg One point I'd like to raise, is that a heavy pilum could be designed to bend (I believe some were?), and additional weight makes it more likely if the shank is thin. I don't doubt that the light pila were also designed to bend, but to put it into perspective... Matt used a light pilum with a very thick shank (thicker than any example he knows of), which was quite short, and so it was the worst design possible if you want a pilum to bend (and it still did in the archery target). Legionaries were known to carry two pila, so it's quite plausible one was designed to not bend, and thus be more usable as a spear, being more similar to Matt's. I question whether a heavy pilum would be suitable for this, though, as making your weapon too heavy is just awkward, and certain features like the large metal sphere before the shank don't seem useful for a spear. Pila could be retrieved after the battle even if they were bent in two (as some archaeological finds are). It's easy enough to heat and hammer them back into shape, and reuse them.
@Legio XXI Rapax Everything in my comment is discussing the pilum (multi-purpose throwing spear or heavy javelin), and not the hasta thrusting spear. See the last sentence of paragraph 1 that quotes Polybius describing the pila with a barbed iron head that is the same length as the haft, and is attached by rivets. The description is clearly the pila and not a hasta. MC Bishop's book in paragraph 2 is discussing the pilum as its title suggests, and not the hasta. In my other paragraphs, all of those weapons described were pila. Plutarch says that Caesar's man soldiers did not "hurl" the pila but used them to stab at Pompey's cavalry. Same goes for the description of Marc Antony's troops stabbing their pila against the Parthian cavalry. My paragraph citing Arrian in Array Against the Alans specifically says the front ranks use their thin iron shank weapons as spears while the middle ranks use these same weapons as javelins.
And this is with Matt who, while a healthy guy with experience throwing javelins, is NOT a Roman legionnaire. They spent most of their time marching, digging and doing other things that made them strong and spent countless hours training with the pilum. If he has no problem going through a shield I can't even imagine what a Roman soldier with a bunch of pili could do.
@@currentcomentor1026 True that, but when you're with thousands of other soldiers your job will be not much more than hammering together a few stakes or planks. Still something many of us would consider a workout, to be fair.
You are of course correct. Now think of them an entire legion with two of them.... I have no questions what so ever that you can break a charge with them.
@@samualaddams705 If pila were so smart how come they're dead. By which I mean, why did they fall out of fashion? They seem to be very cost-effective weapons after all. Sure, at first they were replaced by other javelins, which would still do pretty much the same job, but eventually javelins as a whole also fell out of fashion except in more specialized roles. I just can't understand it
@@hrotha First guess would be as bows improved the pilia became less needed. Second javelins as you pointed out are more simple to make and repair. As the roman empire decayed they dropped tech that was harder to maintain and more expensive. Lorica Segmenta for example. A pila may be able to pierce chain but it is not going through plate steel. Yet the legions moved away to exclusively chain. Maintenance and construction cost must have played a part in that change. You must have a blacksmith to maintain Lorica Segmenta and blacksmiths cost a lot or may have become unavailable as the empire caved in.
It can also be explained by a decay of finances, making mass production as a whole increasingly difficult. So all in all, Pila fell out of fashion due to a change in warfare styles, the change to heavy cavalry emphasis in Europe, etc... It's a sad decline, but I think they stopped being used due to unrelated world issues, rather than because the Pila weren't effective
I get what you guys are saying, but pretty much the same thing happened to simpler javelins eventually, and that was before I could see gunpowder making them obsolete, so I dunno
It's always interesting to see historical "facts" not being taken for granted, but instead challenged to see whether they are actual facts or something else, be it an outright invention or just an anomaly. Thanks for the video. If I may offer a tiny bit of correction : Scutum (like, incidentally, Pilum) is a neutral noun belonging to the 2nd declension, and its plural is formed in the same way as Pilum. Pilum/Pila - Scutum/Scuta
Man, I go to the Latin Mass, I respond the prayers in latin, etc. However when speaking about roman warfare I always forget which was the singular and which the plural, Pilum or Pila. Sometimes I tend to write "Pili" for the plural, I don't know why. I hope I remember the next time, once and for all. Thanks.
It's terrible to see what's well known and understood challenged with contrived circumstance with poor knowledge and understanding. The original historians also tested this, and their tests were a lot better than Matt's. They found the pila did bend, unless you make them out of mild steel far thicker and shorter than the originals, with a light javelin, as Matt did. I wrote a comment on the subject in full, if you are interested: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg
@@FeedMeMister Yes, it doesn't. Matt set up a False Dichotomy. Literally no one suggested they weren't designed to penetrate, so it was a grievous straw man.
I have a more complete theory: Pila were used immediately before the charge to: wound the enemy, disorganize their formation, bait them into bracing their shields to tire their arms and blind them and to embed into the shields of the first rank which would then be defenseless for the immediately following charge. Withdraw a couple meters, pass more pila to the front, repeat, hence why each legionary carried several. I've come to agree that they were not intended to bend, at least not as a main feature.
Yes, you're charging and get one of those in your shield. You really need to get that out, which you cannot do without you or a comrade at least temporarily exposing themselves to the second pilum.
Pointy back end drops in ground. If lucky with shield makes a defensive pointy wall for that and following ranks to get past. People charging find it hard to stop as others push from behind. You have to keep going forward with that thing stuck in your shield whilst the other end drops to the ground. You are still pushed forward. I doubt anyone would drop a shield unless absolutely made to. It would be scary at least. Still going forward.....
I completely agree. And as I point out in my own comment, both the bending and the hurting can be optimise with the same design options (making the shaft as thin as possible while still strong enough to penetrate down to the socket without damage = most chance to wound effortlessly AND to bend while trying to extract it from a shield, heck, it might even bend after wounding too making it an absolute pain). Whichever you try to optimise for, you're still improving the other. And of course, the primary problem is: neutralising the shield. Someone without a shield or full body armour (which their opponents didn't have) is about as good as a wounded soldier when the enemy has projectiles and shields and numbers.
When you count up the battles over the centuries of empire its amazing how little the legions fought Rome's enemies compared to fighting to put their tribune or prefect in the purple.
First off, wow. Between yourself, Tod Cutler, and Thrand, any feeling of safety I had behind a shield is quickly vanishing. Second, your mention brings it to mind. I'm very interested in the performance of rattan and wicker shields vs. arrows/javelins/spears/swords, especially since (at least from what I've read) the Ming Dynasty thought to highly of them even compared to wood.
Rattan and wicker, while lighter, perhaps the construction used multi-layer 'kevlar' type performance ... or were not much more protective than grandma's wicker chair.
Rattan can be thicker for a given weight than wood and is tough enough to make a bow. I have no idea how rattan shields were constructed....but my imagination is running riot. When steamed it could be coiled like a straw archery target. I'd love to find out! It's flexibility and toughness would allow more design options than wood.
Unusual? There are many examples of bent pila that have been unearthed, several at 90 degrees. It was not suggested to be a highly unusual event, so this is simply a fancy way of saying we should ignore the sources due to one backyard test with an overly short, thick, mild steel, light pila. Tragically, without all the information being present, the video is quite convincing.
@@vanivanov9571 Then again, how do we know they where bent in battle? And not after? of any reason etc? Or for that matter, bent by the enemy, not when they got hit/was thrown? Just going with "oh they found x who is x" im not sure i go with that.
@@vanivanov9571 Pretty much everyone, even modern professional historians, are questioning the old assertions of pila being made specifically to bend when we have like what, 10 examples probably bend due to rust and ill conditions? some examples of 90 degrees bending concludes that all pila are universally design to bend from early republican period to high imperial end?. Then, we have some online dudes that takes wikipedia too far. Disagreeing doesn't mean being a jerk. Maybe some introspection next time will be useful to yourself.
@@vanivanov9571 You are making generalizations about pila that are not warranted. We know there was regional variation as well as on going development over the course of its several hundred year use. But by all means get several pila together and as close to reasonably accurate shields and show everyone where he is wrong.
@@samualaddams705 You got that backwards. Matt's got the funding, let HIM get several pila and test them, since HE wants to make sweeping generalizations. I was disputing his sweeping generalization.
So if it penetrates the shield - great. Gets stuck - great. Bends or not - great. Which leave the person with a long spear in it and maybe their body gets stuck thru the shield. This takes time and the soldier would need to extract that spear which leave them open. If that soldier can fall back behind the 2nd rank to extract the spear, good for them, BUT it takes time and leaves a soldier without a shield for a short time OR is injured, injured enough to take them out of the battle or killed.
The heather shield and scutum have one thing in common, in addition to being held close to the body - people who used them were practically always wearing chain mail, unlike people with early medieval boss grip shields that can be held at a distance, where chain mail was nice to have but not as universal. I don't think that's a coincidence.
2nd strike against shields. its crazy how much armor penetration ancient weapons actually had. I REALLY want to see pilum thrown into different plate armors.
I would be interested to know how the shield direction would effect penetration. If the shield was held at a 45 degree angle, what would the depth be? In tank armour, the material is set at an angle to increase sectional density without adding weight. In the Roman Scutum, a curving surface may indicate an increasing sectional density relative to the holder. Just a thought.
Shields are way too thin in comparison to create this effect. Also angling the shield decrease its frontal surface area, making it less likely to be actually hit by the projectile, exposing the wearer instead.
I got a three part answer for you: 1st, the math is actually easy. At 45 degrees, the length of penetration doubles. But also the protective surface of the shield from the projectiles point of view is halfed. 2nd, ur proposed experiment would be pretty much useless for the following reasons: The heater shield in this experiment was allready stronger than a shield would have been of a typical soldier opposing the legions. Moreover it got hit in some sharper angles in the video allready and went through fine. And wood posseses diffrent properties than steel. So the very common riccochets from sloped tank armor would not happen with a wooden surface. 3rd, the reason why historically whenever possible all personal armor is curved or even shaped to the specific body is that it can protect a bigger surface with less material. A scutum that is curved can cover a lot of angles of incoming attacks and to reach the same coverage with a straight shield it would have to be significantly bigger, making it less nimble and heavier. Pls do not be offended, I like how curious you are and I did not intent to insult you. And in the case you might not know about it "Tod's workshop" is an excellent channel that is lately doing a lot of practical historical experiments about arrows and penetration. So u might find it interesting.
In addition, a pilum slightly droops downwards when it hits a shield, and it negates some if the advantages of holding your shield at an angle upwards.
@@bastianstiefler3390 brilliant answer, I would want to add however that curvature in armour is used not only and sometimes even not at all for ergonomics and mass reduction. Curvature, especially in helmet design is used mainly for force redirection, because dead straight blow will transfer almost all of its energy and momentum to the target, but if it hits at an angle, it reduces the transfer rate. Breastplate design is another prime example of that fact. As for shields in particular, I also don't believe curved shields have anything to do with force deflection, they were made curved to cover more angles probably.
Both are kind of important, one inch of penetration don´t impress even if you go all the way. a foot long tip that is another thing even if you only penetrate half up the shaft.
Makes me think of spaced armor in modern tanks the pila beeing APFS shells and the conjunction of mail + shield beeing spaced armor. Nothing new under the sun...
But arent we above the sun? Its 10pm here. Then again wheres above and below in the outer space? Guess im overthinking things again need to go to sleep 😓
makes absolutely since - I also believed for a long time the old story that the pilae will give a weight to the shield of the enemy, but its not, its for killing, to nail the enemy behind the shield. No doubt in my mind you are right on this Matt!
@@alessandronavone6731 yes that was the exception though as Matt point out - I mean the bending part, which I believed as a kid. It will not Bend it will stick and maybe one more etc. renders the shield useless or kills the owner of the shield.
The historians who tested it believed it, too. Because their pila did bend. Matt's just not designed to bend, being the absolute opposite, and unlike any historical pilum. I go into the details here, if you're interested: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg
"And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence." Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV Even arrows could penetrate scuta at close range. Nasty stuff.
Frontal assault against Roman's you had to endure slings and arrows for 200 yds+ then a barrage of Pillum, while you kept your head down through that, your flanks would be getting hit with mounted Javelin throwers and Cavalry with long swords and spears, what interests me, is why many of these weapons and tactics did not persist.
Its possible that Romes logistic capacity answers at least some of this question. Rome developed a very large professional army of full time soldiers spread across a broad number of tactical skill sets to cover a variety of battle field elements. Its tactics were developed from its centuries of combined arms experimentation supported by an enormous treasury drawing from many nations. How many nations in the 1000 years following western Romes collapse could financially support large diverse and professional armies of soldiers to execute the complex combined arms that made Rome successful. The weapons as well were diverse and required the extensive fabricae proto factories Rome had scattered across the Empire to supply its hundreds of thousands of legionaries. What pre 14th century army could support the iron and steel rich armory of Roman legion (5000 to 6000 heavy troops)let alone a full army. Most ensuing societies (European) had neither the wealth population nor sufficiently broad skill base or logistics capacity to support anything like Romes combined arms apparatus until well into the 14th century
I've honestly felt & basically believed the same thing for a long time as well, but have not had access to a Pilum, Shield Materials, nor Range to try these things out. I appreciate these videos so much. Than you! Thank you for exploring and experimenting with historical stuff to help all better understand history.
Excellent Matt. Yep, shield piercing the main objective, plus the ability to stop a charge dead in it's tracks(the following ranks piling-up in the process) . Rawhide facing makes a huge difference to pierce-resistance as Thegn Thrand demonstrated throwing pila at a just 6mm pine rond shield covered with rawhide a year or two ago.
Great video on experimental archaeology! The purpose of the Roman pila has changed and evolved quite a bit in modern scholarship over the last few decades.
On construction: 1. Planked shields are *not* more liable to split if constructed correctly. The majority of the shields from Dura Europos were ovoid and of planked construction (a few were laminated, and the three rectangular scuta were laminated). Reconstructions of the shields from Thorsberg in Denmark shows that if correctly faced with gut or cowhide leather and backed with linen, with a cowhide, gut, or rawhide edging, they will not split. Shields only faced in linen, rather than of proper laminate construction, will fail completely after about 3 hits from contemporary arrows. 2. We do have pretty solid evidence on standardized construction. Laminated strip shields (rectangular) were either two-ply or three-ply and tapered from 7 to 9 mm in the center to 3 to 5 mm at the edges. They were then faced in one of several ways, but the two most common were thin calf or kid "parchment" leather (or rawhide) over linen, or gesso and linen. We have exceptions to this: one of the shields at Masada had a layer of palm fronds underneath the linen facing, and two (possibly three) of the shields were planked. We have a rather large sample size from across the empire actually, with finds from other locations in Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany being completely consistent with this pattern of construction found at Masada (11 total shield fragments from both Rectangular and Ovoid shields). 18 of the 22 shields found at Dura Europos were also consistent with these construction methods, excepting the four "Sassanian" shields. 3. From experience, historical shields are tougher and more resistant than modern plywood shields which are usually a soft, low quality pine rather than a sturdy, accurate poplar.
The manipular-reform era Roman soldier before the late Republican period was primarily a conscripted militia army organized by social class and then by age/veterancy, had inconsistent/non-standardized training, and probably came in a variety of shapes, sizes, and physical capabilities. The Romans also had different types of throwing spears and javelins - some of which were more likely to bend while others were not. IIRC, Polybius writes that mid Republican era velite skirmishers had javelins with thinly hammered shanks that were more likely to bend - and he contrasted this with the much sturdier pila heavy javelin/throwing spear that was much less likely to bend.
@@Intranetusa A lot of these men were farmers. Farmers in the pre-industrial age were tough customers, accustomed to hard work in all sorts of weather. It was a tough life which made tough men.
One extremely rigged backyard test is not worthy of putting the work of major historians to rest, who did their own experiments and found pila did bend. I write about this in full, in this comment: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg
@@thomaszaccone3960 Well, I explain that in the comment I linked to. But the short version is he commented that his pilum was made of mild steel (not iron/"soft steel"), had a short shank, was a light javelin, and was *thicker than any archaeological example he knows of.* So his pilum was the COMPLETE opposite of one designed to bend, in every possible way. Heck, the square section as the base of the pilum, which he commented was ahistorical, will also help it to resist bending.
I'm really glad you made this video, when I watched your other videos featuring pila I did find it a bit strange that such a thick shaft would reliably bend as heavily as we were led to believe on impact with something as relatively thin as a shield, great video, hope to see more of them in the future! P.S. Excellent throwing, lovely arches
@@brucetucker4847 I want him to test the shield penetration of a balista, it would be a blast watching him shooting one! Roman's, you think they ate outrageous things. until you realize what birds nest soup and 100 year old eggs actually are.
you make a good point, the primary purpose was to penetrate deep, far behind the shield. only secondary effects included the person having to put down their shield and expose themselves to remove the heavy pilum, or to see the pilum get bent and unable to be thrown back. basically, it only bends if it hits something too hard to penetrate or was pulled out of the shield incorrectly. but if it hits or is pulled out cleanly it can be used to throw back at the romans. however, at that point, it hit. it did its job. or it forced you to expose yourself to remove the pilum from the shield, also doing its job. Only when it fails to do its job (does not penetrate hard armor) does it get bent and that's still good because they can't be thrown back.
That actually makes me wonder if part of the reason the Romans started going with a curved shield (similar to the Greek hoplon or some medieval heater shields) for the sake of improving defense against missiles. Yes, the overall thickness may not change, but the curvature itself looks like it would lend itself to deflecting at least a portion of incoming missile fire, rather than having it impact and penetrate on a flat shield.
I think I have heard somewhere that the attachment points of the metal head to the shaft was designed in a way that it could break on impact. so that the shaft essentially became a pendulum on the end of the metal rod.
What's terrifying is you're throwing it at a stationary shield, but a Roman soldier throwing it at a charging enemy means there's even more kinetic energy between the shield moving toward the pilum and the pilum velocity.
Smithsonian did this with a shield on a sled to replicate a charge which was interesting, especially with regard to bending. It seemed that the bend was a byproduct of the charge rather than the design of the weapon, which clearly is meant to just ignore the shield entirely. The replica pilum they used included a circular shaft with no cross-section and it easily penetrated all the way to the socket. Super interesting. They talked about the broadhead being larger than the shaft to reduce friction as the shaft penetrated all the way through. Once the head punches through the wood, there's nothing to stop it from going all the way until the socket hits the shield. Their tests also showed it being difficult to remove the pilum from the shield, but that's also just anecdotal for them.
Very good video! I fully agree with on your conclusions. The only thing I can think of is if you produce one or more of the bolts, which attach the shaft to the spear head, in wood in stead of metal. Then the result maybe would be they will shear of and render the spear useless after the spear hit the target. The target certainly is deadly wounded or if not the spear can't be thrown back.
I think it’s also important to add to the impact of the pilum that many of the peoples Rome conquered would have had their best warriors, other than a lord and his personal retinue, in the first line, a place of honor and greatest glory. A legion hurling it’s pilum into the enemy at close range would probably kill or maim many of the best warriors, whose valor and prowess was relied on to bolster the weaker willed, the less skilled or more poorly armed elements of an army, diminishing morale severely weakening their forces should they run and choose to fight another day
Meevious Yes other peoples used throwing spears. But the only enemies a Roman army faced that used Pilum was another Roman Army. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find another throwing spear that would match the pilum for penetrating capabilities
Good point, I think that if the pilum was designed to disable shields they would've been better with barbs on them. Basically if you want to retrieve and reuse your pilum you make it without barbs and if you want it to stick, you will make barbs on it. I have not seen a pilum with barbs yet so they were probably not designed to stick. I'd say that it would make it an even better weapon with barbs though, it will do the same thing but stick in a shield way better. The only thing you can do when it sticks in your shield is to turn the shield around and charge with the pilum pointing forwards, then stick it into a roman (either scutum or flesh).
I’ve always been told that Pilums were made to not be thrown back, except in a different way. Instead of the metal shaft being thin enough to bend under impact I was told that one of the two rivers securing the tang would be made of wood instead of iron so that under the force of impact the wooden rivet would snap and the shaft would be able to pivot and it couldn’t be thrown back. However after the battle the Pilums could be collected and given a new wooden peg instead of having to reforge the whole shaft straight again.
Matt, you talked about these being thrown by legionnaries facing an enemy charge. My recollection of Roman tactics (which in the primary sources, to be fair, was limited to Caesar's Gallic Wars, but read more secondary ones) would be that against infantry they would generally attempt to charge themselves. While spearmen may spend hours pussy footing around just outside the reach of their opponents, the use of the pilum enforces a certain attack discipline (so long at the troops are trained the the requisite level). You close with the enemy, you throw what is in many respects your primary weapon, and you are then committed to following up before the enemy regain cohesion. It almost doesn't matter whether you have killed you enemy or disabled his shield because you charge in behind your fuck-off big scutum, crash into them while drawing and wielding your gladius around that shield. It looks as if it was a dominant weapon system until infantry gave way to predominantly cavalry armies - and in fact it came off rather second best against cavalry armies of the late Republican/Imperial era, e.g. the Parthians. Question: the sources (Marius, at any rate) refer to legionnaries carrying two pila on the march. Do you think that it would be possible for the front rank legionnaries to carry two pila into the attack, throwing one and then the other. Would it be possible to carry your second pilum in the same hand as you are holding the scutum while you throw the first one, then transfer it to your throwing arm and throw the second. I'm a bit doubtful about that - but the rear ranks could possibly have carried the "spare ammo".
Great video. I do have to wonder if the shape of the scutum might offer some protection against the pilium. The heater shield is much flatter at target, and the curvature of the scutum might help an off-center hit to slide away to the side. The angling produced by the curvature might also present the shield as if it were slightly thicker, but I don't think that would have any real impact.
Seems a pretty effective tool. Whether the shield user is injured or not, a shield would become awkward with a foot long spike pointing at the user. If they take the time to pull the pilum out, they're likely exposed arrows or another pilum. Likewise if they discard the shield. If the pilum is still in the shield when you reach melee, the shaft would become a lever to control the shield, moving it aside or pushing the spike toward the shield user.
Very impressive ! I can't imagine how daunting it must have been to know that even behind your shield you wouldn't be able to protect yourself from a throw. One thought also, about the barbed pilum point/heads, maybe it was so that it'd be harder for the wearer of the shield to use get the pilum out of it, as it has often been interpreted, but it could also have been so that, even when the 1st throw killed or wounded the target, other enemies would have a tougher time grabing the pilums stuck in shields and throwing it back. Also, about the boss I think that eventhough it must have stopped a majority of throws, I wouldn't be adamant about it stopping every pilum/javelin that strikes it, for exemple I remember seeing some exemple of (iron I think) bosses being penetrated by axe's blow.
just an idea, possibly raising the protective value of centergripped shields:if you get the shield hit, it could pivot around your hand, taking the javelin on a circular path, and basically pinching the metal rod limiting the penetration (likely splitting the shield, but protecting its user nonetheless)
Great video bro! The "it bends to prevent throwing it back" claim never made sense to me, I'm 100% with you. ...was afraid you would harm that pretty Scutum. Are you ever going to paint it? please do so on camera also!
Well, that argument made sense to physicists, and the archaeologists who tested it out and found pila DID bend. Just that, if you shorten the shank, make it out of steel, and make it thicker than anything from the archaeological record, and throw it with a light haft, then you essentially eliminated the pilum's ability to bend due to transverse load.
Awesome video once again! Now that you have a scutum and pilum, would you talk about how soldiers usually behave on a battlefield? We usually see on media the two armies charging each other straight, but what about formation? Would they really run into each other shield wall at full speed? What do you do to breach this wall? Would they hold their formation? How long would a battle last? What about casualties? How did they manage to pass orders from the general to the field soldier? I think that a video on this subject might be interesting. Keep on the good work!
Totally agree with you. Especially if you thing that many warriors at the time did not have much armour on. Often time it was just the shield and normal clothes. Only nobles and rich people had armour. This is true even for the Romans pre-Marian reforms. It is known that the Hastati, the first line of a Roman Legion had little to no armour compared with the Princeps, the second line (pre-Marian I mean: later on the armour was sort of standardized). If you have thousands of men throwing these terrifing things at you just before charging with the gladius, they can really break your formation and carry the day.
It must not be forgotten as well that the Romans were heavily armoured in either Lorca segmentata and Lorca hamata, to see if a pillum would be able to penetrate mail would be interesting, I know however that it wouldn’t be able to penetrate the segmentata unless you got lucky and got a shot though the exposed gaps, as always good video Matt, getting really bored not having HEMA classes due to Covid but these videos help tantalise my historical curiosity and it gives me ideas for my own weapon test, I think the next thing I’ll be saving up for is a pillum and roman gear
Matt, I love your videos, and I agree the main point of the pilum design was to increase penetration, but I do have one question. Do you believe that the application of leather would make a major difference? I've watched a lot of videos on shield penetration, and any shield which has a sheet or two of linen can easily be pierced, but the shields with a form of leather over it were far more resistant. TheignThrand has an excellent video on the topic. With 8 layers of linen, his arrow was almost stopped and with the hide, it couldn't penetrate. I would love your opinion on the topic. Thank you!
If it does pass through the shield to hit you, would the shield slow down the spear enough to increase the chance that your mail shirt or whatever you're wearing would save you?
I think this is a really important point that people seem to be ignoring- just because something penetrates a shield doesn't mean the shield isn't still offering protection
@@phelanyoung6770 It's like the ceramic plate carriers in modern ballistic armor. The plates shatter when shot, but they absorb the force of the impact. Armor will wear and tear, get holey, but that's what it is made for. To take the force of the blow, so your supple flesh take less. Same as Castles and Fortresses. They aren't meant to be unassailable, but to hold off the enemy until the main force can arrive.
“Where the pilum hit the ribs, it shattered them. There’s moderate damage to our orange lung tissue and the pilum passed through the ribs on the other side and was stopped by the 5th layer of fleece.”
I wonder if when the pilum hasn't fully penetrated shield if you could grab it and push it through further to stab the guy behind? It would likely be tricky. Maybe you could just kick/smack the wooden handle to further injure the guy behind if he had been penetrated or even just to make the spear point flail around behind the shield.
Pilum sticks in shield. Weight of pilum shaft means the butt of the shaft falls down to the ground. Roman soldier steps on it and it levers the enemy's shield down exposing him to a thrust with the gladius.
Two points: (1) The Pilum will have been robbed of some of it's force when penetrating the shield which might be enough to allow an inferior form of body armor to stop the point--when it would not have withstood a direct hit by a Pilum, (2) The Pilum does not have to bend to incapacitate a shield. The fact that the hole is larger than the shaft allows the Pilum to droop to the ground and prevent the warrior from charging forward with his shield. Less of a problem if he is in a stationary shield wall, of course Removing the Pilum is not an option when the enemy is closing. Stepping around the shield to pull it loose from the front would make you totally at the mercy of the next volley or a sword.
Great Video. It begs a few questions though. 1) Given its ability to pierce a Roman shield why didn't everybody use them against the Romans. 2) Given that Romans often fought Romans in various civil wars and power struggles why did the Romans carry such a heavy shield if it could be so easily pierced. 3) Why throw it at all. If it can pierce a shield from a throw it could certainly pierce shield from a thrust. So why not march up to your opponent and stab him in the face? 4) Moving forward 1000 years could a spike on a bill or halberd pierce a shield. Thanks.
Excellent video and experiment. Never fight a Roman army in tight formations. Can you imagine facing hundreds of them and not being able to move, absolutely terrifying!
So of course I can't imagine being able to hold the shield stable by a central handle during an impact like that. True, the medieval shield has two straps so that the user can hold it strong against an impact with their forearm, but a roman scoot-em (I mean scutum, but my scoot-em ((skateboard)) is so nice) is held in the middle by the hand. ,,,,, that all said, the shield should rotate once impacted should it not? and if the shield rotates a little then the hole should "pinch" the pilum, shouldn't that result in basically stopping the pilum from reaching full penetration?? I wonder if part of the strategy was to let the shield flop on impact, meaning that unless the hit was very close to the hand it might not go that far into the hole. ,,,, thinking now, I also wonder if then, the pilum would bend from the rotation of the shield.
I think you’re right that hitting the person holding the shield is the primary purpose. It’s a great shock weapon as the Roman charge forward. The enemy won’t have time to pull it out, whether it bends or not. However, it’s clearly designed only to penetrate to a certain point on the shaft. The weight of the back of the spear will make the rear end hit the ground, with a twelve inch point sticking through the shield angled up. So if an enemy is charging the Romans, this thing suddenly wedged in the shield on one end and hitting the ground on the other will create a spike that an enemy could fall against and skewer himself. Also, the pilum suddenly anchoring itself in the ground might pry the shield out of the hand of a running man or dislocate his shoulder. The front line skewering itself would cause those in the second line to bunch up or trip over those in front. The charge could disintegrate.
It would be very interesting to see how adding the lead ball to a pilum increases the impact power and penetration. I'd hope you'd do more in depth testing. More accurate shield, a better stand to replicate a person holding it, and even a ballistic gel torso to see if you can make fatal penetrations. That would give you accurate data to support your hypothesis of the design. Which I do think you have made a historic discovery on the true design intention and performance of pila.
In case people are curious, "The Evolution of the Pilum" illustration that appears at 0:38 is from page 133 of _Warfare in the Classical World_ by John Warry. University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
It should also make it a lot more stable. In rocket, air craft design, and projectile design having center of mass in front (and farther apart better) of center of pressure (roughly center where drag forces balances out akin to center of mass but with pressure) makes them more stable. Pilum head now weighs more shifting center of mass forwards but thin pilum head has less drag shifting center of drag back. It’s similar principle to weighted darts and putting feathers on arrows
Watching this it occurs to me that that long steel point will also do a wonderful job of pulling the javelin's centre of gravity way forward of it's centre of lift for nice, stable flight. And without adding significant cross sectional area, which would increase drag and reduce penetrative power.
QUICK QUESTION : WOULD PLEXIGLAS OR QUARTER INCH THICK PLASTIC SHIELD BE STRONGER THAN PLYWOOD ? BECAUSE I MADE SOME SHIELDS FROM DIFFERENT MATERIALS AS MY HOME DECORATION BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO TORTURE TEST THE STRENGTH . I'M ASSUMING PLEXIGLAS AND THICK PLASTIC IS MORE DURABLE AND LIGHTER THAN WOOD
@@Meevious MARVELOUS IDEA ! I'M MAKING ONE ( OR 2 ) Mine will have metal reinforced edges so it won't chip ! I made war door and kite shield already from white half centimeter plastic and cover in material . They look sweet but are to thin for combat . Arrows would penetrate. 10 mm is twice as thick and see through is amazing idea !
Pilum as a specialised shield defeating missile makes complete sense. As you assault it's the exact moment you want to debilitate the enemy by putting 2ft of iron through their shield and into them. I'd go so far as to say the Roman doctrine of following your pilum with a charge really negates the risk of someone picking it up and throwing it at you. I'd say it's unlikely they were 'made to bend'. I mean, you throw it from close range, draw sword and close, when the heck are they supposed to have time to reach down to pick up the pilum you just throw at you? They're either going to be pushed forwards into you by their own charge or you're going to charge into them.
Even if it misses the body, by getting right into the shield like that it really hobbles the person carrying it. Big disadvantage to the target on the battlefield. Even if a volley only takes out a line of shields (not the bearers), you may be charging down and have advantage when you meet them. It could be especially effective to rain arrows first (as you charge, they raise shields), then these disable shields (as you charge), then you tear through the line...
When you add this with the experiment of Todd with his "Lockdown Longbow" you almost get the impression that shields are to protect in close combat and rather inefficient against missile weapons. Would be interesting to se how a shield stand up to a projectile from a sling or a francesca.
Todd did early videos of sling stones against plywood and the lead shot used by the Romans cut through the plywood. Obviously slowing penetration into the person behind it. Then there are the staff slings that can throw larger stones.
While interesting Tods test was pretty biased against the shield, you had a light shield shot at very close range with heavy bow and arrow. Looks great on video but how representative is it of a typical interaction between bows & shields? We have plenty of historical evidence that shields did provide protection against archery alongside evidence that some missile threats required improved shields. It is a complex interaction where context matters very much. During the 3rd Crusade crusader troops use of crossbows forced Saladins horse archers to fight at long range and this in turn degrade the effect of their shooting against the spearmen who formed the outer wall of the crusader army as it marched along the coast. Armour and shields took a lot of hits but did little damage. Had they been able to get close then the impact who have been much greater.
A center-grip shield would have been sufficient against the warbow, no? And clearly, having one's shield pelted by stones, arrows, javelins, and the like and potentially being injured is better than being concussed or penetrated with nothing in the way.
@@jvin248 Todd used OSB, not plywood in that video. And OSB is just large splinters glued together. It's absolutely not made for point loads. (I watched that video recently when binging Todd's videos.)
Thank You, Matt, for this great video. Sort of expected these results myself. One thing that I find missing from both Your experiment and Tod's Lockdown Longbow tests is the angling of the shield.At least to my mind, it makes no sense to hold it directly perpendicular to the person you're attacking since that would probably be both uncomfortable biologically and less effective. Just like Tobias Capwell mentioned French knights leaning into the English arrows at Agincourt to possibly present more effective armour angle, it makes sense that people would try to hold their shields as angled as possible. Then again, ricocheting and skipping spears and arrows would hit people around you so probably that isn't a great solution either, but just like cuirases, helmets and visors are made to deflect the projectiles, why not use a shield the same way? A perpendicular piece of steel is somewhat easy to penetrate compared to a properly angled piece. And I think both You and Tod have proven that shields aren't as protective as people would assume, so would it be possible to see some throws against an angled shield in the future? And not angled with respect to the ground as if leaning but rather angled against the target as to reflect it to the side?
The problem with that idea is the more you angle your shield, the less of your body it covers (well unless you are closing lines in a 1-v-1 but that's not really the situation here). If you angle your shield while approaching a line of enemy infantry, you make your shield effectively thicker on one line of attack, but make yourself much more vulnerable to other lines of attack. And while your shield might not protect you too well from a pila, it'll protect you better than a pila aimed at a part of you that isn't protected by a shield. (That's not to say that all shields where perfectly flat, look at the scutum as a case in point, it's curved). So yeah, remember it's not one barbarian fighting one Roman, but 10,000 of each. As for holding it perpendicular to the person attacking you... depends kind of on how the shield is attached to your arm, and how you are holding it out, but generally in my re-enactment experience holding a shield between you and an attacker is not really that uncomfortable, no more so than at any other position.
Not sure it'd make a difference, Blenderis. A 45 degree angle increases the energy required to penetrate by 1.4 times. I think the pila has a lot more energy than that. A 60 degree angle would increase it to twice the required energy.
One more thing to do, stick the pilum through the shield, hold the shield as you normally would and see what it takes to pry the pilum out and whether it can be done without exposing yourself to incoming fire or halting your advance.
I think you should do some testing on trying to both maneuver and "fight" with a pilum in the shield, as well as removing the pilum without setting the shield down (running with a pilum in the shield is probably dangerous, so don't do anything unsafe, maybe a blunt pilum pre-set into the shield could work). I think it is clear that they can penetrate a shield and wound or kill the person behind, especially if they aren't wearing armor, but I think that even if it penetrates the shield but misses the person's body, it still has a tremendous effect on their charge. Imagine trying to keep your unit together when a few are dead our wounded from pilum hits, and most of those that aren't have a giant unwieldy javelin hanging out the front of their shield. And if you let the back end of it hit the ground while you run forward, it has a chance to lodge and you might run into the point, so you have to be careful, and it is heavy, dragging your shield down, but if you drop your shield you will almost certainly die quickly from either follow-up javelines, archers, slingers, or just getting stabbed by a very disciplined line of roman heavy infantry. Alternatively, you can try and have everyone stop and remove the pila from their shields, which doesn't take long, but it also doesn't take long for them to throw more pila at you, or finish you with other missiles, or cover the ground while you are disorganized and just stab you with ye olde gladius. Compared to an arrow or crossbow bolt, which can kill you by going over or around your shield, and can be fired from greater range and therefore in larger numbers, potentially being more lethal in some situations, but when they hit the shield, you can still keep charging. So I think a lot of soldiers after getting almost killed by a pilum, would take option 3, ditch the shield and run away. Easy victory for the Roman army, they'll fight like that all campaign long if they can. And if you do run away, realize how good pila are for both killing through shields and making shields unusable, and you steal a bunch of them or make your own for the next battle, and you throw your pila, thinking you'll even the playing field, the Romans are disciplined enough to have another unit in place to take over front line duties while the first line to take a hit reforms. Yes, some of them would be dead or wounded, but those that are not can rely on the protection of their brothers in arms to get a chance to pull the pilum out of the shield in relative safety, and stand back up to continue the fight, which is an option just not available to armies that don't have the training or discipline that the Romans were able to wield. To summarize, we should not discount the lethality of pila, and we should not discount their ability to disable shields either, bending not required, and we should recognize the broader context in which they were used.
I suspect another plus point of them is that even if it doesn‘t _hit_ you through your shield, you have to get it out to be able to continue using your shield (it would get rather unwieldy otherwise), and for that, you have to get out from behind it, making you more vulnerable.
Well.... if you agree with me.... that shield slowed down and if person behind it would wear another protective gear.... would be still operative but of course there is much more factors
I had the opportunity to throw such a thing a few years ago and never after I second guessed the idea that they are for hitting the target behind the shield.
Points about the boss protecting the hand from pila on scuta makes me think perhaps the reason they kept the boss on the kite shield even though they had it strapped to the arm was to give the arm this same protection, since javelins were still in use
Apologies up front for a, what if question. I've always wondered if this could have been adapted to an atlatl and if it would have found a role in its time? The theoretical range advantage is obvious. However the design adapting to the role and the tactical advantage is debatable. 🤔🤔🤔
Two thoughts: 1) Elsewhere in You Tube I've seen a video in which the target is pulled towards the thrower adding about 10 mph to the impact speed. That recreates the extra speed of impact if you throw it at a charging enemy. It's a big difference. (If you could throw it 10mph faster you would) 2) The pilum is flying slowly enough to be seen, and the enemy may have his shield at an angle to deflect it. A hit at right angles will usually penetrate to the full length of the shank, but a hit at 45 degrees may glance off.
A 45 degree angle would increase the necessary force to about 1.4 times as much, for penetration. I think the pilum has several times the necessary force, here. It would be good if Matt could measure its speed with a chronograph or camera, to give us an idea, but I don't think 10mph would add that much energy to it. Though, it is going slow enough that someone could bat it aside with a shield, with a lot of skill, just as some people learn to catch arrows. Not saying anyone did that in battle, though (just a thought).
@@vanivanov9571 It would increase the force required, but also reduce the chance of the tip digging in. It may simply skid off before it had chance to penetrate.
@@vanivanov9571 Not possible to calculate accurately as there are so many variables. The pilum wouldn't fly perfectly straight, the shield would be moving, and so on. As a starting point, if the tip hd a 90 degree angle (45 degrees each side of straight) and it hit a shield at 45 degrees, it would not dig in. Also, a projectile hitting something at 45 degrees only transfers part of its energy to the target, and part of its energy to deflecting itself. That could be estimated using vectors. Either way, an angled shield would reduce the risk to the person being pilumed-at.
The part I try to keep in mind is that in both examples, these are specifically armor-piercing weapons, designed specifically to bypass shields. It's like testing an antitank gun and finding out it can pierce tank armor, sure it's an impressive feat but it doesn't mean tank armor didn't work.
Also keep in mind that the shield is only the first layer of armour and still slows down the incoming projectile. During the roman era the bows weren't as strong yet and there were some other projectile weapons like slings, which would happily kill you when they hit your face, but do not if they hit your scutum first.
Next throwing test should be done against: 1. Agaist charging (running) opponent holding the shield in front of him 2. Against walking opponent who after the hit gets pushed forward by the following ranks. 3. Stationary opponent. It wold be nice to know what happens to the pilum and how much time do you have before the roman shield wall is at you after the impact of the pilum.
Excellent video, and you bring up several good points. One thing I'm curious about: Todd Cutler mentioned that arrowheads were often coated in wax, partly to prevent rust/for preservation, but primarily to aid in penetration. Are there any mention or depictions of the same thing being done to pilum or other spears, or are the slower speeds of thrown weapons not enough to make a difference if the spear head is coated in wax or not?
The Romans used the pilum to destroy and / or render useless the opponent's shield, it was often hardened behind and soft in front so that the tip bent and did not allow the shield to be used. The weapon is of Samnite origin as reported by Diodorus Siculus.
First could you demonstrate trying to remove the pilum while trying to hold the shield in a defensive manner? Also what would you think the use of the tactic of throwing the pilum would be? Do you think they would throw it in a defensive or offensive manner? If so how would the follow up a volley? Would they charge? And if so would the ends of the pilum sticking out of shields be a hindrance of an aggressive charge of Romans?
I'd imagine a good deal of survivor bias going on in the historical records as well. Guys who survive might comment that it inconvenienced their shield, whereas everyone else was too dead to report on anything.
"Too dead" LOL
I don't think this hitting you after being slowed down by the shield would kill you but it could easily wound you to the point of being ineffective in combat. Getting hit in the eye or arms or legs or losing your shield could take you out of immedietly out of combat. It's all about breaking down the enemy line.
Hahaha!
Good point sir
There is something wrong about what is written in the history books, those wooden shields are obviously not effective against arrows. Maybe a bronze shield?
We know that many types of pila were sturdy enough to be used as a stabbing spear in melee combat. So it is debatable whether "most" pila was actually intended to bend, or whether it bent due to other situations (such as improper removal of a pila stuck in an object). However, we did know that the Romans used lighter javelins that were more likely to bend and also used heavier javelins (eg. different types of pila) that were less likely to bend. For example, Polybius states that the light, 3-foot javelins used by velite skirmishers had thin points (hammered thin) that were more likely to bend on impact. However, he contrasts this against the 6-7 foot pila, and states that the pila had a stronger design and how well the iron shank and points were firmly attached the the shaft:"Each is fitted with a barbed iron head of the same length as the haft. This they attach so securely to the haft, carrying the attachment halfway up the latter and fixing it with numerous rivets, that in action the iron will break sooner than become detached, although its thickness at the bottom where it comes in contact with the wood is a finger's breadth and a half; such great care do they take about attaching it firmly."
Scholars such as MC Bishop originally thought that the pila was supposed to bend on impact in his older works. However, in his more recent work, he revised his opinions in light of new evidence to say that the pila was probably not intended to bend on impact. According to his more recent works, such his “Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin,” many if not most Roman javelins are actually very sturdy and don’t bend on impact (with exceptions such as Marius’ wooden peg pila or the Velite’s very thin javelins). He states that most pila that do get bent are bent from people improperly trying to remove a pila stuck in another object by applying to much lateral force while trying to wiggle it out. The pila is perfectly capable of being stuck in a shield because of the shape of its head without needing to bend. There are plenty of experimental archaeology videos on UA-cam where people test the strength of the pila in close combat, and found that it works as a thrusting spear quite well.
Furthermore, we have several sources that states or portrays the Romans used the pila as a spear/melee weapon in close quarters combat. This is even more evidence to suggest that the pila was actually sturdy enough to not bend easily. Examples includes the following:
1) Caear's writings about the Battle of Alessia where he states his troops used their pila like spears or pikes in his book, The Gallic Wars (Book VII?)
2) Plutarch describes Caesar's men at Pharsalus jabbing upwards at the faces of Pompey's cavalry with their javelins. "And this was what actually came to pass; for they could not endure the upward thrust of the javelins..." and "Whenever the cavalry charged, they were to run out through the front ranks, and were not to hurl their pila, as the best soldiers usually did in their eagerness to draw their swords, but to strike upwards with them and wound the aces and eyes of the enemy" -"The Life of Julius Caesar" and "The Life of Pompey" by Plutarch
3) Antony's invasion of Parthia: Plutarch in Life of Antony 45 talks about Mark Antony's legions using their pila to thrust at Parthians in melee. "But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout." -Life of Antony by Plutarch
4) We have reliefs on Roman artwork showing Romans using pila in melee combat stabbing at Dacian infantry. (See Tropaeum Traiani)
5) Arrian in Array against the Alans (2nd century AD) talks about legionary heavy infantry equipped with an iron shank weapon used to thrust at horses: "Fifteenth legion's infantry should hold the entire right center above the middle of the whole area, because they are by far the most numerous. They should deploy in eight ranks and their deployment should be close ordered...And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies near them, they can thrust the ironpoints of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third an fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness. The follow ranks should be of the javelineers." -Array against Alans by Arrian
Thus, because many, if not most forms of pila were actually much sturdier than we used to think, this means that many would not be bent upon impact and could be retrievable after the battle.
Good comment, glad I searched through to find it. A pity serious comments tend to be underrated and buried. I will note that what bends pila isn't the resistance of the material (stabbing stuff), but transverse load. I also wrote a response to the video, going into such details, in my own comment, here: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg
One point I'd like to raise, is that a heavy pilum could be designed to bend (I believe some were?), and additional weight makes it more likely if the shank is thin. I don't doubt that the light pila were also designed to bend, but to put it into perspective... Matt used a light pilum with a very thick shank (thicker than any example he knows of), which was quite short, and so it was the worst design possible if you want a pilum to bend (and it still did in the archery target).
Legionaries were known to carry two pila, so it's quite plausible one was designed to not bend, and thus be more usable as a spear, being more similar to Matt's. I question whether a heavy pilum would be suitable for this, though, as making your weapon too heavy is just awkward, and certain features like the large metal sphere before the shank don't seem useful for a spear.
Pila could be retrieved after the battle even if they were bent in two (as some archaeological finds are). It's easy enough to heat and hammer them back into shape, and reuse them.
@Legio XXI Rapax Everything in my comment is discussing the pilum (multi-purpose throwing spear or heavy javelin), and not the hasta thrusting spear. See the last sentence of paragraph 1 that quotes Polybius describing the pila with a barbed iron head that is the same length as the haft, and is attached by rivets. The description is clearly the pila and not a hasta. MC Bishop's book in paragraph 2 is discussing the pilum as its title suggests, and not the hasta. In my other paragraphs, all of those weapons described were pila. Plutarch says that Caesar's man soldiers did not "hurl" the pila but used them to stab at Pompey's cavalry. Same goes for the description of Marc Antony's troops stabbing their pila against the Parthian cavalry. My paragraph citing Arrian in Array Against the Alans specifically says the front ranks use their thin iron shank weapons as spears while the middle ranks use these same weapons as javelins.
And this is with Matt who, while a healthy guy with experience throwing javelins, is NOT a Roman legionnaire. They spent most of their time marching, digging and doing other things that made them strong and spent countless hours training with the pilum. If he has no problem going through a shield I can't even imagine what a Roman soldier with a bunch of pili could do.
Build a new fort every on campaign evening to be safe at night.
@@currentcomentor1026 True that, but when you're with thousands of other soldiers your job will be not much more than hammering together a few stakes or planks. Still something many of us would consider a workout, to be fair.
Pilum , pila
@@ctrlaltdebug Potato, pot-ah-to
Also legionary. Legionnaire is French
Oh my God. I didn't know a Pilum can be so terrifying.
You are of course correct. Now think of them an entire legion with two of them.... I have no questions what so ever that you can break a charge with them.
@@samualaddams705 If pila were so smart how come they're dead. By which I mean, why did they fall out of fashion? They seem to be very cost-effective weapons after all. Sure, at first they were replaced by other javelins, which would still do pretty much the same job, but eventually javelins as a whole also fell out of fashion except in more specialized roles. I just can't understand it
@@hrotha First guess would be as bows improved the pilia became less needed. Second javelins as you pointed out are more simple to make and repair. As the roman empire decayed they dropped tech that was harder to maintain and more expensive. Lorica Segmenta for example. A pila may be able to pierce chain but it is not going through plate steel. Yet the legions moved away to exclusively chain. Maintenance and construction cost must have played a part in that change. You must have a blacksmith to maintain Lorica Segmenta and blacksmiths cost a lot or may have become unavailable as the empire caved in.
It can also be explained by a decay of finances, making mass production as a whole increasingly difficult.
So all in all, Pila fell out of fashion due to a change in warfare styles, the change to heavy cavalry emphasis in Europe, etc...
It's a sad decline, but I think they stopped being used due to unrelated world issues, rather than because the Pila weren't effective
I get what you guys are saying, but pretty much the same thing happened to simpler javelins eventually, and that was before I could see gunpowder making them obsolete, so I dunno
It's always interesting to see historical "facts" not being taken for granted, but instead challenged to see whether they are actual facts or something else, be it an outright invention or just an anomaly. Thanks for the video.
If I may offer a tiny bit of correction : Scutum (like, incidentally, Pilum) is a neutral noun belonging to the 2nd declension, and its plural is formed in the same way as Pilum. Pilum/Pila - Scutum/Scuta
Man, I go to the Latin Mass, I respond the prayers in latin, etc. However when speaking about roman warfare I always forget which was the singular and which the plural, Pilum or Pila.
Sometimes I tend to write "Pili" for the plural, I don't know why.
I hope I remember the next time, once and for all.
Thanks.
It's terrible to see what's well known and understood challenged with contrived circumstance with poor knowledge and understanding. The original historians also tested this, and their tests were a lot better than Matt's. They found the pila did bend, unless you make them out of mild steel far thicker and shorter than the originals, with a light javelin, as Matt did. I wrote a comment on the subject in full, if you are interested: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg
@@FeedMeMister Yes, it doesn't. Matt set up a False Dichotomy. Literally no one suggested they weren't designed to penetrate, so it was a grievous straw man.
@@galenusv7831 There is also a masculine noun, also from the 2nd declension, Pilus, whose plural is Pili. That's probably why :)
@@vanivanov9571 I think you posted the wrong link ; this sends me back to Matt's video.
I have a more complete theory: Pila were used immediately before the charge to: wound the enemy, disorganize their formation, bait them into bracing their shields to tire their arms and blind them and to embed into the shields of the first rank which would then be defenseless for the immediately following charge. Withdraw a couple meters, pass more pila to the front, repeat, hence why each legionary carried several.
I've come to agree that they were not intended to bend, at least not as a main feature.
Yes, you're charging and get one of those in your shield. You really need to get that out, which you cannot do without you or a comrade at least temporarily exposing themselves to the second pilum.
Pointy back end drops in ground. If lucky with shield makes a defensive pointy wall for that and following ranks to get past. People charging find it hard to stop as others push from behind. You have to keep going forward with that thing stuck in your shield whilst the other end drops to the ground. You are still pushed forward. I doubt anyone would drop a shield unless absolutely made to. It would be scary at least. Still going forward.....
Try throwing it at a moving shield at body height at charge pace and see what happens
It’s all about context!!!
I completely agree. And as I point out in my own comment, both the bending and the hurting can be optimise with the same design options (making the shaft as thin as possible while still strong enough to penetrate down to the socket without damage = most chance to wound effortlessly AND to bend while trying to extract it from a shield, heck, it might even bend after wounding too making it an absolute pain). Whichever you try to optimise for, you're still improving the other. And of course, the primary problem is: neutralising the shield. Someone without a shield or full body armour (which their opponents didn't have) is about as good as a wounded soldier when the enemy has projectiles and shields and numbers.
Why would you want to test the pilum, a roman weapon, against the scutum, a roman shield. Roman's didn't fight against Roman's... o wait never mind...
*Civil war flashbacks intensify*
When you count up the battles over the centuries of empire its amazing how little the legions fought Rome's enemies compared to fighting to put their tribune or prefect in the purple.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Romans fought Romans. Civil wars did happened
@@MrKyutG its sarcasm. Civil wars happend a lot in Rome
take a closer look: at 8:26 it is clear the pilum was stopped because it drove into the pine stand behind the shield.
First off, wow. Between yourself, Tod Cutler, and Thrand, any feeling of safety I had behind a shield is quickly vanishing.
Second, your mention brings it to mind. I'm very interested in the performance of rattan and wicker shields vs. arrows/javelins/spears/swords, especially since (at least from what I've read) the Ming Dynasty thought to highly of them even compared to wood.
Rattan and wicker, while lighter, perhaps the construction used multi-layer 'kevlar' type performance ... or were not much more protective than grandma's wicker chair.
Rattan can be thicker for a given weight than wood and is tough enough to make a bow. I have no idea how rattan shields were constructed....but my imagination is running riot. When steamed it could be coiled like a straw archery target. I'd love to find out! It's flexibility and toughness would allow more design options than wood.
"History often records the unusal and not the usual." This video was very interesting and quite convincing! Great job!
Unusual? There are many examples of bent pila that have been unearthed, several at 90 degrees. It was not suggested to be a highly unusual event, so this is simply a fancy way of saying we should ignore the sources due to one backyard test with an overly short, thick, mild steel, light pila. Tragically, without all the information being present, the video is quite convincing.
@@vanivanov9571 Then again, how do we know they where bent in battle? And not after? of any reason etc?
Or for that matter, bent by the enemy, not when they got hit/was thrown?
Just going with "oh they found x who is x" im not sure i go with that.
@@vanivanov9571 Pretty much everyone, even modern professional historians, are questioning the old assertions of pila being made specifically to bend when we have like what, 10 examples probably bend due to rust and ill conditions? some examples of 90 degrees bending concludes that all pila are universally design to bend from early republican period to high imperial end?.
Then, we have some online dudes that takes wikipedia too far.
Disagreeing doesn't mean being a jerk.
Maybe some introspection next time will be useful to yourself.
@@vanivanov9571 You are making generalizations about pila that are not warranted. We know there was regional variation as well as on going development over the course of its several hundred year use. But by all means get several pila together and as close to reasonably accurate shields and show everyone where he is wrong.
@@samualaddams705 You got that backwards. Matt's got the funding, let HIM get several pila and test them, since HE wants to make sweeping generalizations. I was disputing his sweeping generalization.
In Peacetime Pila was also used by the legionaries to roast marshmallows on campfires,
Matt has yet to test that bit from Tacitus.
So if it penetrates the shield - great. Gets stuck - great. Bends or not - great. Which leave the person with a long spear in it and maybe their body gets stuck thru the shield. This takes time and the soldier would need to extract that spear which leave them open.
If that soldier can fall back behind the 2nd rank to extract the spear, good for them, BUT it takes time and leaves a soldier without a shield for a short time OR is injured, injured enough to take them out of the battle or killed.
pili peepee pini
The heather shield and scutum have one thing in common, in addition to being held close to the body - people who used them were practically always wearing chain mail, unlike people with early medieval boss grip shields that can be held at a distance, where chain mail was nice to have but not as universal. I don't think that's a coincidence.
all u got do is angle the sheld n u lif insted of die
2nd strike against shields. its crazy how much armor penetration ancient weapons actually had. I REALLY want to see pilum thrown into different plate armors.
I would be interested to know how the shield direction would effect penetration. If the shield was held at a 45 degree angle, what would the depth be? In tank armour, the material is set at an angle to increase sectional density without adding weight. In the Roman Scutum, a curving surface may indicate an increasing sectional density relative to the holder. Just a thought.
Shields are way too thin in comparison to create this effect. Also angling the shield decrease its frontal surface area, making it less likely to be actually hit by the projectile, exposing the wearer instead.
i would be interested in seeing that, though like the comment below i dont think it would matter.
I got a three part answer for you:
1st, the math is actually easy. At 45 degrees, the length of penetration doubles. But also the protective surface of the shield from the projectiles point of view is halfed.
2nd, ur proposed experiment would be pretty much useless for the following reasons: The heater shield in this experiment was allready stronger than a shield would have been of a typical soldier opposing the legions. Moreover it got hit in some sharper angles in the video allready and went through fine. And wood posseses diffrent properties than steel. So the very common riccochets from sloped tank armor would not happen with a wooden surface.
3rd, the reason why historically whenever possible all personal armor is curved or even shaped to the specific body is that it can protect a bigger surface with less material. A scutum that is curved can cover a lot of angles of incoming attacks and to reach the same coverage with a straight shield it would have to be significantly bigger, making it less nimble and heavier.
Pls do not be offended, I like how curious you are and I did not intent to insult you. And in the case you might not know about it "Tod's workshop" is an excellent channel that is lately doing a lot of practical historical experiments about arrows and penetration. So u might find it interesting.
In addition, a pilum slightly droops downwards when it hits a shield, and it negates some if the advantages of holding your shield at an angle upwards.
@@bastianstiefler3390 brilliant answer, I would want to add however that curvature in armour is used not only and sometimes even not at all for ergonomics and mass reduction. Curvature, especially in helmet design is used mainly for force redirection, because dead straight blow will transfer almost all of its energy and momentum to the target, but if it hits at an angle, it reduces the transfer rate. Breastplate design is another prime example of that fact. As for shields in particular, I also don't believe curved shields have anything to do with force deflection, they were made curved to cover more angles probably.
How important would you say your action is when it comes to penetrating with your pilum? would you say it matters more than size?
Both are kind of important, one inch of penetration don´t impress even if you go all the way. a foot long tip that is another thing even if you only penetrate half up the shaft.
Makes me think of spaced armor in modern tanks the pila beeing APFS shells and the conjunction of mail + shield beeing spaced armor. Nothing new under the sun...
@@FeedMeMister thanks
Well,the laws of physics don’t change...
But arent we above the sun? Its 10pm here.
Then again wheres above and below in the outer space? Guess im overthinking things again need to go to sleep 😓
Honestly... just the word "PENETRATION" coming up in hot pink. I swear I can never tell if Easton is trolling us or not.
Maybe it´s the editor?
He's trolling you.
Glad he clarified 'of the body or shield lols' but seriously Matt does seem to like his euphemisms.
Along with "GREASED SHAFTS" from Tod's Workshop.
makes absolutely since - I also believed for a long time the old story that the pilae will give a weight to the shield of the enemy, but its not, its for killing, to nail the enemy behind the shield. No doubt in my mind you are right on this Matt!
Well if it doesn't kill it will still render the shield very uncomfortable to move around. I think the two things can coexist.
@@alessandronavone6731 yes that was the exception though as Matt point out - I mean the bending part, which I believed as a kid. It will not Bend it will stick and maybe one more etc. renders the shield useless or kills the owner of the shield.
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 yes, exactly. The point I was trying to make was that it doesn't really need to bend to get stuck in a shield.
@@alessandronavone6731 yes totally agreed and that was awesome to see. I love this period of history and read everything I can get
The historians who tested it believed it, too. Because their pila did bend. Matt's just not designed to bend, being the absolute opposite, and unlike any historical pilum. I go into the details here, if you're interested: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg
"And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence."
Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV
Even arrows could penetrate scuta at close range. Nasty stuff.
Frontal assault against Roman's you had to endure slings and arrows for 200 yds+ then a barrage of Pillum, while you kept your head down through that, your flanks would be getting hit with mounted Javelin throwers and Cavalry with long swords and spears, what interests me, is why many of these weapons and tactics did not persist.
Its possible that Romes logistic capacity answers at least some of this question. Rome developed a very large professional army of full time soldiers spread across a broad number of tactical skill sets to cover a variety of battle field elements. Its tactics were developed from its centuries of combined arms experimentation supported by an enormous treasury drawing from many nations.
How many nations in the 1000 years following western Romes collapse could financially support large diverse and professional armies of soldiers to execute the complex combined arms that made Rome successful.
The weapons as well were diverse and required the extensive fabricae proto factories Rome had scattered across the Empire to supply its hundreds of thousands of legionaries. What pre 14th century army could support the iron and steel rich armory of Roman legion (5000 to 6000 heavy troops)let alone a full army.
Most ensuing societies (European) had neither the wealth population nor sufficiently broad skill base or logistics capacity to support anything like Romes combined arms apparatus until well into the 14th century
Now we need sir GoodBoi Jason Kingsley to lance down a shield using a proper sharp 15th century lance
I've honestly felt & basically believed the same thing for a long time as well, but have not had access to a Pilum, Shield Materials, nor Range to try these things out. I appreciate these videos so much. Than you! Thank you for exploring and experimenting with historical stuff to help all better understand history.
Excellent Matt. Yep, shield piercing the main objective, plus the ability to stop a charge dead in it's tracks(the following ranks piling-up in the process) . Rawhide facing makes a huge difference to pierce-resistance as Thegn Thrand demonstrated throwing pila at a just 6mm pine rond shield covered with rawhide a year or two ago.
When your life gives you lemons, pilum
nice pun,mate
Oh, *life,* my bad. I read that as *WIFE.*
@@ShovelMonkey That works as well, but the police can be a bit pedantic about it.
Did not expect those results. Looks like the pilum is quite a terrifying weapon.
Great video on experimental archaeology! The purpose of the Roman pila has changed and evolved quite a bit in modern scholarship over the last few decades.
Awesome. I agree with much of your conclusions. Keep up the good work!
I can only imagine the conversation with the wife prior to this video lol
" Love mind the kids I need to do an experiment "
I didnt think the pilum would penetrate that consistently... that is frightening. What a beast of a weapon.
i was writing some fantasy stuff and the more i watch this sort of videos the more ideas come to mind and the more scary things get...
„This is a weapon of war. It‘s meant to kill the enemy.“ Jack O‘Neill
On construction:
1. Planked shields are *not* more liable to split if constructed correctly. The majority of the shields from Dura Europos were ovoid and of planked construction (a few were laminated, and the three rectangular scuta were laminated). Reconstructions of the shields from Thorsberg in Denmark shows that if correctly faced with gut or cowhide leather and backed with linen, with a cowhide, gut, or rawhide edging, they will not split. Shields only faced in linen, rather than of proper laminate construction, will fail completely after about 3 hits from contemporary arrows.
2. We do have pretty solid evidence on standardized construction. Laminated strip shields (rectangular) were either two-ply or three-ply and tapered from 7 to 9 mm in the center to 3 to 5 mm at the edges. They were then faced in one of several ways, but the two most common were thin calf or kid "parchment" leather (or rawhide) over linen, or gesso and linen. We have exceptions to this: one of the shields at Masada had a layer of palm fronds underneath the linen facing, and two (possibly three) of the shields were planked. We have a rather large sample size from across the empire actually, with finds from other locations in Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany being completely consistent with this pattern of construction found at Masada (11 total shield fragments from both Rectangular and Ovoid shields). 18 of the 22 shields found at Dura Europos were also consistent with these construction methods, excepting the four "Sassanian" shields.
3. From experience, historical shields are tougher and more resistant than modern plywood shields which are usually a soft, low quality pine rather than a sturdy, accurate poplar.
Really cool demonstrations and interpretation. First time here. Thank you Mr Eaton.
You also have you remember the original Roman soldier was a very strong guy for his size and practiced constantly.
RIP traditional bent pilum theory.
The manipular-reform era Roman soldier before the late Republican period was primarily a conscripted militia army organized by social class and then by age/veterancy, had inconsistent/non-standardized training, and probably came in a variety of shapes, sizes, and physical capabilities. The Romans also had different types of throwing spears and javelins - some of which were more likely to bend while others were not. IIRC, Polybius writes that mid Republican era velite skirmishers had javelins with thinly hammered shanks that were more likely to bend - and he contrasted this with the much sturdier pila heavy javelin/throwing spear that was much less likely to bend.
@@Intranetusa A lot of these men were farmers. Farmers in the pre-industrial age were tough customers, accustomed to hard work in all sorts of weather. It was a tough life which made tough men.
One extremely rigged backyard test is not worthy of putting the work of major historians to rest, who did their own experiments and found pila did bend. I write about this in full, in this comment: /watch?v=lAe1krJFl78&lc=UgxGrsa0Un4FbfTrp3Z4AaABAg
@@vanivanov9571 Why do you say it was rigged?
@@thomaszaccone3960 Well, I explain that in the comment I linked to. But the short version is he commented that his pilum was made of mild steel (not iron/"soft steel"), had a short shank, was a light javelin, and was *thicker than any archaeological example he knows of.* So his pilum was the COMPLETE opposite of one designed to bend, in every possible way. Heck, the square section as the base of the pilum, which he commented was ahistorical, will also help it to resist bending.
I'm really glad you made this video, when I watched your other videos featuring pila I did find it a bit strange that such a thick shaft would reliably bend as heavily as we were led to believe on impact with something as relatively thin as a shield, great video, hope to see more of them in the future!
P.S. Excellent throwing, lovely arches
Not surprising, Roman's were experts in all forms of penetration.
Great video!
They preferred snails AND oysters.
@@brucetucker4847 I want him to test the shield penetration of a balista, it would be a blast watching him shooting one! Roman's, you think they ate outrageous things. until you realize what birds nest soup and 100 year old eggs actually are.
you make a good point, the primary purpose was to penetrate deep, far behind the shield. only secondary effects included the person having to put down their shield and expose themselves to remove the heavy pilum, or to see the pilum get bent and unable to be thrown back.
basically, it only bends if it hits something too hard to penetrate or was pulled out of the shield incorrectly. but if it hits or is pulled out cleanly it can be used to throw back at the romans. however, at that point, it hit. it did its job. or it forced you to expose yourself to remove the pilum from the shield, also doing its job. Only when it fails to do its job (does not penetrate hard armor) does it get bent and that's still good because they can't be thrown back.
Eleven Inches?...TWELVE INCHES??...I find that hard to swallow!
That‘s some innuendo…! 😅
@@Runoratsu Ah! good ol' innuendo, the suppository that gets to the end of the problem!
That's what she said!
No, in your endo!
@@jameswilson1471 Pleased ta meetcha Ben!
That actually makes me wonder if part of the reason the Romans started going with a curved shield (similar to the Greek hoplon or some medieval heater shields) for the sake of improving defense against missiles. Yes, the overall thickness may not change, but the curvature itself looks like it would lend itself to deflecting at least a portion of incoming missile fire, rather than having it impact and penetrate on a flat shield.
I always figured that's what a pilum was for. Ever since I read an account where a soldier had his shield pinned to his shoulder by a pilum.
I think I have heard somewhere that the attachment points of the metal head to the shaft was designed in a way that it could break on impact. so that the shaft essentially became a pendulum on the end of the metal rod.
What's terrifying is you're throwing it at a stationary shield, but a Roman soldier throwing it at a charging enemy means there's even more kinetic energy between the shield moving toward the pilum and the pilum velocity.
Smithsonian did this with a shield on a sled to replicate a charge which was interesting, especially with regard to bending. It seemed that the bend was a byproduct of the charge rather than the design of the weapon, which clearly is meant to just ignore the shield entirely. The replica pilum they used included a circular shaft with no cross-section and it easily penetrated all the way to the socket. Super interesting. They talked about the broadhead being larger than the shaft to reduce friction as the shaft penetrated all the way through. Once the head punches through the wood, there's nothing to stop it from going all the way until the socket hits the shield. Their tests also showed it being difficult to remove the pilum from the shield, but that's also just anecdotal for them.
God, the sound of that impact. Imagine 1000 of those at once.
Very good video! I fully agree with on your conclusions. The only thing I can think of is if you produce one or more of the bolts, which attach the shaft to the spear head, in wood in stead of metal. Then the result maybe would be they will shear of and render the spear useless after the spear hit the target. The target certainly is deadly wounded or if not the spear can't be thrown back.
"At least my hand is all right" I say, with a pilum sticking through my shield into my lung.
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can Couldn't afford armor so I'm in just a tunic
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can fine I admit, I misplaced my lorica when we last made camp and couldn't find it. I don't know how my centurion hasn't noticed yet
I think it’s also important to add to the impact of the pilum that many of the peoples Rome conquered would have had their best warriors, other than a lord and his personal retinue, in the first line, a place of honor and greatest glory. A legion hurling it’s pilum into the enemy at close range would probably kill or maim many of the best warriors, whose valor and prowess was relied on to bolster the weaker willed, the less skilled or more poorly armed elements of an army, diminishing morale severely weakening their forces should they run and choose to fight another day
Meevious
Yes other peoples used throwing spears. But the only enemies a Roman army faced that used Pilum was another Roman Army. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find another throwing spear that would match the pilum for penetrating capabilities
Good point, I think that if the pilum was designed to disable shields they would've been better with barbs on them. Basically if you want to retrieve and reuse your pilum you make it without barbs and if you want it to stick, you will make barbs on it. I have not seen a pilum with barbs yet so they were probably not designed to stick. I'd say that it would make it an even better weapon with barbs though, it will do the same thing but stick in a shield way better. The only thing you can do when it sticks in your shield is to turn the shield around and charge with the pilum pointing forwards, then stick it into a roman (either scutum or flesh).
I’ve always been told that Pilums were made to not be thrown back, except in a different way. Instead of the metal shaft being thin enough to bend under impact I was told that one of the two rivers securing the tang would be made of wood instead of iron so that under the force of impact the wooden rivet would snap and the shaft would be able to pivot and it couldn’t be thrown back. However after the battle the Pilums could be collected and given a new wooden peg instead of having to reforge the whole shaft straight again.
"Why are you aiming at the shins?"
How dare Matt try to minimize the risk of the shield going somewhere he doesn't want it to go.
It is a well known fact that people were shorter back then. Matt is merely placing the shields in the correct historical context...+
Very interesting! Thankyou for reminding me that I need to get motivated and build myself some center grip shields!
Me: i'm bored.
This video: posted 7 seconds ago.
Me: or not.
Story of my life these days 😂
Matt, you talked about these being thrown by legionnaries facing an enemy charge. My recollection of Roman tactics (which in the primary sources, to be fair, was limited to Caesar's Gallic Wars, but read more secondary ones) would be that against infantry they would generally attempt to charge themselves. While spearmen may spend hours pussy footing around just outside the reach of their opponents, the use of the pilum enforces a certain attack discipline (so long at the troops are trained the the requisite level). You close with the enemy, you throw what is in many respects your primary weapon, and you are then committed to following up before the enemy regain cohesion. It almost doesn't matter whether you have killed you enemy or disabled his shield because you charge in behind your fuck-off big scutum, crash into them while drawing and wielding your gladius around that shield. It looks as if it was a dominant weapon system until infantry gave way to predominantly cavalry armies - and in fact it came off rather second best against cavalry armies of the late Republican/Imperial era, e.g. the Parthians.
Question: the sources (Marius, at any rate) refer to legionnaries carrying two pila on the march. Do you think that it would be possible for the front rank legionnaries to carry two pila into the attack, throwing one and then the other. Would it be possible to carry your second pilum in the same hand as you are holding the scutum while you throw the first one, then transfer it to your throwing arm and throw the second. I'm a bit doubtful about that - but the rear ranks could possibly have carried the "spare ammo".
Great video. I do have to wonder if the shape of the scutum might offer some protection against the pilium. The heater shield is much flatter at target, and the curvature of the scutum might help an off-center hit to slide away to the side. The angling produced by the curvature might also present the shield as if it were slightly thicker, but I don't think that would have any real impact.
Seems a pretty effective tool. Whether the shield user is injured or not, a shield would become awkward with a foot long spike pointing at the user.
If they take the time to pull the pilum out, they're likely exposed arrows or another pilum. Likewise if they discard the shield.
If the pilum is still in the shield when you reach melee, the shaft would become a lever to control the shield, moving it aside or pushing the spike toward the shield user.
Very impressive ! I can't imagine how daunting it must have been to know that even behind your shield you wouldn't be able to protect yourself from a throw. One thought also, about the barbed pilum point/heads, maybe it was so that it'd be harder for the wearer of the shield to use get the pilum out of it, as it has often been interpreted, but it could also have been so that, even when the 1st throw killed or wounded the target, other enemies would have a tougher time grabing the pilums stuck in shields and throwing it back. Also, about the boss I think that eventhough it must have stopped a majority of throws, I wouldn't be adamant about it stopping every pilum/javelin that strikes it, for exemple I remember seeing some exemple of (iron I think) bosses being penetrated by axe's blow.
just an idea, possibly raising the protective value of centergripped shields:if you get the shield hit, it could pivot around your hand, taking the javelin on a circular path, and basically pinching the metal rod limiting the penetration (likely splitting the shield, but protecting its user nonetheless)
Great video bro!
The "it bends to prevent throwing it back" claim never made sense to me, I'm 100% with you.
...was afraid you would harm that pretty Scutum. Are you ever going to paint it? please do so on camera also!
Well, that argument made sense to physicists, and the archaeologists who tested it out and found pila DID bend. Just that, if you shorten the shank, make it out of steel, and make it thicker than anything from the archaeological record, and throw it with a light haft, then you essentially eliminated the pilum's ability to bend due to transverse load.
Awesome video once again! Now that you have a scutum and pilum, would you talk about how soldiers usually behave on a battlefield? We usually see on media the two armies charging each other straight, but what about formation? Would they really run into each other shield wall at full speed? What do you do to breach this wall?
Would they hold their formation? How long would a battle last?
What about casualties? How did they manage to pass orders from the general to the field soldier?
I think that a video on this subject might be interesting.
Keep on the good work!
Totally agree with you. Especially if you thing that many warriors at the time did not have much armour on. Often time it was just the shield and normal clothes. Only nobles and rich people had armour.
This is true even for the Romans pre-Marian reforms. It is known that the Hastati, the first line of a Roman Legion had little to no armour compared with the Princeps, the second line (pre-Marian I mean: later on the armour was sort of standardized).
If you have thousands of men throwing these terrifing things at you just before charging with the gladius, they can really break your formation and carry the day.
It must not be forgotten as well that the Romans were heavily armoured in either Lorca segmentata and Lorca hamata, to see if a pillum would be able to penetrate mail would be interesting, I know however that it wouldn’t be able to penetrate the segmentata unless you got lucky and got a shot though the exposed gaps, as always good video Matt, getting really bored not having HEMA classes due to Covid but these videos help tantalise my historical curiosity and it gives me ideas for my own weapon test, I think the next thing I’ll be saving up for is a pillum and roman gear
Matt, I love your videos, and I agree the main point of the pilum design was to increase penetration, but I do have one question. Do you believe that the application of leather would make a major difference? I've watched a lot of videos on shield penetration, and any shield which has a sheet or two of linen can easily be pierced, but the shields with a form of leather over it were far more resistant. TheignThrand has an excellent video on the topic. With 8 layers of linen, his arrow was almost stopped and with the hide, it couldn't penetrate. I would love your opinion on the topic. Thank you!
If it does pass through the shield to hit you, would the shield slow down the spear enough to increase the chance that your mail shirt or whatever you're wearing would save you?
Yes absolutely - the more things slowing down the pilum help reduce the damage at the end of its journey.
I think this is a really important point that people seem to be ignoring- just because something penetrates a shield doesn't mean the shield isn't still offering protection
@@phelanyoung6770 It's like the ceramic plate carriers in modern ballistic armor. The plates shatter when shot, but they absorb the force of the impact.
Armor will wear and tear, get holey, but that's what it is made for. To take the force of the blow, so your supple flesh take less. Same as Castles and Fortresses. They aren't meant to be unassailable, but to hold off the enemy until the main force can arrive.
You need Paul Herrals "meat tarket" next time!
“Where the pilum hit the ribs, it shattered them. There’s moderate damage to our orange lung tissue and the pilum passed through the ribs on the other side and was stopped by the 5th layer of fleece.”
@@breaden4381 'Was it any more effective than the war dart? And if so was it enough difference to matter? You be the judge.'
@@breaden4381 you forgot: new and improved fleece backstop :))
I wonder if when the pilum hasn't fully penetrated shield if you could grab it and push it through further to stab the guy behind? It would likely be tricky.
Maybe you could just kick/smack the wooden handle to further injure the guy behind if he had been penetrated or even just to make the spear point flail around behind the shield.
Pilum sticks in shield. Weight of pilum shaft means the butt of the shaft falls down to the ground. Roman soldier steps on it and it levers the enemy's shield down exposing him to a thrust with the gladius.
Two points: (1) The Pilum will have been robbed of some of it's force when penetrating the shield which might be enough to allow an inferior form of body armor to stop the point--when it would not have withstood a direct hit by a Pilum, (2) The Pilum does not have to bend to incapacitate a shield. The fact that the hole is larger than the shaft allows the Pilum to droop to the ground and prevent the warrior from charging forward with his shield. Less of a problem if he is in a stationary shield wall, of course Removing the Pilum is not an option when the enemy is closing. Stepping around the shield to pull it loose from the front would make you totally at the mercy of the next volley or a sword.
Fantastic video, Matt. Would love to see a comparison between the pilum and a regular skirmishing javelin.
Absolutely correct conclusion.
I'm actually mad impressed by how well this pilum is doing
Great Video. It begs a few questions though.
1) Given its ability to pierce a Roman shield why didn't everybody use them against the Romans.
2) Given that Romans often fought Romans in various civil wars and power struggles why did the Romans carry such a heavy shield if it could be so easily pierced.
3) Why throw it at all. If it can pierce a shield from a throw it could certainly pierce shield from a thrust. So why not march up to your opponent and stab him in the face?
4) Moving forward 1000 years could a spike on a bill or halberd pierce a shield.
Thanks.
Saying that the pilum was supposedly designed to eliminate shields is like saying arrows were intended to take out shields
Excellent video and experiment. Never fight a Roman army in tight formations. Can you imagine facing hundreds of them and not being able to move, absolutely terrifying!
So of course I can't imagine being able to hold the shield stable by a central handle during an impact like that. True, the medieval shield has two straps so that the user can hold it strong against an impact with their forearm, but a roman scoot-em (I mean scutum, but my scoot-em ((skateboard)) is so nice) is held in the middle by the hand. ,,,,, that all said, the shield should rotate once impacted should it not? and if the shield rotates a little then the hole should "pinch" the pilum, shouldn't that result in basically stopping the pilum from reaching full penetration?? I wonder if part of the strategy was to let the shield flop on impact, meaning that unless the hit was very close to the hand it might not go that far into the hole. ,,,, thinking now, I also wonder if then, the pilum would bend from the rotation of the shield.
I think you’re right that hitting the person holding the shield is the primary purpose. It’s a great shock weapon as the Roman charge forward. The enemy won’t have time to pull it out, whether it bends or not. However, it’s clearly designed only to penetrate to a certain point on the shaft. The weight of the back of the spear will make the rear end hit the ground, with a twelve inch point sticking through the shield angled up. So if an enemy is charging the Romans, this thing suddenly wedged in the shield on one end and hitting the ground on the other will create a spike that an enemy could fall against and skewer himself. Also, the pilum suddenly anchoring itself in the ground might pry the shield out of the hand of a running man or dislocate his shoulder. The front line skewering itself would cause those in the second line to bunch up or trip over those in front. The charge could disintegrate.
It would be very interesting to see how adding the lead ball to a pilum increases the impact power and penetration. I'd hope you'd do more in depth testing. More accurate shield, a better stand to replicate a person holding it, and even a ballistic gel torso to see if you can make fatal penetrations. That would give you accurate data to support your hypothesis of the design. Which I do think you have made a historic discovery on the true design intention and performance of pila.
In case people are curious, "The Evolution of the Pilum" illustration that appears at 0:38 is from page 133 of _Warfare in the Classical World_ by John Warry. University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
It should also make it a lot more stable. In rocket, air craft design, and projectile design having center of mass in front (and farther apart better) of center of pressure (roughly center where drag forces balances out akin to center of mass but with pressure) makes them more stable. Pilum head now weighs more shifting center of mass forwards but thin pilum head has less drag shifting center of drag back. It’s similar principle to weighted darts and putting feathers on arrows
Watching this it occurs to me that that long steel point will also do a wonderful job of pulling the javelin's centre of gravity way forward of it's centre of lift for nice, stable flight. And without adding significant cross sectional area, which would increase drag and reduce penetrative power.
Very nice test
QUICK QUESTION :
WOULD PLEXIGLAS OR QUARTER INCH THICK PLASTIC SHIELD BE STRONGER THAN PLYWOOD ?
BECAUSE I MADE SOME SHIELDS FROM DIFFERENT MATERIALS AS MY HOME DECORATION BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO TORTURE TEST THE STRENGTH .
I'M ASSUMING PLEXIGLAS AND THICK PLASTIC IS MORE DURABLE AND LIGHTER THAN WOOD
And carbon fiber. Im curious too
@@wendel5868
Carbon fiber cool idea . Kevlar sheets & resin that stuff could be bullet proof LOL
@@Meevious
MARVELOUS IDEA !
I'M MAKING ONE ( OR 2 )
Mine will have metal reinforced edges so it won't chip !
I made war door and kite shield already from white half centimeter plastic and cover in material . They look sweet but are to thin for combat .
Arrows would penetrate.
10 mm is twice as thick and see through is amazing idea !
Pilum as a specialised shield defeating missile makes complete sense. As you assault it's the exact moment you want to debilitate the enemy by putting 2ft of iron through their shield and into them.
I'd go so far as to say the Roman doctrine of following your pilum with a charge really negates the risk of someone picking it up and throwing it at you. I'd say it's unlikely they were 'made to bend'. I mean, you throw it from close range, draw sword and close, when the heck are they supposed to have time to reach down to pick up the pilum you just throw at you? They're either going to be pushed forwards into you by their own charge or you're going to charge into them.
Even if it misses the body, by getting right into the shield like that it really hobbles the person carrying it. Big disadvantage to the target on the battlefield. Even if a volley only takes out a line of shields (not the bearers), you may be charging down and have advantage when you meet them. It could be especially effective to rain arrows first (as you charge, they raise shields), then these disable shields (as you charge), then you tear through the line...
When you add this with the experiment of Todd with his "Lockdown Longbow" you almost get the impression that shields are to protect in close combat and rather inefficient against missile weapons. Would be interesting to se how a shield stand up to a projectile from a sling or a francesca.
Voelund I wouldn’t go so far and call shields inefficient against missile weapons. I‘d still prefer having the shield over being hit directly.
Todd did early videos of sling stones against plywood and the lead shot used by the Romans cut through the plywood. Obviously slowing penetration into the person behind it. Then there are the staff slings that can throw larger stones.
While interesting Tods test was pretty biased against the shield, you had a light shield shot at very close range with heavy bow and arrow. Looks great on video but how representative is it of a typical interaction between bows & shields? We have plenty of historical evidence that shields did provide protection against archery alongside evidence that some missile threats required improved shields. It is a complex interaction where context matters very much. During the 3rd Crusade crusader troops use of crossbows forced Saladins horse archers to fight at long range and this in turn degrade the effect of their shooting against the spearmen who formed the outer wall of the crusader army as it marched along the coast. Armour and shields took a lot of hits but did little damage. Had they been able to get close then the impact who have been much greater.
A center-grip shield would have been sufficient against the warbow, no? And clearly, having one's shield pelted by stones, arrows, javelins, and the like and potentially being injured is better than being concussed or penetrated with nothing in the way.
@@jvin248 Todd used OSB, not plywood in that video. And OSB is just large splinters glued together. It's absolutely not made for point loads. (I watched that video recently when binging Todd's videos.)
Thank You, Matt, for this great video. Sort of expected these results myself.
One thing that I find missing from both Your experiment and Tod's Lockdown Longbow tests is the angling of the shield.At least to my mind, it makes no sense to hold it directly perpendicular to the person you're attacking since that would probably be both uncomfortable biologically and less effective. Just like Tobias Capwell mentioned French knights leaning into the English arrows at Agincourt to possibly present more effective armour angle, it makes sense that people would try to hold their shields as angled as possible.
Then again, ricocheting and skipping spears and arrows would hit people around you so probably that isn't a great solution either, but just like cuirases, helmets and visors are made to deflect the projectiles, why not use a shield the same way? A perpendicular piece of steel is somewhat easy to penetrate compared to a properly angled piece. And I think both You and Tod have proven that shields aren't as protective as people would assume, so would it be possible to see some throws against an angled shield in the future? And not angled with respect to the ground as if leaning but rather angled against the target as to reflect it to the side?
The problem with that idea is the more you angle your shield, the less of your body it covers (well unless you are closing lines in a 1-v-1 but that's not really the situation here). If you angle your shield while approaching a line of enemy infantry, you make your shield effectively thicker on one line of attack, but make yourself much more vulnerable to other lines of attack. And while your shield might not protect you too well from a pila, it'll protect you better than a pila aimed at a part of you that isn't protected by a shield. (That's not to say that all shields where perfectly flat, look at the scutum as a case in point, it's curved). So yeah, remember it's not one barbarian fighting one Roman, but 10,000 of each.
As for holding it perpendicular to the person attacking you... depends kind of on how the shield is attached to your arm, and how you are holding it out, but generally in my re-enactment experience holding a shield between you and an attacker is not really that uncomfortable, no more so than at any other position.
Not sure it'd make a difference, Blenderis. A 45 degree angle increases the energy required to penetrate by 1.4 times. I think the pila has a lot more energy than that. A 60 degree angle would increase it to twice the required energy.
Very interesting and it does make one wonder. That weapon sure did a number on the barbarians.
One more thing to do, stick the pilum through the shield, hold the shield as you normally would and see what it takes to pry the pilum out and whether it can be done without exposing yourself to incoming fire or halting your advance.
I think you should do some testing on trying to both maneuver and "fight" with a pilum in the shield, as well as removing the pilum without setting the shield down (running with a pilum in the shield is probably dangerous, so don't do anything unsafe, maybe a blunt pilum pre-set into the shield could work). I think it is clear that they can penetrate a shield and wound or kill the person behind, especially if they aren't wearing armor, but I think that even if it penetrates the shield but misses the person's body, it still has a tremendous effect on their charge.
Imagine trying to keep your unit together when a few are dead our wounded from pilum hits, and most of those that aren't have a giant unwieldy javelin hanging out the front of their shield. And if you let the back end of it hit the ground while you run forward, it has a chance to lodge and you might run into the point, so you have to be careful, and it is heavy, dragging your shield down, but if you drop your shield you will almost certainly die quickly from either follow-up javelines, archers, slingers, or just getting stabbed by a very disciplined line of roman heavy infantry. Alternatively, you can try and have everyone stop and remove the pila from their shields, which doesn't take long, but it also doesn't take long for them to throw more pila at you, or finish you with other missiles, or cover the ground while you are disorganized and just stab you with ye olde gladius. Compared to an arrow or crossbow bolt, which can kill you by going over or around your shield, and can be fired from greater range and therefore in larger numbers, potentially being more lethal in some situations, but when they hit the shield, you can still keep charging.
So I think a lot of soldiers after getting almost killed by a pilum, would take option 3, ditch the shield and run away. Easy victory for the Roman army, they'll fight like that all campaign long if they can.
And if you do run away, realize how good pila are for both killing through shields and making shields unusable, and you steal a bunch of them or make your own for the next battle, and you throw your pila, thinking you'll even the playing field, the Romans are disciplined enough to have another unit in place to take over front line duties while the first line to take a hit reforms. Yes, some of them would be dead or wounded, but those that are not can rely on the protection of their brothers in arms to get a chance to pull the pilum out of the shield in relative safety, and stand back up to continue the fight, which is an option just not available to armies that don't have the training or discipline that the Romans were able to wield.
To summarize, we should not discount the lethality of pila, and we should not discount their ability to disable shields either, bending not required, and we should recognize the broader context in which they were used.
I suspect another plus point of them is that even if it doesn‘t _hit_ you through your shield, you have to get it out to be able to continue using your shield (it would get rather unwieldy otherwise), and for that, you have to get out from behind it, making you more vulnerable.
Well.... if you agree with me.... that shield slowed down and if person behind it would wear another protective gear.... would be still operative but of course there is much more factors
I had the opportunity to throw such a thing a few years ago and never after I second guessed the idea that they are for hitting the target behind the shield.
Points about the boss protecting the hand from pila on scuta makes me think perhaps the reason they kept the boss on the kite shield even though they had it strapped to the arm was to give the arm this same protection, since javelins were still in use
i was like: pilum? shield? HELL YEA!
Apologies up front for a, what if question.
I've always wondered if this could have been adapted to an atlatl and if it would have found a role in its time? The theoretical range advantage is obvious. However the design adapting to the role and the tactical advantage is debatable. 🤔🤔🤔
Two thoughts: 1) Elsewhere in You Tube I've seen a video in which the target is pulled towards the thrower adding about 10 mph to the impact speed. That recreates the extra speed of impact if you throw it at a charging enemy. It's a big difference. (If you could throw it 10mph faster you would) 2) The pilum is flying slowly enough to be seen, and the enemy may have his shield at an angle to deflect it. A hit at right angles will usually penetrate to the full length of the shank, but a hit at 45 degrees may glance off.
A 45 degree angle would increase the necessary force to about 1.4 times as much, for penetration. I think the pilum has several times the necessary force, here. It would be good if Matt could measure its speed with a chronograph or camera, to give us an idea, but I don't think 10mph would add that much energy to it.
Though, it is going slow enough that someone could bat it aside with a shield, with a lot of skill, just as some people learn to catch arrows. Not saying anyone did that in battle, though (just a thought).
@@vanivanov9571 It would increase the force required, but also reduce the chance of the tip digging in. It may simply skid off before it had chance to penetrate.
@@mikefule That's possible. No idea how to calculate that.
@@vanivanov9571 Not possible to calculate accurately as there are so many variables. The pilum wouldn't fly perfectly straight, the shield would be moving, and so on. As a starting point, if the tip hd a 90 degree angle (45 degrees each side of straight) and it hit a shield at 45 degrees, it would not dig in. Also, a projectile hitting something at 45 degrees only transfers part of its energy to the target, and part of its energy to deflecting itself. That could be estimated using vectors. Either way, an angled shield would reduce the risk to the person being pilumed-at.
How easily that penetrates as well as tod's video on arrow in sheilds makes them seem a lot less effective then I had assumed, they would be.
keep in mind that bows and javelins had evolved into lowbows and pila to oppose the use of shields.
The part I try to keep in mind is that in both examples, these are specifically armor-piercing weapons, designed specifically to bypass shields. It's like testing an antitank gun and finding out it can pierce tank armor, sure it's an impressive feat but it doesn't mean tank armor didn't work.
@@daaaah_whoosh That is true. I figured that the shrild would like actually protect, but apparently not and what you said made more sense.
Thanks for liking my comment!
Also keep in mind that the shield is only the first layer of armour and still slows down the incoming projectile. During the roman era the bows weren't as strong yet and there were some other projectile weapons like slings, which would happily kill you when they hit your face, but do not if they hit your scutum first.
Next throwing test should be done against:
1. Agaist charging (running) opponent holding the shield in front of him
2. Against walking opponent who after the hit gets pushed forward by the following ranks.
3. Stationary opponent.
It wold be nice to know what happens to the pilum and how much time do you have before the roman shield wall is at you after the impact of the pilum.
Excellent video, and you bring up several good points.
One thing I'm curious about: Todd Cutler mentioned that arrowheads were often coated in wax, partly to prevent rust/for preservation, but primarily to aid in penetration.
Are there any mention or depictions of the same thing being done to pilum or other spears, or are the slower speeds of thrown weapons not enough to make a difference if the spear head is coated in wax or not?
The Romans used the pilum to destroy and / or render useless the opponent's shield, it was often hardened behind and soft in front so that the tip bent and did not allow the shield to be used. The weapon is of Samnite origin as reported by Diodorus Siculus.
First could you demonstrate trying to remove the pilum while trying to hold the shield in a defensive manner?
Also what would you think the use of the tactic of throwing the pilum would be? Do you think they would throw it in a defensive or offensive manner? If so how would the follow up a volley? Would they charge? And if so would the ends of the pilum sticking out of shields be a hindrance of an aggressive charge of Romans?