Quote Originally Posted by Matthew View Post
With the corollary that we do not really know how the Romans fought, I think I can explain why the pila is generally viewed as the primary weapon of the Roman soldier...

The first thing to bear in mind is that the object on the battlefield is not to kill the enemy in a stand up fight, but convince him to run away. With that in mind, imagine you have 12,000 Roman soldiers on the field. They march up to around 90 feet of the enemy line and then groups of them begin rushing forward in unison and hurling their pila into the enemy line. They can keep doing this until they have hurled 24,000 pila. What the commander is watching for are signs that the enemy formation is breaking up. At that point he orders the charge and the whole Roman line surges onto the enemy, who will hopefully not fight at all, but turn and run away.

This is exactly the same idea that early medieval armies use, except instead of javelin armed footmen, they use combinations of javelin armed horsemen and bow armed foot. Their object is to break up the enemy line sufficiently that it will break when charged by cavalry. The horsemen themselves have either a javelin or lance as their primary weapon, but when the real killing begins it will be swords, just like the Romans before them.
Yes, that's really the point of any charge, and it is often misunderstood.

I think one of the problems is trying to extract the individual soldier out of the system they are a part of. Even troops who were armed with little more than a sword in later conflicts (certain kinds of Napoleonic cavalry for instance), were typically used in conjunction with other forces armed in different fashion. But what does that mean for the individual? If a charge with swords was intended to frighten the enemy into running away -- isn't the sword still the primary weapon from a tactical viewpoint? Even if it is "hoped" it won't have to be used? A lot of emphasis is put on the "bayonet" during the post-Napoleonic period precisely for charges, where, as stated before, the point isn't necessarily to fight your enemy, it's to get him to run away. Returning to the individual's perspective, if battles are expected to become sword fights after the soldiers' very limited number of javelins are discharged, then what's the individual going to consider his most important weapon? I'm not saying there is an obvious or easy answer to this, but just that it doesn't seem so simple to me.

Let me give you another example, but I'll preface it by saying it is rather hyperbolic:

Claiming that the primary weapon of the Roman soldier was the pilum, is almost like claiming that the primary weapon of a WW1 Infantryman was a massive artillery barrage! (I did warn you). If all went as planned they should be able to occupy the enemy positions without ever firing their rifles!

So, yeah, the soldiers and how they function are part of bigger system that is often overlooked. I'm not totally convinced that you can determine what their primary weapons are based upon an overview of tactical doctrine. In some cases I think it's pretty clear: a pikeman's pike is his primary weapon, a lancer's lance is his primary weapon. But Roman soldiers who are armed with both a ranged weapon, and a close combat weapon, and can reasonably be expected to use both during the course of single battle . . .?? Interpreting how they are used and which is the "primary" weapon I suppose could be contentious. My recollection of Roman military prowess, was that it was based around the sword (not limited to it). The sword is a very effective weapon, but it requires a much larger amount of training (and therefore resources) to be used effectively, especially in formation. Meaning troops armed with spears and pikes will be more typical.