These kind of speculations are so strange. How do he know that the Roman soldiers didn't use the javalins as spears? Like, he speculates to much.
> You can use a pilum as a thrusting spear, but it isn’t particularly well designed for the role (weight distribution is all wrong, the long shank is fragile (bends) in ways you don’t want, etc). If the plan was to do that, you’d just do what most Gauls and Spaniards seem to do: carry one javelin and one thrusting spear. And in the event, our sources are quite consistent that when they imagine Roman heavy infantry in close combat, they are using their swords, not the pilum. So while that’s a possible use and it probably happened from time to time, I don’t think it was a normal use.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2023/11/24/collections-roman-infantry-tac...
Dunno. It is hard to reason about. My gut feeling is that close combat sucks so much that you'd really want two chances to throw the javalin versus the random pleb robber you need to arrest. But you can also use them as spear, since sword close also sucks.
Most encounters was maybe sabre rattling contests anyways. Like footballs huligans kicking in the air towards each other.
The shield mitigates the risk of close combat.
I am sure, a Roman soldier, in the centuries that the Pilum was in use, must have used one in a thrust and either killed or injured an enemy soldier. But based on the historical evidence he has, the Pilum was intended to be and probably mostly used as a throwing weapon.
That would be like a future historian asking whether WWI soldiers used their single-bolt rifles as clubs rather than as projectile weapons.
> used their single-bolt rifles as clubs rather than as projectile weapons.
Bayonette charges were a thing though?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet
However, the article notes it was mainly a way of "sabre rattling".
I mean, certainly you can use the handle of a screwdriver as a hammer (we've all been there), but just by attempting it for a bit you quickly realize the purpose of the tool you've been handed.
What's more interesting is the insistence of modern folks that ancient warriors were very happy standing around and being stabbed to death, and that anyone with a bit of sense wouldn't avail themselves of a standoff weapon. As the author points out, the "highland charge" of the gunpowder era exploited the fact that lines of infantry tend to not want to get stabbed, and tend to rout rather quickly at the prospect.
Having your lines disordered or broken when the enemy has already closed in probably would induce panic the requiste panic quite quickly.