I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here anymore. Your quotes indicate that the pilum can and was documented to be used as a melee weapon in addition to as a javelin to disable shields. I did clearly indicate in my initial statements that the primary battle weapon was of which a pilum fits in both categories. Not every enemy the Romans faced had shield formations, and so against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, a pilum would be quite effective as a melee weapon, especially if, as your quotes suggest, they often carried a second pilum that was heavier than the one intended to be thrown. As it is pretty much impossible to use a sword like the gladius while carrying a polearm like the pilum, issuing one or even multiple pila to soldiers indicates that they expected it to always be used in every battle, and the sword only comes out when the polearm is unusable, it is arguable which was really the "primary" weapon and which is the sidearm. I will admit I was perhaps too overbroad in my assertion that no standing army ever issued swords as the primary battle weapon, the aforementioned ~202-107 BC Roman period being a contradicting example. Romans were known to experiment with, adopt and adapt advanced technology for the time, and so their abandoning the sword-only approach after fewer than 100 years, returning to a polearm/ranged weapon that must be used in battle first, and eventually advancing to a heavier polearm for which the primary purpose was a melee weapon, is strong evidence for the battle-tested conclusion that polearms are superior to swords in combat. By the medieval period (and before the Roman period), which most fantasy settings like EQ draw inspiration from, polearms and ranged weapons were firmly established as kings of the battlefield, which was my original point. I will apologize for the overbroad statement that lead to debating the technicalities of individual military forces in history.