Slingers vs Javelinmen

[JaM2013]

im not talking about dark era, i'm talking about era of Roman Republic and early Empire.. bows were insignificant then. and btw, 80-120lb bows would still not get to the level of kinetic energy javelins produced. For that, you need English Warbow, shooting war arrow called quarterpounder.. arrows used in eastern parts were still very light, usually not heavier than 70g...

And Yes, you would get a lot more power with throw than with thrust, because your trajectory is longer, and ankyle would extend your arm to deliver more speed. look at any atlatl videos on youtube, effect is the same. Look at any javelin throws videos with skilled athletes.. motion is way different than normal thrust.. even overarm slide, like the one made by Thrand doesnt get anyhow close to impact energy generated by the throw.. Its simple math formula - you know distance, you know the weight and angle of the release... its easy to get the impact energy out of it..


And again, its not true that Pila disappeared completely. Germanic tribes adopted it and called it Angon. and these were used up till early medieval period.. but again, this game is about Republican Rome, my concern is towards how javelinmen are portrayed in this game..

Yes I know you are talking about Republic era and the Javelin was a decent weapon and lightly equipped skirmishers with javeline are repeatedly described in sources as distraction units used for disrupting enemy forces not routing them. This meant that casualties must have been rather low. Most formations routed after about 10-15% losses and most skirmisher force would not come near to those figures since this usually required units to engage in melee fighting.

From a larger perspective then the higher rate if fire of archers and slingers they will roughly achieve the same effect as javelin armed forces. If it is exactly a 1:1 ratio or different I can't say, I just say it is plausible conjecture to make. In my opinion javelin troops was more commonly used because they were better in Melee and could carry shields thus had better protection and better able to hold and seize ground, Archer could not do this very well.

I know that Pila or version of them survived to some degree, I just gave Vikings as one culture that used javelins in a similar fashion even if they didn't use Pila. Their use just never reached the same level of refinement and usage as before.

In regards to throwing you can certainly get more energy if you stretch the body and are able to take a few steps forward but you loose energy and speed rather quickly so the impact at 20 meters might be roughly the same, but I have not studied that in detail. I only know that my thrust and throw give roughly equal results using a throwing spear. In combat you will also never be able to make perfect thrusts but when you throw you are likely to transfer near max energy every time.
Hits are still going to hit with roughly 30-60% force in more than 99% of the cases due to targets movement and tendency to react with the force rather than against it, especially a trained warrior would do that... hence better troops receive less losses in reality. Think of angled armour on tanks in WWI and that is how a shild or body behave in reality when hit with something. You can never expect maximum force to transfer to whatever you hit, that would be a rare occurrence.
When you fight with weapons and spar you know this to be true since it is very different to be hit while standing still and brace against the blow or beng hit when you move around... VERY different. The same is true for thrown object... I know because we have tried that for fun with blunted javelins.

oh boy.. why dont you study it then? there is a ton of material on internet about javelin throws. Its even Olympic sport! you cant assume that because you tried to throw something in your backyard, you are instantly expert on throwing things (and besides, if your throws are as weak as thrusts, you are very bad thrower).. and make assumptions out of that. Do you realize heavier object losses speed slower than lighter object? Its called momentum...which means 0.5kg javelin would lose a lot less speed than 0.05kg arrow.. Ancient javelinmen were not just throwing to 20m... but there are records where best javelinmen could do 90m or more with use of ankyle.. after all Aztec atlatl could propel very similar javelin to distances you probably cannot even imagine.. what you just wrote is just completely wrong... tanks in WW1 were practically boxes on tracks, i guess you actually meant WW2, but who knows at this point right?

[JaM2013]

here you go, 60lb bow at 3m distance vs solid ring mail same as used with pilum tests:



about 8:00min - bodkin point, bounced like a ping-pong ball...

[JorgenCAB]

im not talking about dark era, i'm talking about era of Roman Republic and early Empire.. bows were insignificant then. and btw, 80-120lb bows would still not get to the level of kinetic energy javelins produced. For that, you need English Warbow, shooting war arrow called quarterpounder.. arrows used in eastern parts were still very light, usually not heavier than 70g...

And Yes, you would get a lot more power with throw than with thrust, because your trajectory is longer, and ankyle would extend your arm to deliver more speed. look at any atlatl videos on youtube, effect is the same. Look at any javelin throws videos with skilled athletes.. motion is way different than normal thrust.. even overarm slide, like the one made by Thrand doesnt get anyhow close to impact energy generated by the throw.. Its simple math formula - you know distance, you know the weight and angle of the release... its easy to get the impact energy out of it..


And again, its not true that Pila disappeared completely. Germanic tribes adopted it and called it Angon. and these were used up till early medieval period.. but again, this game is about Republican Rome, my concern is towards how javelinmen are portrayed in this game..

Yes I know you are talking about Republic era and the Javelin was a decent weapon and lightly equipped skirmishers with javeline are repeatedly described in sources as distraction units used for disrupting enemy forces not routing them. This meant that casualties must have been rather low. Most formations routed after about 10-15% losses and most skirmisher force would not come near to those figures since this usually required units to engage in melee fighting.

From a larger perspective then the higher rate if fire of archers and slingers they will roughly achieve the same effect as javelin armed forces. If it is exactly a 1:1 ratio or different I can't say, I just say it is plausible conjecture to make. In my opinion javelin troops was more commonly used because they were better in Melee and could carry shields thus had better protection and better able to hold and seize ground, Archer could not do this very well.

I know that Pila or version of them survived to some degree, I just gave Vikings as one culture that used javelins in a similar fashion even if they didn't use Pila. Their use just never reached the same level of refinement and usage as before.

In regards to throwing you can certainly get more energy if you stretch the body and are able to take a few steps forward but you loose energy and speed rather quickly so the impact at 20 meters might be roughly the same, but I have not studied that in detail. I only know that my thrust and throw give roughly equal results using a throwing spear. In combat you will also never be able to make perfect thrusts but when you throw you are likely to transfer near max energy every time.
Hits are still going to hit with roughly 30-60% force in more than 99% of the cases due to targets movement and tendency to react with the force rather than against it, especially a trained warrior would do that... hence better troops receive less losses in reality. Think of angled armour on tanks in WWI and that is how a shild or body behave in reality when hit with something. You can never expect maximum force to transfer to whatever you hit, that would be a rare occurrence.
When you fight with weapons and spar you know this to be true since it is very different to be hit while standing still and brace against the blow or beng hit when you move around... VERY different. The same is true for thrown object... I know because we have tried that for fun with blunted javelins.

oh boy.. why dont you study it then? there is a ton of material on internet about javelin throws. Its even Olympic sport! you cant assume that because you tried to throw something in your backyard, you are instantly expert on throwing things (and besides, if your throws are as weak as thrusts, you are very bad thrower).. and make assumptions out of that. Do you realize heavier object losses speed slower than lighter object? Its called momentum...which means 0.5kg javelin would lose a lot less speed than 0.05kg arrow.. Ancient javelinmen were not just throwing to 20m... but there are records where best javelinmen could do 90m or more with use of ankyle.. after all Aztec atlatl could propel very similar javelin to distances you probably cannot even imagine.. what you just wrote is just completely wrong... tanks in WW1 were practically boxes on tracks, i guess you actually meant WW2, but who knows at this point right?

I obviously meant WW2...

I know physics quite well thank you very much. The spear will loose energy that much is a fact, I just not bothered doing any calculations since they are pretty pointless to the debate. I also never assumed that me trying to throw a spear had any real baring on anything, that was more anecdotal. My point is more that you will never achieve maximum force on impact and it will more often be way less and that is why casualties from missile weapons are so low in comparison to what you expect from looking at the numbers and why I hate such arguments.

Fact is that casualties from missile weapons where generally low.

No matter how you twist and turn you can't escape the fact that skirmishers usually were marginal in effect overall aside from disrupting and goading undisciplined troops to break formation during actual battle. That is basically what history books have given the roll of ancient archers, slingers and javelin light troops. Before battles they would usually play a much larger important role in comparison as well as acting as security forces, patrols, scouting etc..

The numbers of impact force of different weapons are not that interesting since they are not really usable unless actually tested properly which you can never do with static targets. Fast moving objects such as arrows will generally be able to retain a bit more of its impact force due to its speed, javelins are pretty slow and can be blunted with shields or even dodged or at least made a near miss glancing of a shield.
I also hate throwing out ridiculous number of range when you need range to be close enough to make an impact and that range is what the AVERAGE shooter or thrower could manage and actually hit something. I'm pretty sure a Javelin force had a specific required distance that EVERYONE had to meet and that became the distance they would engage. This would be in the range of the worst least experienced throwers, you need consistency in a military organisation. This means that effective battle range us no where near maximum distance the best throwers could achieve. Archers effective range was way lower than many believe as well, they would rarely waste ammunition at very long ranges and most likely preferred ranges of between 50-100m or so. Anything else would be rather ineffectual shooting. Javelin infantry would probably operate in a fashion of rushing into very close range and throwing one or two javelins and then rush back to ts formation a good distance away, They would keep doing this for a while until they spent their ammunition and would then withdraw back to their own heavy infantry lines. 100m was generally a large distance, any formations that wanted to advance in an unbroken line had to advance in a slow and steady pace, even cavalry had to do that.

[76mm]

JAM, I've reviewed the text in the links, and still don't think that the sources that you cite back up the assertion that Roman javelins defeated the phalanx at Magnesia:

In the first source, it seems pretty clear that it was the elephants which caused the disintegration of the phalanx:
"The phalanx thereupon retired in good order until the elephants in its gaps became frightened and disrupted the formation and panic began to spread into Antiochus' phalanx.
Romans moved their infantry forward, began pelting Antiochus' phalanx with their javelins. Roman soldiers moved out of the way of the elephants and cut their hamstrings as opportunity allowed.
At this, the whole army broke up and the slaughter of the Seleucid infantry began."

Similarly the second source doesn't prove the point; while it says that "darts and pila" were used "to good effect", it doesn't say that these attacks caused the phalanx to withdraw, and in fact I would guess that it was withdrawing because Eumenes as attacking its flanks.
"As the Romans were well aware the phalanx was deadly if it could operate on its own terms, charging in a dense block, but at Magnesia the Syrian phalanx would not get that chance. The Roman legions under Domitius Ahenobarbus attacked from the front, using their darts and pila to good effect, while Eumenes attacked from the flanks. The Syrian phalanx was falling back towards its camps when 22 elephants posted between its separate sections stampeded. The phalanx lost its cohesion, the Roman legions broke into it, and a slaughter followed. Antiochus is said to have lost 50,000 men, two thirds of his entire army."

Moreover, as far as I can tell these sources are just a couple of blogs and not direct quotes of primary sources, so treating their text as a definitive source would be a mistake.

[JorgenCAB]

JAM, I've reviewed the text in the links, and still don't think that the sources that you cite back up the assertion that Roman javelins defeated the phalanx at Magnesia:

In the first source, it seems pretty clear that it was the elephants which caused the disintegration of the phalanx:
"The phalanx thereupon retired in good order until the elephants in its gaps became frightened and disrupted the formation and panic began to spread into Antiochus' phalanx.
Romans moved their infantry forward, began pelting Antiochus' phalanx with their javelins. Roman soldiers moved out of the way of the elephants and cut their hamstrings as opportunity allowed.
At this, the whole army broke up and the slaughter of the Seleucid infantry began."

Similarly the second source doesn't prove the point; while it says that "darts and pila" were used "to good effect", it doesn't say that these attacks caused the phalanx to withdraw, and in fact I would guess that it was withdrawing because Eumenes as attacking its flanks.
"As the Romans were well aware the phalanx was deadly if it could operate on its own terms, charging in a dense block, but at Magnesia the Syrian phalanx would not get that chance. The Roman legions under Domitius Ahenobarbus attacked from the front, using their darts and pila to good effect, while Eumenes attacked from the flanks. The Syrian phalanx was falling back towards its camps when 22 elephants posted between its separate sections stampeded. The phalanx lost its cohesion, the Roman legions broke into it, and a slaughter followed. Antiochus is said to have lost 50,000 men, two thirds of his entire army."

Moreover, as far as I can tell these sources are just a couple of blogs and not direct quotes of primary sources, so treating their text as a definitive source would be a mistake.

To me, in game terms, it seems like the phalanx was attacked both from the front and flank which is pretty devastating. The throwing of Pila is pretty much part of the Impact phase of any attack. It also lost a cohesion test when the elephants broke.

Although, what is talked about in the text is a body of troops which likely is much larger than a single unit in game terms, but clearly the flank of the Seleucid army was being rolled up at that point and this can happen in the game with several units as well within a few turns.

[JaM2013]

76mm:

here is translation of Appian describing the battle:

The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again. Thus crowded together, Domitius easily enclosed them with his numerous light cavalry. Having no opportunity to charge or even to deploy their dense mass, they began to suffer severely; and they were indignant that military experience availed them nothing, exposed as they were on all sides to the weapons of the enemy. Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides.

They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge. Yet they did not advance, because they were foot-soldiers and heavily armed, and saw that the enemy were mounted. Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again.

The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them.

After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans. The latter kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight.

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/a ... wars-7/#35

[stockwellpete]

So it was the elephants that caused the phalanx to break. I am glad that we have got that sorted out.

[JaM2013]

So it was the elephants that caused the phalanx to break. I am glad that we have got that sorted out.

Elephants panicked after phalanx was forced to fall back by the volleys of javelins which "didnt miss the mark"

[stockwellpete]

Elephants panicked after phalanx was forced to fall back by the volleys of javelins which "didnt miss the mark"

I would hope that they wouldn't miss a great big pike block, to be honest. Anyway, I think you are being a bit like "a dog with a bone" now and you are clearly distorting the meaning of the texts you are providing to support your own argument.
That latest text says, "After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans." So they were still in "perfect order" and not routed. That's good enough for me.

[JorgenCAB]

So it was the elephants that caused the phalanx to break. I am glad that we have got that sorted out.

Elephants panicked after phalanx was forced to fall back by the volleys of javelins which "didnt miss the mark"

So... if no elephants had been present they would have been disordered but not necessarily routed. I say this is a rather special situation where a phalanx is surrounded on all sides and in square formation and they would be more susceptible to ANY missile weapons not just javelins. Had there been archers present they wold likely have been equally disrupted.

[JaM2013]

So it was the elephants that caused the phalanx to break. I am glad that we have got that sorted out.

Elephants panicked after phalanx was forced to fall back by the volleys of javelins which "didnt miss the mark"

So... if no elephants had been present they would have been disordered but not necessarily routed. I say this is a rather special situation where a phalanx is surrounded on all sides and in square formation and they would be more susceptible to ANY missile weapons not just javelins. Had there been archers present they wold likely have been equally disrupted.

Phalangites had absolutely no issue standing under shower of Persian arrows at Gaugamela, and Greeks in general did not think much of eastern arrows vs their heavy infantry... Yet peltasts equipped with JAVELINS wiped out Spartan elite force in open battle at Lechaeum, while Romans caused quite terrible casualties on both Epirote and Macedonian phalanxes in battles they met in... (or how you wanna explain those huge losses Epirote Phalangites took in Heraclea, Asculum and Maleventum? Pyrrhic victory didnt became famous acronym for a walk in the park..)

[JorgenCAB]

Phalangites had absolutely no issue standing under shower of Persian arrows at Gaugamela, and Greeks in general did not think much of eastern arrows vs their heavy infantry... Yet peltasts equipped with JAVELINS wiped out Spartan elite force in open battle at Lechaeum, while Romans caused quite terrible casualties on both Epirote and Macedonian phalanxes in battles they met in... (or how you wanna explain those huge losses Epirote Phalangites took in Heraclea, Asculum and Maleventum? Pyrrhic victory didnt became famous acronym for a walk in the park..)

You are talking about thousands upon thousands of Roman soldiers all armed with Javelins having an impact at close distances, what a chocker. That was the purpose of the Roman tactics and specifically designed to combat the heavier Greek phalanxes.

I can assure you that archers would have the same kind of effect in the same numbers deployed if we just look at the missile weapons itself. You are also talking about massive use of heavy Pila by heavy foot infantry not just light infantry which have very different mechanic in the game.

In this special case they were showered from all sides and in square formation, it is impossible to protect one self from that no matter the type of missiles thrown at you. The text specifically mentioned the could not dodge or deflect the missiles as they otherwise could.

The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them.

I have never argued javelin was never an effective weapon. It clearly was and so wass bows and slings otherwise they would never spend so much resources to deploy them as they did and would just recruit cheaper javelin throwing infantry. Both archers and slinger mercenaries was considerably more expensive to hire than most other mercenary troop types. I don't think they spent that money on useless troops. There are perfectly good examples of archers and slingers being useful.

The stronges characteristic of the javelin was that it could be used by regular infantry, archery and slingers was a rather specialized type of force. They don't really play in the same league at all.

[hjc]

Here's what I took from the extract, (my emphasis)

Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again.

none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them.

So against a densely packed mass, where it was almost impossible to miss, javelins were a very effective weapon. Now, whether - generally - troops are deployed as a similarly dense mass is a consideration. The quoted author mentions the possibility of turning missiles aside (with shield) or dodging (due to a looser formation). Which could then lead to a chart for differing vulnerability to javelins depending upon formation, whether the men are trained dodgers, or hard to hit midgets or slow moving giants, etc.

OK, that's silly, but my point is FoG rules are top down. It's not aimed at the intricacies of particular armor types versus specific sword design, or the lethal potential of the kinetic energy of X grams impacting upon an area of Y mm2 with N degrees of offset. There is a place for such considerations and calculations but not with these rules. They're designed to present an overall result "at the end of the day" that seems realistic, while remaining playable.

The whole debate reminds me of countless others I have heard over the years, over the table-top, with players advocating passionately and knowledgeably for a buffing (or nerfing) of a particular nationality or troop type or weapon or vehicle. I have no problem with it, we learn much along the way, but it rarely leads to a revision of the rules.

[JorgenCAB]

here you go, 60lb bow at 3m distance vs solid ring mail same as used with pilum tests:



about 8:00min - bodkin point, bounced like a ping-pong ball...

Not even a Longbow with a bodkin point penetrate Gambeson alone, although a cutting tip probably would but if you have mail on top that arrow will not penetrate either.



The problem with most of these tests are the way they set the target up being totally braced against the shot, something that never happen in reality unless you are extremely lucky.

[JaM2013]

Here's what I took from the extract, (my emphasis)

Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again.

none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them.

So against a densely packed mass, where it was almost impossible to miss, javelins were a very effective weapon. Now, whether - generally - troops are deployed as a similarly dense mass is a consideration. The quoted author mentions the possibility of turning missiles aside (with shield) or dodging (due to a looser formation). Which could then lead to a chart for differing vulnerability to javelins depending upon formation, whether the men are trained dodgers, or hard to hit midgets or slow moving giants, etc.

OK, that's silly, but my point is FoG rules are top down. It's not aimed at the intricacies of particular armor types versus specific sword design, or the lethal potential of the kinetic energy of X grams impacting upon an area of Y mm2 with N degrees of offset. There is a place for such considerations and calculations but not with these rules. They're designed to present an overall result "at the end of the day" that seems realistic, while remaining playable.

The whole debate reminds me of countless others I have heard over the years, over the table-top, with players advocating passionately and knowledgeably for a buffing (or nerfing) of a particular nationality or troop type or weapon or vehicle. I have no problem with it, we learn much along the way, but it rarely leads to a revision of the rules.

Thats why my interest is solely to fact that Javelinmen in this game are the worst skirmisher option, and both slingers and archers are dealing more damage to armored opponents which is just wrong. Even from game design perspective, you have unit 1 with lowest damage, and shorter range, while unit 2 has longer range and is dealing more damage, then guess which unit is picked more? Javelinmen in this game are penalized for "not being throwing all at the same time due to formation", they are penalized because they are moving, as usually they have to get close to get in range etc... Yet reality is different - javelins were supposed to be used with run-up for more range, and slingers were effected by their spacing a lot more than javelinmen, so why they are not restricted the same way? or at least have smaller formations because even with default numbers, 240 slingers would not fit into 60m2 space with all of them firing... as i said, they needed about 2m2 of space to be able to throw.. so you would have 30 of them able to shoot, not 240

[rbodleyscott]

you have unit 1 with lowest damage, and shorter range, while unit 2 has longer range and is dealing more damage

Javelinmen do not do less damage than slingers or archers in the game against any opponents. They do more against elephants.

Javelinmen in this game are penalized for "not being throwing all at the same time due to formation"

No they are not.

[JaM2013]

last time i asked this, you told me they are not throwing with all men, because are preserving ammo..

Actually, in the game they do about the same damage, unless the target is elephants, in which case javelins do more damage. Javelinmen have shorter range and carry less ammunition so although their individual penetration power would be greater, they won't all shoot each turn.

[rbodleyscott]

last time i asked this, you told me they are not throwing with all men, because are preserving ammo..

Actually, in the game they do about the same damage, unless the target is elephants, in which case javelins do more damage. Javelinmen have shorter range and carry less ammunition so although their individual penetration power would be greater, they won't all shoot each turn.

That was just an explanation as to why, despite their penetrating power, they might have the same overall effect as bows and slings. (That is what it says in the quote).

As I say, it is "top down" - the explanation is the justification, it doesn't affect the mechanics.

[JorgenCAB]

I would say that concentration of firepower are equally important when you look at the overall effectiveness of an attack. If you assume that archers are more likely to be able to attack with more people and with a higher frequency, that more then enough can make up for the fact that they do less damage with each fired missile than a unit of javelin men.

A unit of javelins would need to run up against the enemy in waves using only part of its formation making it easier for the enemy to doge, sidestep or blunt the attack using their shields.

So all in all the effect of these attacks are assumed to be roughly equal when you look at the overall result, not the individual missile fired. It is the total sum of the entire thing.

[Strategiusz]

im calling them slingshots because im talking about the projectile, not the weapon itself.. its not the sling that hits the enemy, but slingshot which was either stone, or made of clay, or lead..

Projectiles are called sling bullets. Slingshot is a different weapon, with a handle similar to the letter "Y", used by kids and for hobby, not historically, because it's weak and require rubber. Googling for "slingshot energy" can give you bad data.

And im well aware of more slingshots being carried by each slinger, these usually carried about 30 slingshots (70g x30 = 2.1kg of stones...) and multiple slings for various ranges... and once spent, would have to look for stones on the ground which would be way way less accurate... Javelinmen usually carried 4-6 javelins, Velites were mentioned to carry 7 of them, anyway it was common practice to run behind own lines and resupply themselves with new javelins prepared for them for exactly that.. also, it was way easier to throw back enemy javelin than search for enemy slingshot... and FYI, Numidian light cavalry carried big quivers full of javelins..sometimes on both sides.. so they could easily be carrying 10-12 or more javelins with them....

OK, but we are talking about infantry javeliners (I would say that throwing from a horse is significantly weaker than from your own feet on the ground) and only about ammunition they carry with them and picked from the ground.

and more importantly, javelin itself had a lot higher chance to penetrate shield or armor, than any slingshot. Shields would be very effective against them especially, because they were held in arm, therefore provided dynamic deformation zone to attacking projectile.. (which is quite common mistake with all those youtube videos testing shield where they fix them somewhere and then throw things at it ) with slingshot, you really need to hit unprotected area to kill somebody... like for example already mentioned face...

A normal javelin can't penetrate a wooden shield and then reach the shield user. Only expensive pilum can do this.