SnuggleBunnies wrote:I was going to just let this thread die, but seeing as it's still going and I'm feeling masochistic today:
JaM, I think many of the examples you use are misleading, or can be interpreted in multiple ways.
1) Let's get the easy one out of the way first. You mentioned the fact that the Zulus used javelins. This fact is irrelevant for two reasons. First of all, the Zulus were so effective in battle precisely because they moved away from the previous emphasis on throwing spears to tactics based on a rapid close to shock action. Second, you know what else was being used, somewhere in the world, in 1879? Matchlocks, crossbows, bows, spears, and swords. The fact that they were in use doesn't make any of these weapons state of the art for the time, they were simply the best that some people could get their hands on.
2) Kerns and Jinetes. Yes, both used javelins into the Renaissance. Yet neither were particularly valued for their efficacy in battle. Instead, they excelled in skirmishing and raiding, which is no surprise as both came into being in geographical areas that were continually beset by what we would call guerrilla warfare. Also Irish fighters were noted for being very lightly armored by the standards of the time. Finally, it's not a coincidence that javelins were largely relegated to skirmishers and outriders by this time - the primary missile weapons being, respectively, the longbow in England, the crossbow on the continent (the real armor piercer), and the recurve bow to the east. In any case, I don't think armament was central to the role they played - Stradiots and Border Horse were armed with a variety of weapons, and were used quite similarly to jinetes.
3) Athenian peltasts. The famous victories of light troops over hoplites were Lechaeum and Sphacteria. Yet looking closely at these battles shows that the javelin as a weapons was not really important to the result. For one thing, hoplites of this time mostly wore open faced helmets, carried shields, and... that was it for protection. A minority wore the linthorax. More important than armament was the tactical situation. At Lechaeum, the Spartans neglected to bring their own light troops, failed to unleash their cavalry, and suffered accordingly. If the Athenians had brought other missile troops instead, the result likely would have been similar. At Sphacteria, the Spartans had either no or very few light troops (in the form of helot attendants) and were vastly outnumbered (around 20-1). The Athenian light infantry included not just javelinmen, but archers and the rowers of the fleet throwing stones. These used their mobility to avoid contact. Again, armament seems of secondary importance.
Both battles were long, grinding, attritional affairs. They are a strong indication that heavy troops would have little to fear from a short barrage of missiles during a pitched battle; prolonged missile fire was needed to dishearten even heavy infantry who were unable to strike back at all.
And if javelinmen were so effective, why don't we hear about them in the great pitched battles? Likely because, skirmishing with their counterparts, they achieved little of note, lacking the time to damage heavy infantry formations. Demosthenes' Aetolian campaign gives us a clue - the Athenian force held out against a superior force of javelinmen as long as their archers had arrows. Once these ran out, they were overrun. This isn't to say that archers were more effective than javelinmen, only to say that a small number of skirmishers could tie down more numerous enemy skirmishers for a surprisingly long time. Because any army of appreciable size was bound to have its own light troops, we don't hear of javelins (or arrows, or sling stones) having any great effect at battles like Delium, Mantinea, etc, as the skirmishers fought each other and seemed to have done little else.
4) You mention both javelins used by skirmishers, and by heavy infantry. In game, the javelins hurled before contact by heavy infantry are represented by Light Spear and Impact Foot traits, the latter especially being quite powerful.
sorry but you are missing the point of this debate. nobody questioning abiilty of skirmisher to stop other skirmishers, and im not questioning ability of bow or sling to kill unarmored men, which typical psyloi were.. again, all im saying that in this game, Javelinmen are made worst of all.
Does game has armor piercing formula implemented? YES it does! do Javelins have any advantage in that formula? NO, they have same bonus as others! which means slingers and archers will do exactly same damage to armored units as javelinmen, if they all were shooting with same numbers but they dont, and again, javelinmen took the short straw here too, despite the fact that slingers need a lot more space to shoot than any javelinmen...
you probably need to re-read citations i posted before... If a general or king is killed by a javelin, its not a small thing, and clearly shows javelins were dangerous even to best protected men in the battlefield.. If they were killed by a slingshot or arrow, it would be mentioned as well, Ancient historians were not writing After action reports.. they had no interest in dry numbers and statistics.. their writing style was more artistic, they made protagonists more heroic, action more dramatic...And if javelinmen were so effective, why don't we hear about them in the great pitched battles?
