Slitherine

historically, Javelinmen were supposed to disorder formations of heavy infantry before actual combat. they went head on with heavy infantry, and released their javelin into their dense formations. Sometimes they provoked enemy into premature charges, like Roman leves did at Tellamon, by bombarding Gaesatae with javelins, just for them to charge, but being unable to chatch them just to receive another volley into their back as they tried to reform..

Another use appeared with Velites - these were trained to cooperate with Equites,and were raiding to battle on their horses.. this was to provide Roman cavalry with some light infantry support.. While this might seem to be strange idea, from Ancient warfare perspective, cavalry was not actually that effective at breaking formed infantry, stirrups were not invented yet, and saddles while relatively stable, didnt provided enough of support for horsemen to deliver strong blows effectively.. it was not that uncommon for cavalry to actually dismount and fight on foot.. light infantry gave Roman cavalry additional support in such occasions.

With late Republic reforms citizen light infantry was removed (all served as heavy infantry), yet role of light infantry was kept. usually, special detachment of legionaries was selected,usually of those young and fast, who got equipped with lighter shields(bruttian?) and javelins - Caesar called them antesignani.. they usually fought in front of heavy infantry, or provided cover while others build camp, or were sent on raids together with cavalry etc..


anyway, just a little interesting statistics - Roman Pilum effectivity at killing enemy was around 2-3% which means that out of 100 Pila thrown, there would be only 2-3 killed (number used by Garry Bruggeman,based on casualties taken during battle of Pharsalus). And while this might not look as much, Parthians at Carrhae had to fire over 4 million arrows to score 500 killed (excluding men killed when Publius Crassus got separated and surrounded by Parthian Cataphracts), which gives about 8000 arrows for single killed(whole thing took several hours)... I dont have any numbers for slings, anyway those were a lot less effective at killing protected men than arrows.
and just for fun, during Napoleonic times, you needed to fire about 300-400 bullets for single casualty..

(http://romanarmy.info/casualties/casualties.html)

I would say that losses in game and most games of this nature a severely overestimated. The vast majority of losses occurred during the rout of any units. Actual losses of a unit before losses of enough cohesion to rout where probably in the range of 10-15% tops.

This is why casualties in some battles can be so lopsided such as one side taking a couple of hundred men and another several thousand I casualties.

I agree that skirmishes did have a role to play in battles but they were minor in comparison to their role up until an actual battle.

JaM, with respect, I still think you're missing the point. These statistics about ammunition expenditure vs casualties inflicted are not relevant to how the game is designed, because they don't look at the big picture.

Take the Napoleonic statistics. Do they mean that when a battalion of 400 men fired a close range volley, that they would usually inflict perhaps one casualty? No. These statistics reflect the fact that much firing was conducted ineffectively at long range, or wasted by the bickering between skirmishers. Yet musketry was capable of inflicting horrific losses at close range.

As for arrow expenditure, this is also irrelevant. The primary purpose of arrow fire wasn't to inflict casualties, but to goad an enemy into premature attack, to disorder his formations, to take tactical choice away from him. For example, the arrow storm at Agincourt probably didn't actually kill many Frenchmen, but it did disorder their formations, and the presence of the archers and stakes prevented the deployment of large cavalry formations on the field. I would also say that any statistics we have about ammunition expenditure, even into the Napoleonic era, are conjecture.

Even in modern warfare, small arms fire might seem ineffective measured this way. I believe that in the Iraq War, Coalition troops expended thousands of rounds per casualty inflicted. Does this mean that their m16 rifles were less effective than the Brown Bess with its 1 casualty/400 rounds? No. The purpose of their fire was just as often to suppress the enemy, to deny movement, or to win fire superiority, in order to move or to bring heavier ordnance to bear. Killing the enemy is an added bonus.

So when it comes to game design, these statistics don't matter compared to what actually seemed to happen on the battlefield. Take the longbow vs early firearm debate. The longbow seems like it would be a more effective weapon - more accurate in skilled hands, much faster firing. Yet our accounts of Tudor era warfare show that the arquebus seemed to have more stopping power, and that professional arquebusier mercenaries from the Continent were highly sought after. So various ground level statistics might suggest that the longbow was a more effective weapon - but contemporary professional soldiers gradually came to prefer firearms.

How does this relate to the current conversation? Well, the game design is based on how ancient battles tended to play out, not on tests of the physics of various weapons. Skirmishers of all sorts usually screened the army, wasting time fighting other skirmishers until they had to get out of the way. Were javelins more effective against armor than slings? Maybe. That probably depended on the specific weapons and the men who wielded them. Do we have strong evidence that ancient commanders preferred to bring javelinmen when facing armored opponents? I don't think we do. They did seem to use javelins specifically to kill elephants, which is in fact represented in game - bow/sling get -50POA vs elephants, javelins +50. So regardless of what we may try to learn from modern tests of the physics behind the weapons, RBS' design philosophy is based on what usually happened.

Also, they seem quite effective in game. Their light spear trait enables them to effectively charge slingers/archers and fend off charges by light cavalry. At 24 pts a unit, they are a bargain well worth purchasing.

no, this entire thread is here because Javelinmen are just way too ineffective compared to other skirmisher units. Its not about historical data, its not about statistical casualties (those are here just as a background). It is simply about taking javelinmen and slingers, and shooting at Roman legionary unit, and slingers doing considerably more casualties than javelinmen... Player is always better off with slingers of archers. and no, charging them is not really a suitable option.. i have used velites and even three units of velites were unable to overcome single slinger unit for 3 turns.. so instead of easy win, they got caught by enemy heavy infantry and quickly routed while that slinger unit didnt even get disordered... unlucky throw? maybe.. but i got quite a lot of similar results so far..


Anyway, i have a a solution that is fine for me.. i have modified the combat scripts and gave Javelins a bit better effect against armored units... its not big change, and it has no effect on unarmored units.. for whoever is interesting what i did, check the mod section.

SnuggleBunnies wrote:As for arrow expenditure, this is also irrelevant. The primary purpose of arrow fire wasn't to inflict casualties, but to goad an enemy into premature attack, to disorder his formations, to take tactical choice away from him. For example, the arrow storm at Agincourt probably didn't actually kill many Frenchmen, but it did disorder their formations, and the presence of the archers and stakes prevented the deployment of large cavalry formations on the field. I would also say that any statistics we have about ammunition expenditure, even into the Napoleonic era, are conjecture.

Yes, you are absolutely correct about Agincourt. from what we know the effect of arrow storms during the HYW was first to persuade the French to dismount and then , when advancing on the English lines, it caused them to bunch up so they couldn't fight very well.

So when it comes to game design, these statistics don't matter compared to what actually seemed to happen on the battlefield. Take the longbow vs early firearm debate. The longbow seems like it would be a more effective weapon - more accurate in skilled hands, much faster firing. Yet our accounts of Tudor era warfare show that the arquebus seemed to have more stopping power, and that professional arquebusier mercenaries from the Continent were highly sought after. So various ground level statistics might suggest that the longbow was a more effective weapon - but contemporary professional soldiers gradually came to prefer firearms.

Yes, the rate of fire of the longbow was far higher than the arquebus, but as logistics improved and armies got bigger from around 1500 onwards then the arquebus was preferred because it didn't require as much skill to use as the longbow.

How does this relate to the current conversation? Well, the game design is based on how ancient battles tended to play out, not on tests of the physics of various weapons. Skirmishers of all sorts usually screened the army, wasting time fighting other skirmishers until they had to get out of the way. Were javelins more effective against armor than slings? Maybe. That probably depended on the specific weapons and the men who wielded them. Do we have strong evidence that ancient commanders preferred to bring javelinmen when facing armored opponents? I don't think we do. They did seem to use javelins specifically to kill elephants, which is in fact represented in game - bow/sling get -50POA vs elephants, javelins +50. So regardless of what we may try to learn from modern tests of the physics behind the weapons, RBS' design philosophy is based on what usually happened.

Also, they seem quite effective in game. Their light spear trait enables them to effectively charge slingers/archers and fend off charges by light cavalry. At 24 pts a unit, they are a bargain well worth purchasing.

Yes, I agree with this. And light spear skirmishers are good value in the game. They can also provide a screen for the main units and delay enemy progress across rough terrain.

Yes, I agree with this. And light spear skirmishers are good value in the game. They can also provide a screen for the main units and delay enemy progress across rough terrain.

yes, yet you end up being better off with slingers and archers than with javelinmen which is the point im trying to make...

I find light javelin troops to be worth it since they are better in impact against other skirmishers, the casualty rate on ranged attacks are not that important of a difference.

They probably should be slightly better against protected infantry, but overall they work pretty well.

Well perhaps it's no coincidence that javelins gradually fell out of use for infantry, while the bow remained a common infantry weapon until gunpowder.

Javelins were actually harder to use, required extensive training.. its not just about throwing something, proper technique is needed (release technique, release angle etc).. Germanic tribes kept using angons for quite some time for example, but as bows were becoming more wide spread, javelins were used less and less, therefore skill level dropped and angons disappeared. yet javelins were actually used up to Renaissance era by both Spanish infantry and light cavalry (Jinettes and Almogavars were quite famous for example).. if anything, slings disappeared a lot faster.. in medieval times staff-sling was used as it was able to throw a lot heavier rocks at good distances..

In ancient times, javelin throwing skill was considered to be important. contests were organized, lets not forget that javelin throwing is Olympic sport even today.. there are some records mentioning quite interesting things like for example that typical range for javelin contests in ancient times was half of the bow range..


And technically speaking - even English Warbow didnt reach the penetration ability of a javelin.. at best, war-arrow could get to 100-120 joules of kinetic energy where 800g javelin thrown at 25m/s would have kinetic energy twice that number(250J)..

Personally, I think you have a highly exaggerated view of the effectiveness of javelins. I could make various arguments here, but we're obviously unlikely to convince one another. Luckily, you have modded it to play as you like.

exaggerated? nope. based on hundreds of hours of research.. not just mine btw.. if you dont believe me, go ask guys from Rome Total Realism mod team.

This is exactly what I mean.

Fact is that Javelins might be good to penetrate soft armour which was the most common armour type throughout the ancient and early medieval times, a relatively sharp cutting tip would cut through fabric but not mail. Light Javelins could NOT penetrate heavy shields while the Pila could occasionally do but that is a heavy javelin and represented very differently in the game. Javelin armed skirmisher would be minimal damage to any formed infantry with decent shields. A light javelin could still hurt someone very badly even if the person was armored and people rarely was armored everywhere so arms and legs could be slashed and that would be a casualty even if not a permanent one.

The effect of the javelin was in general rather marginal but effective enough to force an enemy to do something, at least some of the times. Disciplined troops would just wait for them to run out of javelins and hide behind their shields, same as for arrows and stones. Goading someone into breaking formation had more to do with discipline rather than lacking protection. Some wounded or dead would be enough for an undisciplined unit to break formation and try to engage. This tactic rarely worked against seasoned Romans for example, but worked well against Gallic warbands that had a very different mentality and discipline.

But we also must understand that not all weapon types and troops types where used in battle conditions because that was its primary function but rather because you had them and wanted to make the best use out of them. Most skirmishing forces was for pre-battle skirmishes, scouting, foraging, raiding and so on. Their primary function in the army rarely was open battle, did not mean they tried to use them to best effect and that they couldn't be useful.

I don't think we should over emphasize the importance of skirmishing forces during actual battle. Not even horse arches tended to skirmish around so much during actual battle but rather used as highly mobile archers to soften up the enemy like regular archers. Also remember that each battle has a unique set of conditions and reason to be fought which heavily influence how troops fought and why.

yeah, lets throw all Ancient historian mentions of javelin effectivity into trashbin, together with any similar mentions coming from early medieval times, spanish reconquista, early renaissance, etc, together with lots of works of modern historians etc. because that is what you mean exactly.


JorgenCAB: not sure if you heard story of Epirote king Alexander who died during battle of Pandosia by being impaled by a javelin thrown by a Lucanian infantrymen..

Livy wrote about it this:

When the king heard this, he at once bethought him of the oracle, and stopped, undecided whether he should cross or [12] not. whereat Sotimus, one of the young nobles who attended him, asked why he hesitated in so dangerous a crisis, and pointed out the Lucanians, who were looking for a chance to waylay [13] him. with a backward glance the king perceived them at a little distance coming towards him in a body, and drawing his sword, urged his horse through the middle of the stream. he had already gained the shallow water, when a Lucanian exile cast a javelin that transfixed [14] him. he fell with the javelin in his lifeless body, and the current carried him down to the enemy's guard. by them his corpse was barbarously mangled, for they cut it in two through the middle, and sending a half to Consentia, kept the other half to make sport for [15] themselves. they were standing off and pelting it with javelins and stones, when a solitary woman, exposing herself to the inhuman savagery of the raging crowd, besought them to forbear a little, and with many tears declared that her husband and children were prisoners in the hands of the enemy, and that she hoped that with the body of the king, however much disfigured, she might redeem [16] them. this ended the mutilation. what was left of the corpse was cremated at Consentia by the care of none other than the woman, and the bones sent back to Metapontum,7 to the [17] enemy; whence they were conveyed by ship to Epirus, to his wife Cleopatra and his sister [p. 99]Olympias, of whom the latter was mother, the8 former sister, to Alexander the [18] Great. this brief account of the sad end of Alexander may be excused on the score of his having warred in Italy, albeit Fortune held him back from attacking the Romans.

Epirote King would hardly ride around in some low quality armor.. they usually used high quality thorax, not much different than what Alexander the Great used..

No armour is flawless and anecdotal stories make no real impact in their effectiveness.

There have been too many testing of real javelins to know that most shields hold up to them as well as mail with padding. Does not mean you can get severally bruised or still injured just not very likely. Armour and shields was way more effective than people generally think.

The problem with this discussion is that the VAST majority of soldiers did not wear much armour if any at all except a shield and perhaps a helmet aside from clothes. This was what most weapons was designed to be up against and one of the MAJOR reason why the Roman Gladius was so effective as one example. Not even Roman soldiers had much armour on their arms or legs so even they where quite vulnerable if not behind their shields and in formation.

If you find any actual regular battle description of javelins being some kind of special super weapon I'm all ears. The only special mention about javelin being specifically effective are against elephants and this I can understand... you have this big target that can be truly hurt with a more heavy throwing weapon, a weapon that can effectively go through any soft armour and penetrate deep enough to do serious injury to the creature. Javelins was a good weapon otherwise it would not have been used, but the notion it was an especially effective weapon in comparison to others I have never seen any direct proof of. I have also never seen any battle mention that groups of javelin throwing soldiers actually having any special decisive role where the Javelin itself is mentioned as the decisive weapons unless we count elephants that is.

but that is not what this thread was about.. nobody is saying Javelin was a superweapon of some sort.. im just telling it was more effective against armored opponents than slings or arrows.

I repeat - if you take single unit of javelinmen and single unit of slingers in FoG2, and have them both shooting against single unit of Roman Legionaries, Slingers will do a lot more casualties than javelinmen...


here is something about Jinettes

http://xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htm

Oman notes that a Portuguese knight was killed at Aljubarotta (1385) by a dart thrown by a jinete that "pierced right through his body."

This statement is undoubtedly derived from the Chronicles of Froissart in which the Duke of Lancaster is quoted as saying:

By my faith, of all the arms the Castilians and your countrymen make and use, I love the dart best, and love to see it used; they are very expert at it; and I tell you, whoever they hit with it, he must indeed be strongly armed, if he be not pierced through and through.
To which the duke's squire replied:
You say truly, for I saw more bodies transfixed at these assaults than I ever saw before in all my life. We lost one whom we much regretted, Senhor Joao Lourenço da Cunha, who was struck by a dart that pierced through his plates and his coat of mail and a gambeson stuffed with silk, and his whole body, so that he fell to the ground.

but of course, this is not ancient armor, but just late medieval Coat of Plates, with mail and silk stuffed gambeson we are talking about... there is just no way to actually have this level of protection in ancient era...

JaM2013 wrote:but that is not what this thread was about.. nobody is saying Javelin was a superweapon of some sort.. im just telling it was more effective against armored opponents than slings or arrows.

I repeat - if you take single unit of javelinmen and single unit of slingers in FoG2, and have them both shooting against single unit of Roman Legionaries, Slingers will do a lot more casualties than javelinmen...


here is something about Jinettes

http://xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htm

Oman notes that a Portuguese knight was killed at Aljubarotta (1385) by a dart thrown by a jinete that "pierced right through his body."

This statement is undoubtedly derived from the Chronicles of Froissart in which the Duke of Lancaster is quoted as saying:

By my faith, of all the arms the Castilians and your countrymen make and use, I love the dart best, and love to see it used; they are very expert at it; and I tell you, whoever they hit with it, he must indeed be strongly armed, if he be not pierced through and through.
To which the duke's squire replied:
You say truly, for I saw more bodies transfixed at these assaults than I ever saw before in all my life. We lost one whom we much regretted, Senhor Joao Lourenço da Cunha, who was struck by a dart that pierced through his plates and his coat of mail and a gambeson stuffed with silk, and his whole body, so that he fell to the ground.

I agree that Javelins are better at armour penetration.. I do however not agree that it automatically make them more effective against the sort of troops and armour used in ancient warfare (on a bigger scale) than bows or slings. Shields in general protected roughly equally well against these types of weapons (light javelins that is) and both arrows and sling pebbles could hurt unarmoured parts of a soldier. Given the extra availability of ammunition for bows and slings versus javelins it is not hard to assume the actual damage might land in the same ballpark overall... that is what I say.

During Lancastrian times shields was not in use anymore and throwing spears of that period would likely penetrate cloth armour that was THE most common piece of armour with the regular soldier, the Gambeson. I guess it cold even do brutal internal damage with a mail on top of a Gambeson as well or severally rattle a person with plate armour. This is not how they were used or designed in ancient times,they were designed for use against people with much lighter armour. Since it required a rather heavy spear to penetrate shields that type of weapon was mainly used by medium and heavy infantry and not by skirmishers, at least not very often.

No Romans and Greeks used the javelin armed soldier for three main reasons.

1. They had no really skilled archers other than mercenaries, for most of Roman/Greek history. The cost of training them was rather high and they already had a tradition for using the throwing spear.
2. Spear armed soldier with shields can seize and hold ground, neither archers or slingers can do that very well.
3. A soldier with spear, sword and shield is better for reconnaissance, raiding and foraging than an expensive archer or slinger, especially if mounted... Romans often used their light infantry mounted for scouting purposes.

only chance for slingshot to kill you while wearing a Legionary panoply is, if it hits you in the face.. anything else would be just a nuisance, you might end up with a bruise, nothing more.

And one big problem with modern "tests" with javelins is the fact, not that many such testers know how to throw the javelin properly, and actually hit what they want to hit.. therefore they usually just throw it from short distance directly, with incorrect technique and therefore very reduced impact speed. but simple physics shows us how things were... for a javelin that was thrown at 50m you need to throw it at least 25-26m/s to get that far.. with ankyle attached, speed would easily increase to 27-28m/s, which if combined with typical weight of light javelin (400g) would give you around 160 joules of impact energy.. Best mail tested by dr Williams in his extremely detailed book "Knights & Blast Furnace" (which is 900 pages long book full of metallurgical data from all types of armors, together with very detailed weapon testing against these armors) could stop a projectile with kinetic energy up to 120-130 joules, so a javelin capable of 160 joules would just go right through...

about the book:
http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/williams_blast.htm

. They had no really skilled archers other than mercenaries, for most of Roman/Greek history.

except for Cretan archers which were used by practically anybody who could afford them.. besides the fact that ancient arrows were relatively very light, more like medieval hunting arrows, pieces used by Parthians were just 40-60g heavy, where Medieval English war arrow was 125g heavy or more, yet still were unable to piece a plate armors.. In Grece, archery was commonly practiced btw..


130lb longbow was used in video below, with proper war arrow, check its thickness..

The cost of training them was rather high and they already had a tradition for using the throwing spear.

Archery is a lot easier to learn than ability to properly throw javelins and actually hit something...

JaM2013 wrote:only chance for slingshot to kill you while wearing a Legionary panoply is, if it hits you in the face.. anything else would be just a nuisance, you might end up with a bruise, nothing more.

And one big problem with modern "tests" with javelins is the fact, not that many such testers know how to throw the javelin properly, and actually hit what they want to hit.. therefore they usually just throw it from short distance directly, with incorrect technique and therefore very reduced impact speed. but simple physics shows us how things were... for a javelin that was thrown at 50m you need to throw it at least 25-26m/s to get that far.. with ankyle attached, speed would easily increase to 27-28m/s, which if combined with typical weight of light javelin (400g) would give you around 160 joules of impact energy.. Best mail tested by dr Williams in his extremely detailed book "Knights & Blast Furnace" (which is 900 pages long book full of metallurgical data from all types of armors, together with very detailed weapon testing against these armors) could stop a projectile with kinetic energy up to 120-130 joules, so a javelin capable of 160 joules would just go right through...

about the book:
http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/williams_blast.htm

Roman soldiers had little to no armour on their arms and legs, enough to count as a casualty of war if hit by an arrow or slingshot. So I still don't think javaline would be that mush more effective overall given each javelin thrower had a few javelins and archers and slingers considerably more ammunition and time to use them due to increased range.

There have been many test done with machines to test the physics of weapons and armour and their effects.

Creatian archers were mercenaries and both limited in numbers and expensive, javeline troops were not and they had a much different role outside the battlefield which you totally disregard. Roman javelin armed infantry were replaced by cavalry rather than archers and slingers. Throwing javelins was not a skill that required great training, Roman javelin throwers learned that in their basic training, Good archers took years if not a lifetime to master, mostly due to the difference in range from shooter to targets would be my guess.