In classical times, were javelins more effective than arrows, if numbers were infinitely replenishable?

[marty99]

Kind of a dumb and probably unanswerable question I know, but I got to thinking about this. A big downside of javelins for light skirmishers were that they would eventually run out, or at least, I've read accounts of battles where this happens.

Suppose a contrived scenario where opposing forces of skirmishers have infinitely replenishable sources of both. They are not just fighting each other but as part of a larger pitched battle harassing enemy heavy infantry, cavalary, etc. Perhaps they have encamped in a chosen spot and arranged a stash of javelins where they planned to do battle and it all went to plan. Both sides are equally competent in their instruments. Would javelins be more effective in this case?

Important note: the cumulative fatigue from throwing the javelins (and firing the arrows) is STILL a factor, as that is not physically possible to obviate. I suspect javelin throwers would get tired out more rapidly anyway, but I don't know anything about it

 

[Grandpa Maur]

You got perfectly spherical cow in vacuum question there, that is, you're post Ng unrealistic scenario. Which makes it kinda uninteresting, tbh.

Or maybe I'm reading you wrong - but I understood it as two bodies of skirmisher s, one javelin armed and one bow, skirmishing at main body in the same pitched battle?

 

[marty99]

You got perfectly spherical cow in vacuum question there, that is, you're post Ng unrealistic scenario. Which makes it kinda uninteresting, tbh.

Or maybe I'm reading you wrong - but I understood it as two bodies of skirmisher s, one javelin armed and one bow, skirmishing at main body in the same pitched battle?

Yes. Maybe at each other at times, in initial skirmishers, but other times against the main army. Suppose the army with the javeliners is a somewhat entrenched position and can resupply without needing to hold them. The archer force can be the one moving forward and just carrying theirs.

What I really want to know is, is throwing a javelin, within its range, more effective at successfully causing a casualty, than arrow fire, with equal numbers of supply. Taking into account varying rates of fire too.

 

[Herbert West]

Range.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

Yes. Maybe at each other at times, in initial skirmishers, but other times against the main army. Suppose the army with the javeliners is a somewhat entrenched position and can resupply without needing to hold them. The archer force can be the one moving forward and just carrying theirs.

What I really want to know is, is throwing a javelin, within its range, more effective at successfully causing a casualty, than arrow fire, with equal numbers of supply. Taking into account varying rates of fire too.

Ss far as I can tell, javelineers are used before main line, as skirmishers, while archers not so much, having been usually part of main body or small detachments but still detachments. They aren't really skirmishers in that sense, they arent going to get into loose order before main body and use bows against skirmishers or main body.

Javelins are much heavier. I'd think that advantage against heavy armor.

 

[marty99]

Range.

That is a probably a massive factor limiting this. A question, if you know. Can javelins be fired over the top of their own forces, in the middle of melee? Or is it not realistic to achieve that kind of arc. I guess now I think of it, I mostly think of javelins being thrown when the skirmishers are out in front. I am not sure they are capable of being used in volleys when battle is engaged.

Actually, just looked it up and apparently the range of a roman pila was estimated at only 20-25m or so. Even worse than I would have guessed. And that's presumably with an optimal flight path. Throwing it over any mass of troops with enough velocity at that trajectory seems impracticable, unless you're on higher ground.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

More so, skirmishers aren't there to cause casualties. Sure sometimes they do, sfakteria, last part of anabasis, etc, but in general they have a role in modern parlance is called shaping the battlefield. They disrupt, deny, force countermeasures and thus give advantage to one own force (battles were not about casualties anyway, too).

Using archers as main body is recipe for defeat against heavy infantry btw. Bows are generally bad weapon from military perspective, especially pitched battle one, few caveats aside.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

That is a probably a massive factor limiting this. A question, if you know. Can javelins be fired over the top of their own forces, in the middle of melee? Or is it not realistic to achieve that kind of arc. I guess now I think of it, I mostly think of javelins being thrown when the skirmishers are out in front. I am not sure they are capable of being used in volleys when battle is engaged.

Actually, just looked it up and apparently the range of a roman pila was estimated at only 20-25m or so. Even worse than I would have guessed. And that's presumably with an optimal flight path. Throwing it over any mass of troops with enough velocity at that trajectory seems impracticable, unless you're on higher ground.

I don't think there was much shooting done into a melee with any weapon anyway. I guess they did have a concept of friendly fire already

 

[marty99]

Ss far as I can tell, javelineers are used before main line, as skirmishers, while archers not so much, having been usually part of main body or small detachments but still detachments. They aren't really skirmishers in that sense, they arent going to get into loose order before main body and use bows against skirmishers or main body.

Javelins are much heavier. I'd think that advantage against heavy armor.

So quite the dumb question then. I was just reading about the battle of the Trebia and how the roman skirmishers had exhausted their javelin supply earlier. But in fact, they weren't mainly skirmishers against carthaginian archers, but balearic slingers, which is a more important distinction than I had realised.

But if I read you right, it does sound like javelins are more likely to cause casualties when they are usable, which seems intuitive

 

[Grandpa Maur]

Yeah, slingers work a bit differently. They were more loose order, in front of main body. They were also very veteran troops usually, sling being hard skill. And they were indeed probably most effective skirmishers.

Btw, I'm not an authority. Few of these things I'm 100% sure, like sfakteria or anabasis examples, but the rest, only about 80%

 

[Grandpa Maur]

In fact, why not describe the Trebia example and write your thoughts? That'd be more interesting.

 

[Herbert West]

That is a probably a massive factor limiting this. A question, if you know. Can javelins be fired over the top of their own forces, in the middle of melee?

Kind of irrelevant.

Arrows were typically not shot over the top, at least not in the video game "archer unit in the back is arcing its shot over spearmen in front". Typical unit frontage is mixed. So archers at best fire over the same body they are part of (100-200 men, spaced maybe 8-16 deep, giving a frontage of less than 30)

 

[Kovax]

There are some indications that the most effective use of ranged weapons was to employ different types simultaneously. At fairly short ranges, thrown weapons or sling bullets could be arced to strike from above, forcing the enemy to raise their shields, while higher-speed arrows could be fired in a more direct line under those shields. Arrows from horseback were also effective, by striking from an unprotected angle while other ranged troops on foot kept the opponents' shields fixed to the front. One of any of the above was easy enough to counter with a shield, but the combinations could be more effective.

As pointed out, the main function of skirmishers was not to inflict casualties, but to force the enemy to deal with it, affecting their cohesion and morale, constraining their movement, and forcing them to raise shields and begin to tire even before the fight began. It only takes a few dozen men with missiles to affect the actions and attitudes of thousands, particularly when those thousands have no other option but to take the abuse.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Yeah, slingers work a bit differently. They were more loose order, in front of main body. They were also very veteran troops usually, sling being hard skill. And they were indeed probably most effective skirmishers.

A sling in the hand of a experienced slinger is a pretty effective weapon.

The David & Goliath story has been interpreted in a very distorted way. Any ancient timer would recognize David had the clear advantage.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

A sling in the hand of a experienced slinger is a pretty effective weapon.

The David & Goliath story has been interpreted in a very distorted way. Any ancient timer would recognize David had the clear advantage.

View attachment 1213062

Slings can also fire around the shield which is quite often forgoten. They also had good ranges comparable to bows.

 

[pithorr]

The javelin's purpose was also to penetrate the shield and weigh it down, making it useless for a melee warrior.
On the other hand, the javelin also had its drawback - it could be reused by the enemy.

 

[Lord Tim]

For what it's worth there's an ancient Greek military writer (Onasander iirc but maybe Asclepiodotus Tacticus) who recommends an even split of javelinmen and archers/slingers (in his opinion, roughly equal in usefulness). He comments that archers and slingers have to stop to shoot which is the time to shoot at them, javelinmen find it easier to keep moving and usually carry shields (this is in the era of the peltast) so are harder to kill at range. But that isn't necessarily advice based on practical experience.

Although you don't talk of it, the Romans found it convenient to have javelin-and-shield light cavalry as an answer to the horse archers of the Parthians and various steppe tribes. Which is plausible enough in theory and appears to have worked reasonably in practice.

 

[Kovax]

Unlike the bow or sling, a javelin is still a passably effective weapon in melee, if it comes to that, and does not prevent the use of a shield.

One does not generally fare well in melee with a javelin sticking through your shield. It makes a good handle or foot-pedal for the opponent to move your shield out of the way. If the javelin penetrated far enough, the pointy end might need to be avoided, even if it didn't reach you when thrown. It leaves you with the rather poor choice of fighting with a compromised shield or none. Arrows and slingstones, not so much.

 

[Barsoom]

I read that thing about making shields unwieldy as well. But if javelins have a clear advantage over arrows in this respect, why did they go out of style? Shield were used throughout the Middle Ages, so it would seem that they retained their utility but, as far as I know, javelins were rarely used in in medieval warfare.

 

[pithorr]

I read that thing about making shields unwieldy as well. But if javelins have a clear advantage over arrows in this respect, why did they go out of style? Shield were used throughout the Middle Ages, so it would seem that they retained their utility but, as far as I know, javelins were rarely used in in medieval warfare.

Maybe the massive use of heavy cavalry turned javelin throwers into spearmen?
Also, the longbows appeared...