Of javelins and arrows

[Rapax]

Originally posted by Ecthelion@Apr 13 2005, 05:22 AM
Umm... not sure where I tried to make the point that nutrition was the ONLY thing that mattered... :blink

You weren't, lee was, hence my additional underlining of the point. If you eat healthy and work out, you gonna have an edge, but a roman soldier was very trained in what he did and he ate enough to maintan efficency in the field.

If dueling (which evolved from sword-fighting) is nothing like sword-fighting at all... then what is? I mean, what are you doing when you duel? Are you not "fighting" with "swords"?

You should have read what he wrote. "Dueling and swordfighting in combat" are not the same and he's right. Nowhere did he say that dueling has nothing to do with swordfighting.

The Roman cohorts are always vaunted as being these perfect, flexible fighting machines.* But the reality of the matter is that the scutum/gladius combo was only good against a few types of enemy, that being non-polearmed heavy infantry.* Against polearms the cohorts had to flank, which is more due to clever manuevring on part of the centurions than any genious of equipment.* If anything, having a big clunky shield makes it harder to run and flank.*

Here's a statement about what Polyibius thinks of the Legions:

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

He wrote that while comparing the roman legion to the macedonian phalanx which he found superior on flat ground, but difficult to maintain and unflexible for a multitude of other operations.

Why were the scutum and the gladius abandonded? Simple: the Romans came against enemies who did not rely on non-polearmed heavy infantry.

It is actually not clear why they changed their equipment. What we know is that the spatha first appeared as a cavalry weapon as the horsemen needed the longer reach for their swords. Also the blurred distinction between roman legion and auxiliaries might have to do with equipment change as auxiliaries generally carried different equipment.

Romans lost many, many times. And I doubt if not a few of those were due to equipment mismatches.

Well, why don't you name some of these battles? Most of rome's worst defeats were due to incompetence on part of their leaders, not because of "equipment mismatches". With a good general, a roman army was almost unstoppable.

[Petronius]

You cannot lose a battle because of 'equipment mismatches' when technology level is about even on both sides (give or take a bit, of course, because Rome had slightly superior technology to many of its adversaries). It is simply impossible, unless you're talking about spears vs machine guns. Every competent general will find away to go around these 'equipment mismatches' if they crop up, because that's what wins battles - flexibility and the ability to inspire troops.

Now, we come to duelling and combat swordfighting. Duelling is the 'fine art' of single combat; probably refereed, with rules, seconds and usually not to the death. In short, very 'civilized'. Now combat swordfighting is completely different - you are fighting to kill or take your enemy out as quickly as possible, using whatever techniques you have, which includes tackling him to the ground or bashing his brains out with your shield boss. There are no rules; it is short and vicious and therefore MUCH more dangerous; soldiers are trained to fight in the second form, obviously. If you plucked a professional duellist (with no actual combat experience) from the Renaissance and placed him in a battle, he would most likely be killed VERY VERY quickly because he is not trained to defend against all out attacks. Now do you see what we mean?

[Disciple]

Wow.... reading this whole thread was both a good read, and a good laugh. Alot of people here know their stuff, and they know what they're talking about, yet people who (seemingly) know almost nothing about the subject are coming in here and disputing written history by throwing out a bunch of theories (which history has disproven, as I just said) and then believing those theories as fact in light of the evidence.

Arrows are extremely small, and while sometimes, if skillfuly fired, could penetrate deeply and far, weren't much if countered by a shield, and were pretty small in the first place. A big javeline however, is something that not only wounds and mortally wounds a person, but once someone (or something) is hit by a javeline, he's out of the fight period. That was the whole point of the clever engineering of the pila. It was meant to hit things in such a way that it would be extremely hard to pull out, and if you could pull one out, it would take alot of time, and do alot of damage to the point that the thing that was hit was almost useless in heated battle.

[RGB]

So who exactly knows nothing about written history?

I think all the major participants of this debate have read their classical sources; the difference between those that question Roman equipment and those that maintain belief in superiority of big shield/small sword/pilum is that the latter never tried to tackle the reason for the decline of said equipment, nor consider other theories and factors. The best some people here can come up with is "simulations and later events have nothing to do with it" and "we cannot really know the reasons"

For example, when I say that dueling (which grew out of street-fighting, thank you very much, so it wasn't all artificial) didn't adopt the Western Mediterranean equipment, it gets dismissed, backed by what the proponent presents as infallible (but still unsupported, mind&#33 argument that a duelist wouldn't last finve seconds against a real soldier of the antiquity. Well then, I'm convinced. Sounds totally logical to me! In fact what better to use as an argument than a hypothetical matchup that has never, ever been tried?

All I said is that the equipment was never carried over and that may say something. My debate opponent (Petronius in this case), however, jumped to a conclusion that duelist equipment was no good in a real fight. Brilliant. Notice how he specified that "a Renaissance duellist with no combat experience" would stand no chance against a professional soldier. Well, sure, but er, we're not talking about people with no experience.

Nobody even tries to tackle my questions about why later shieldwalls didn't use Roman equipment, for example. Well, alright, so how about this one: the lighter martiobarbuli replaced pila in the later Empire. A martiobarbulus probably weighs the same as a modern javelin (although this I'm not sure of and you can freely contradict me provided you have sources). So why the change if the pila were so ideal?

The most convincing argument for the javelin I've seen was the one where numbers appeared and the javelin comes out as having more force than anything else.

And those that claim that Rome lost few battles - well, dears, you need to read your history. Romans won thorugh having lots of bodies and great organisation, first and foremost.

[Petronius]

Stop talking about bloody equipment already, it does not make a soldier nor does it make an army; it merely a means to an end. If troops are trained enough with a set of equipment, they'll be as good as people with other equipment. Simple. What makes an army is discipline, training and esprit de corps (morale, basically); Roman equipment stopped being used because the Romans weren't around to use it, very simple. WHY IS THERE A FIXATION ON EQUIPMENT?!

I assumed when duelling was brought up, it was referring to High Medieval and Renaissance duelling. If not, please specify.

Please, RGB, quote where I said a duellist's equipment was not good? I said it was good for a duel, not for a real battle. Again, stop fixating on equipment because it's really a minor issue if we're discussing why armies are successful. Duellists, usually, were two bit noblemen who had never been in a real vicious combat before. Combat, again I'll repeat, is completely different from a duel - however, instead of examining my post and defeating the arguments, you decided to make a broad sweep and pretty much bring up another subject (the shieldwall, which again, is of no consequence here) into things. Please, stay on task and defeat whatever you see wrong.

[Lee1026]

A person CAN throw around 100 mph(baseball pitchers for instance). I assumed only 70 mph for a javelin thrower, conservative to say the least. A bow throws an arrow at about twice that speed. I assumed that a Roman could only throw a pilum at 60 mph as it was heavier.

First of all I'm going to use SI (since I don't know foot-pound) with that in mind let's tear apart your physics.
we know that energy have to come from somewhere.
We know that energy comes from the guy throwing it.
we know that the full swing of his arms took less then 1 second.
we now that a modern human have roughly 75 watts of power. and that a roman legionary won't have more then 150 watts of power.
60mph is roughly 30 M/S and 4 pounds is roughly 2 kilos.
E = 0.5 * m * v^2 gets us 900 joules.
E = t * w (watts) which gets us 900 watts. or more then 1 horsepower. that's impossible.

let's say that an arrow goes at 200 mph (100 m/s) and weighs 20 grams (or 0.02 Kg) and the acher takes 4 seconds in drawing back the bow.
E = 0.5 * 0.02 * 50 ^ 2 or 100 Joules
that adds to 25 watts, or easily doable.

note also that an arrow is alot shorter, and thus will be able to tear apart armor easier.

Well, why don't you name some of these battles? Most of rome's worst defeats were due to incompetence on part of their leaders, not because of "equipment mismatches". With a good general, a roman army was almost unstoppable.

whose worst defeats are not because of poor leadership?

and while I have no doubt that some shields got disabled, that number is probably quite low. after all even a 1 in 20 chance would mean that it is a worthwhile weapon to use. but if they are that effective I think we would see them even in medival ages. after all if something can tear though a hoplon shield then that same something can tear though a knight's armor (if you upgrade the tip). then why it isn't in use more? it doesn't work that well. and if the tower shield + short sword + javalin set up is all that great, then why didn't medival armys try to copy it?

[Ecthelion]

The physics man has got a point,

If it was so good, why was it never replicated again?

[Petronius]

Because methods of waging warfare changed. The Roman way of war wasn't replicated again, period; this doesn't mean it wasn't effective, which, judging by history, would be a completely false thing to say. All this means is that there are other effective ways to wage warfare (obviously ). This goes in hand with what I said before - the weapons and armour are simply a means to an end.

[Rapax]

Jesus Christ...

whose worst defeats are not because of poor leadership?

According to you it was due to "equipment mismatch" so don't try to talk yourself out of something you claimed.

and while I have no doubt that some shields got disabled, that number is probably quite low. after all even a 1 in 20 chance would mean that it is a worthwhile weapon to use.

So what are you debating about? According to your long explanations a javelin has no penetration, a javelin will glance off, a javelin doesn't have enough force, basically a javelin is worth *****. So are we gonna celebrate now that you finally give the javelin some credit? Also I don't know what we are still talking about. I keep repeating myself over and over again pointing to history while you over and over again write down physical formulas and your own assumptions. You don't care that the javelin was an essential part of roman military doctrine from the usage of the manipular system pretty much until the fall of the western empire, no way, you only care about what you yourself think was possible and that is the inherent flaw in your logic. Whatever the actual factor was that the javelin had in battle we don't know but if a professional army bothers to have their soldiers carry and use it for centuries on end then surely it couldn't have been that unimportant to them.

but if they are that effective I think we would see them even in medival ages. after all if something can tear though a hoplon shield then that same something can tear though a knight's armor (if you upgrade the tip).

If a simple wooden shield is the same to you as metal armor then sure :rolleyes
However what you do not realize is that medieval warfare was dominated by heavy cavalry while ancient warfare in europe was predominantly fought between heavy infantry. A javelin would have no use against rows of armoured horsemen, that simple.

and if the tower shield + short sword + javalin set up is all that great, then why didn't medival armys try to copy it?

It's the same stupid question over and over again and still you do not realize its stupidity. Something has been succesfully used for several centuries. The empire who used it falls apart. Oh no, nobody is using the system anymore, therefor it must have been bad :rolleyes
Please don't tell me your way of thinking isn't that simple, please. But hey, question for you, why aren't we using infantry in line formation anymore? Must have been really ineffective in the 18th century, otherwise we'd still use it, no?

@ecthelion:
Please don't hide behind Mr. Physics.

[Lee1026]

If a simple wooden shield is the same to you as metal armor then sure

last I checked, the hoplon shield is metal.

According to you it was due to "equipment mismatch" so don't try to talk yourself out of something you claimed.

since when did I claim that?

we don't know but if a professional army bothers to have their soldiers carry and use it for centuries on end then surely it couldn't have been that unimportant to them.

Well, soilders did wear big bulky hats for a few centurys (those big, stupid and funny things on imperial europeans's heads.) now those things are really effective in combat. Also the main usage of javalins is fear. Dunno about you, but a bunch of sharp stuff flying toward me wouldn't be that relaxing to me - even if they all just brounced off of my shield.

However what you do not realize is that medieval warfare was dominated by heavy cavalry while ancient warfare in europe was predominantly fought between heavy infantry. A javelin would have no use against rows of armoured horsemen, that simple.

if a javalin can get though a hoplon shield, then it can get though a plate armor, both are metal, both are rather thick (and the shield is probably thicker)

We are not lining up our guys 18th century style because technology have changed, alot. However there isn't much of a change from roman times to medival times. (steel can be used in both armor and javalin tips, after all) so that even the eastern roman empire failed to keep alive the tradition of tower shields + javalin + short sword raises doubts about their effectiveness.

[Rapax]

Originally posted by lee1026@Apr 14 2005, 02:51 AM
last I checked, the hoplon shield is metal.

Last I checked, you don't have a clue.
It was a deeply dished wooden shield with a flat or angled rim, a band for the arm (porpax) at center, and a handgrip (antilabe) near the edge. Earlier ones seem to have been covered with leather, with a thin bronze covering on the rim, but by the late Archaic period it was common to cover the entire front with a thin facing of bronze.
http://www.larp.com/hoplite/hoplon.html

since when did I claim that?

Ok that was your shadow ecthelion. It's hard to keep you apart.

Well, soilders did wear big bulky hats for a few centurys (those big, stupid and funny things on imperial europeans's heads.) now those things are really effective in combat.

Which is a part of clothing, not weaponry. And since the weapons of that time did not allow effective use from hiding or cover, they did the exact opposite and showed off.

Also the main usage of javalins is fear. Dunno about you, but a bunch of sharp stuff flying toward me wouldn't be that relaxing to me - even if they all just brounced off of my shield.

Fear is certainly a factor, just like Caesars "disarming" was an important factor. Still it makes the javelin valuable.

if a javalin can get though a hoplon shield, then it can get though a plate armor, both are metal, both are rather thick (and the shield is probably thicker)

Well, check above, you neither know what a hoplon is made of, nor do you seem to know what plate armor is.

We are not lining up our guys 18th century style because technology have changed, alot.

You don't say. Finally realized that haven't you? So from muskets to bolt action rifles it's a huge technological step for you, but from, let's say 50 BC to 700 AD nothing much changed. Sounds logical. Swords are swords and spears are spears right? It's all the same. So, let's call the period from 2000 BC to 1400 AD the sword age, where technology didn't change and people only stopped using weapons and tactics because they sucked not because they might be outdated or something. Great, good we got that cleared. :grin

Oh, did you know that the roman army originally used the phalanx fighting formation? Then they switched to the manipular system. Dumb *****s eh? Switching from the great phalanx to the sucky legion and conquering the whole mediterranean. :rolleyes

[Ecthelion]

I'm lee's shadow now???

WTF???

I only agree with the pure PHYSICS aspects of lee's arguements.

I know that hoplon shield are not metal (duh&#33

I know that the nature of warfare shifted after, and immediately before the fall of the empire.

But I still stand by my point:

The short sword and scutum were never picked up again, EVEN AFTER heavy cavalry began to fade due to crossbows, longbows, matchlocks. But the pike remained an important weapon with the infantry, even after the fall of the knights. There were large large numbers of pikemen in European armies well after the fall of heavy cavalry and the rise of firearms. Heck, if the bayonet never came along, we'd still be seeing pikemen during Napoleon's time. And after all, isn't that what a musket with a bayonet is? a shooting pike (more like a spear really I suppose)?

So yes, the predominance of cavalry phased out the gladius. It may not have been the only reason that the gladius went, but it is certainly one of them. But even when heavy cavalry were on the way out (that is before Gustafus brought them back for a quick encore during the Baroque period) pikes were still the mainstay of European armies. THE GLADIUS WAS NOT PICKED UP AGAIN!

[Taron Quintus]

Actually, the Spanish developed a very effective force of sword-and-buckler men (relatively ligthly armored men with round, metal buckler shields and short, stabbing swords) that proved very effective against some pike formations. They were adoptedby some French and other nation's armies.

They were part of a pike formation, along with musketeers and crossbowman. They were able to get in among the pikes and hack at the pikemen. The Germans also had a doppeldollernman who carried a huge two-handed sword out in front of the landsnechkt pike formation. He would try and hack through the pike to disrupt the formation as well.

[NailX]

Wait... hold on... If pole-arms are so good.. then.. why did the phalanx (spelling is off) formation go out? :8

Notice that it has been pointed out that 2 people have done the math and... you just never noticed the other guys but went to lee's instead? That is why you were called his shadow, IMO. Now, back to the weapons. Culture had a big factor i belive. I do think it all depended on who it was who was using the stuff. Roman weapons went out because.. well.. Rome went out of style in a way. So that could lead to why the javelin, short sword combo, and many other things were not used again.

[Lee1026]

You don't say. Finally realized that haven't you? So from muskets to bolt action rifles it's a huge technological step for you, but from, let's say 50 BC to 700 AD nothing much changed. Sounds logical. Swords are swords and spears are spears right? It's all the same. So, let's call the period from 2000 BC to 1400 AD the sword age, where technology didn't change and people only stopped using weapons and tactics because they sucked not because they might be outdated or something. Great, good we got that cleared. grin.gif

not much changed. the invention of steel did not affect weapon design much - a steel sword is shaped much like an iron one. And used like one. The stirup is not an infantry weapon, so that does not play into our debate much. and even if we just pit roman legionary against swiss pikemen the swiss would come out victious - after all the pikemen formation were heavily used in a infantry dominated period. (where no one is stupid enough to use the legion formation)

Oh, did you know that the roman army originally used the phalanx fighting formation? Then they switched to the manipular system. Dumb *****s eh? Switching from the great phalanx to the sucky legion and conquering the whole mediterranean.

the power of the legion most comes from their professionalism. that counts in every army. they also give alot of power to the junior officers. which does not have much to do with what kind of equipment in a army. the fact that they won was because they had a professional army while everyone else used weekend warriors. the only part that is surprising to me is that it took them so long. pros beat weekend warriors, as long as the weapons are not too inferior (by that I meant fighting bare hand inferior)

[Ecthelion]

Taron brings up a good point, there were A FEW units that used short swords later on.

But, they did not fight in the Roman style, they hard no large sields and they were a specialized corps, way outnumbered by pikemen. So it was not a true revival.

As for that dreaded phalanx arguement. The phalanx is a specific use of polearms. Polearms DO NOT = phalanx! The phalanx formation may have been dropped but not the use of polearms.


AND FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT LEE'S SHADOW. for the love of Christ, we don't even sound the same!!!

[Rapax]

not much changed. the invention of steel did not affect weapon design much - a steel sword is shaped much like an iron one. And used like one. The stirup is not an infantry weapon, so that does not play into our debate much. and even if we just pit roman legionary against swiss pikemen the swiss would come out victious - after all the pikemen formation were heavily used in a infantry dominated period. (where no one is stupid enough to use the legion formation)

What I am trying to tell you and what you are not willing to accept is that warfare goes through a constant evolution. Equipment changes or is modified according to changing circumstances. That you claim the invention of stirrups is not important to infantry is both funny and disturbing as stirrups made cavalry the heavy shockforce which was to dominate the medieval battlefield, hence making it necessary for infantry to protect itself against it. Anyway, why you are suggesting to put swiss pikemen against a roman legion is beyond me as I can tell you a hundred times that the roman system turned out to be superior against its many enemies during rome's reign. Also rome was known for its adaptability and usage of technology from conquered foes and so most of what romans were using militarily was actually taken from somewhere else.
But anyway, why am I talking to you about this? Someone who is so thickheaded as to believe that a military system that has proved superior for several centuries was flawed and only successful because of its soldiers clearly won't understand what I tell him, neither today nor any other day. I have repeated myself continously yet you seem to suffer some sort of pikemen complex as you keep repeating and repeating it with no real sense behind it.
It's fascinating how you entered the debate with some physics on javelins and then creepingly started questioning everything about the roman army, from equipment to fighting system. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

the power of the legion most comes from their professionalism. that counts in every army. they also give alot of power to the junior officers. which does not have much to do with what kind of equipment in a army. the fact that they won was because they had a professional army while everyone else used weekend warriors. the only part that is surprising to me is that it took them so long. pros beat weekend warriors, as long as the weapons are not too inferior (by that I meant fighting bare hand inferior)

Oh good, you did not forget about the bare hands. Professional soldiers are superior but you will only get a weak smile from me if you seriously wanna claim that rome only fought against "weekend warriors". Rome might have been the only one to have a constant standing army during that time but the enemies it fought against more often than not were warrior cultures with very fierce and very experienced warriors. The roman army overcame through discipline, training and their system of fighting which, as you cannot argue, clearly involves the equipment used. The romans fought in a system based on the use of javelins, scutum and gladius and it worked. Why you claim that these were inferior weapons (inferior to what?) I do not know as they worked fine for the romans.
If your point is that the romans could have beaten their enemies whatever weapons they were using, maybe, but fact is that they used what they used and you constantly dismissing the effectiveness of that equipment is pure ignorance.

I suggest you stop this beating around the bush and just say what you wanna say. You constantly claim that the roman system was abandoned because it was not good as opposed to simply being obsolete. Yet you simply ignore it's few hundred years of successful usage. Any statement on that? Then it seems you wanna claim that the phalanx is so great because forms of it were used in the medieval periode and renaissance. What you of course ignore is that the phalanx was becoming obsolete during roman times as the legion proved to be more flexible. And now please tell when that was that swiss pikemen had their high point.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT LEE'S SHADOW. for the love of Christ, we don't even sound the same!!!

Don't cry, you simply share very similar viewpoints and your praise of his arguments certainly doesn't help the distinction.

[Lee1026]

Wait... hold on... If pole-arms are so good.. then.. why did the phalanx (spelling is off) formation go out?

bolt action rifles and gatling guns. those things completely revlutionized warfare.

The culture arugment is crap. if memory serves macedon is no longer a real force by the time the late medival period rolled around and yet the pikemen formation is still in widespread use. if memory serves all kinds of people used the pikemen formation. they did not use it because sounds cool, they used it because it works. which is something that we can't say for the legion formation. after all if they are so good then more people in history would have used it. (which they didn't) if they are really invicible fighting machines, then they should become the infantry that people use in the 15-16-17th century. but instead, the pikemen was.

[Rapax]

"If memory serves"....great, what if it doesn't serve? Ok let's see, the macedonians were defeated by rome in 168 BC at pydna and pikemen started to appear in the 15th century. So, what exactly was going on with that superior phalanx formation during that millenium in-between?

The culture arugment is crap.

What culture argument?

if memory serves macedon is no longer a real force by the time the late medival period rolled around and yet the pikemen formation is still in widespread use.

Macedon was no longer a real force after being conquered by the romans, so please do tell me when the medieval period rolled in and where exactly pikemen were used at that time.

after all if they are so good then more people in history would have used it. (which they didn't)

You keep pulling the same silly argument out of your butt over and over again. Do you want to know why no one else used it? Because they were all conquered by the romans, that's why.

if they are really invicible fighting machines, then they should become the infantry that people use in the 15-16-17th century.

Uh-hu sure, the roman legions would have had a field day against muskets and heavy cavalry. But I love your argumentation. I shall use it for myself in debate. I'm gonna take any army and then claim it sucked because their system of fighting wasn't used a thousand years in the future. Brilliant. What you do not question of course is why one system was used and not another. The only thing you can do is superficially look at things which of course brings you to the result that one system was used and not another. And in your ignorant brain that must mean that that system is inherently superior. If you would only start asking "why" then we'd be getting somewhere, but I fear ignorance is the key here.

[NailX]

Did you just compare the BC age to a Bolt Action Rilfe? :blink What are you thinking? I was not even coming close to making a refreence to modern day style weapons. Also, gattling guns, if they are so great, why do they not get used today? FYI, mini-chain guns and such that a single person can carry do not exist because the weight needed to carry the ammo that these legendary weapons fire at would not be able to be taken by 1 person.

But back on topic, Lets face it, tactics go out of style all the time, look at when guns first came into play, Men in lines, then all of a sudden it was not like that. Why not? Worked before, but wait.. it feel out of practice. So did the roman army ways, they did not fit the needs of others so they were not used. Fighting changed, so they never used them. Simple as that from what i can see.