Why did javelins, pila and slings fall out of use?

[Ecthelion]

One thing I never really understood is why the two most popular ranged weapons of the Western Mediterranean world fall out of use in Late Antiquity.

As the title suggests, I am referring to the stone or lead sling, and the light/heavy javelin.

The pilum disappeared from Roman use sometime early in the Third Century, and while javelins were used by Germanic tribes, and others, the dedicated skirmisher, the peltast, was a thing of the past.

If the pilum was indeed an “anti-shield” weapon, then it should have become more important as the Germans relied very heavily on their heavy shields to form the shield wall or boar snout. Contrast this with the smaller, and less critical shields of the Celts and one would think that the pila should have become more valuable, not less.

Now, before we all rush to say “plumbata”, we should remember that those darts were very much an afterthought with little actual effect in combat. I mean… it’s a big lead dart, really guys. It was at best a sort of an opportunistic weapon to get someone in the eye or panic a horse, not something to be thrown in unison as far as we know, since it would have zero effect on a prepared, shield enemy formation. It is not comparable to the pilum.

The sling never completely died out, but its use did diminish greatly. This is somewhat more understandable as a lead bullet, however fast and accurate, would do little against mail armor and heavy shields. And the enemies of Rome were increasing equipped with both. It also required a dedicated user, which was unlikely to happen in an era when the far superior, composite bow was becoming the preferred ranged weapon for auxiliaries.

[hellheaven1987]

A long spear is better to keep enemies in a distance than a one-time use javelin.

[DarthShizNit]

I've never understood the apparent disappearance of the javelin either. I mean, armies only got more armored over time, which is where a heavy javelin excels.

[hellheaven1987]

I've never understood the apparent disappearance of the javelin either. I mean, armies only got more armored over time, which is where a heavy javelin excels.

- Too heavy.

- Too expendable (one time usage only).

- Too expensive (one time usage only).

- Took too much training.

[vikior]

- Too heavy.

- Too expendable (one time usage only).

- Too expensive (one time usage only).

- Took too much training.

Exactly. It's about the same story as the one about Lorica Segmentata. It was simply too expensive.

[hellheaven1987]

Exactly. It's about the same story as the one about Lorica Segmentata. It was simply too expensive.

The thing was there was better, cheaper alternation, so why kept the heavy javelin? In fact, a historian (I remember it is Hugh Elton in his "Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350–425") points out the range units of late Roman military probably increased up to 1/3 of whole force, and towards 6th Century the number went even higher to 2/3 or even 3/4 (if you trust what Emperor Maurice said). In the end, "Chinese Warring State/Achaemenid Persian" style of tactic ultimately won the game.

[vikior]

The thing was there was better, cheaper alternation, so why kept the heavy javelin? In fact, a historian (I remember it is Hugh Elton in his "Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350–425") points out the range units of late Roman military probably increased up to 1/3 of whole force, and towards 6th Century the number went even higher to 2/3 or even 3/4 (if you trust what Emperor Marius said).

Yes, if I remember correctly, towards the end of the Empire, even the regular footmen were required to practice with the bow. The pilum went out of use during the chaotic third century. The lighter throwing spears were simply easier to produce, and as such would have been available to more men.

[Ecthelion]

- Too heavy.
You would be surprised. They're only a few ounces for light javelins.
- Too expendable (one time usage only).
False, javelins are easily collected back, like arrows, but deform less after use. A pilum is easily bent back.

- Too expensive (one time usage only).
Light javelins have tips only slightly larger than an arrow. Wood is nearly free and can be procured locally. The soft iron on pila is very and cheap to make.

- Took too much training.
Actually, javelins require the least amount of training among all missile weapons.

[vikior]

Javelins didn't fall out of use, just the Pilum did. The pilum was simply replaced by some lighter javelins that were easier and cheaper to produce. In the Late Empire, javelins were extremely important in a Roman battle line as every man was equipped with at least one. The front ranks were heavily armed and armoured, while the rear ranks would pelt the enemy with throwing spears and projectiles of all kinds.

[Caligula's_Horse]

The javelin never actually disappeared until around the mid medieval period. Its recorded to be in continued use in Europe up until after the crusades.
The decline in the javelin's use in Europe around the late Roman empire is simply because Rome abandoned it, and there wasn't much else going on in Europe at the time (Rome owned most of it, after all); where there wasn't Roman rule, like in Germany, the javelin remained. Rome dumped the pilum mostly because its a very aggressive weapon--meant to be used while charging the enemy. In its later days, Rome was rarely attacking anything, focusing more on defense and border forts, where a javelin is more difficult to use.
The end of the javelin came not with Rome, but rather with the widespread introduction of the crossbow in medieval times. Ease of use is a massive advantage in times when the vast majority of the fighters were levied peasants which could barely tell one end of the spear from another.

As for the sling, again, the problem lies with how difficult it was to use. A sling is typically considered as the toughest of ranged weapons to master properly, with the possible exception of the longbow which required years of muscle buildup.
The sling's primary saving grace is a long range, and being dirt cheap. Thing is though, its not that much longer ranged then a simple bow and arrow, and is actually out-ranged by the longbow. Its got very limited effect against anything with even semi-decent armor, and the amount of room it requires to use properly makes it a poor choice for a siege or from horseback.

So the end result is a weapon that's cheap, yet ill suited for a peasant levy due to the skill requirement unless your average peasant already knows how to use a sling which by the time of Rome's fall, they typically didn't. The primary thing that kept sling training alive was commoners practicing with it for self defense in case they were levied, but with Rome's professional legions doing the fighting and keeping away bandits, those motivations disappeared and were forgotten after a few decades of Roman rule.
And on the more professional end, there was no reason to bother with it because its out-preformed by a bow and arrow; its more expensive sure, but not beyond the reach of a professional soldier. So we're left with no real niche for the sling.

[Mangalore]

I would think there are three things to consider.


a) Turn towards cavalry based warfare. Cavalry became the dominant arm of late anquity which meant more fluent battles, less importance on infantry vs infantry battles. The deadliest foe for a javelin armed skirmisher is cavalry, particularly the late types were all far heavier armored than anything of earlier eras. They couldn't really take their role against bow armed cavalry and heavy shock cavalry.

b) Infantry turned into a support role of cavalry rather than its own dedicated force. Hence the increase of archers in its ranks. Said infantry didn't need an skirmishing screen anymore since they were operating more defensively and for the same reason they themselves didn't use javelins en masse before a dedicated charge but probably rather waited for archers and cavalry to prepare an opportunity.

c) I think javelins were simply underreported and didn't cease to exist or be used. They were just not a special part of a battle anymore. In the Roman heyday the pilum volley right before the infantry charge as well as the skirmishing phase were special events concerning the battle to the point the absence of the former being noted in battles of the Civil War. In later times this phase didn't exist anymore. However I do believe people were still flinging lots of crap at each other from a safe distance and javelins still were part of that.


In essence war changed, making these weapons less important. I don't believe they actually disappeared for a long while beyond that.

On the slingers I think that weapons had issues concerning range flexibility that archers filled better. Slingers were never as effective as RTW2 makes them to be so while deadly they must have had tactical disadvantages making their use less of a standard issue. Though I think general infantry often had slings with them to pepper each other.

[Ecthelion]

A lot of good points here. I agree that the banality of the javelin made its presence in the historical record far less prominent than in the Classical Period.

I don't agree with the argument that the pilum was phased out due to the Roman's switch to a defensive posture.

The Romans were defensive strategically, but still very much offensive tactically. In fact, any formation other than spear and shield wall was offensive tactically. The sword is an inherently offensive weapon.

The increased importance of cavalry, especially shock cavalry should work to the benefit of javelins. A volley of javelins against head on horses would be devastating as horses crash over dead and injured horses. The momentum of the charge would be greatly reduced.

Personally, I think the main factors were strategic.

By the time the Romans had access to large numbers of Eastern bowmen, they no longer needed extensive ranged capabilities. During the Crisis year, the infantry was constantly marching as fast as it could, so anything non-essential was left behind, and arrows are lighter than javelins. The same idea can be used to explain the phasing out of the scutum, lorica segmentata and Imperial Gallic helmets. They were just too heavy.

So the legionary that marched out of the Crisis period just had a hasta, spartha, ridged helmet, Gallic shield, and ridged helmet, the bare essentials.

[Hobbes]

Actually, javelins require the least amount of training among all missile weapons.

I thought that was said about crossbows.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. It's something I often wondered myself; the sling seems to be something that's better dealt with with specialized troops, apparently recruited from agrarian societies whose young lads had a lot of time on their hands while on the lookout to ensure that no one was bothering the sheep. On the other hand, they seem to be a popular option for concentric iron age hill forts, so they either work best when you have experts using them, or you can rain down a volume.

2. Ammunition can easily be obtained, since you could use stones. Ceramic is a cheaper option than lead, since when you're besieged, recovering the bullets doesn't seem possible.

3. Stand off range may have increased, so that a blunt object may have less penetrative power than a more pointy arrow.

4. Maybe the recruiting pool shrunk for slingers.

5. Javelins seem ideal for chunking down on someone on a ladder: gravity, close range, no possibility to avoid. Plus, you're mostly behind cover.

6. If it comes down to attritioning, dragging along a bunch of javelins might not quite seem as worthwhile as carrying a quiver full of lighter arrows.

[Caligula's_Horse]

A lot of good points here. I agree that the banality of the javelin made its presence in the historical record far less prominent than in the Classical Period.

I don't agree with the argument that the pilum was phased out due to the Roman's switch to a defensive posture.

The Romans were defensive strategically, but still very much offensive tactically. In fact, any formation other than spear and shield wall was offensive tactically. The sword is an inherently offensive weapon.

The increased importance of cavalry, especially shock cavalry should work to the benefit of javelins. A volley of javelins against head on horses would be devastating as horses crash over dead and injured horses. The momentum of the charge would be greatly reduced.

Personally, I think the main factors were strategic.

By the time the Romans had access to large numbers of Eastern bowmen, they no longer needed extensive ranged capabilities. During the Crisis year, the infantry was constantly marching as fast as it could, so anything non-essential was left behind, and arrows are lighter than javelins. The same idea can be used to explain the phasing out of the scutum, lorica segmentata and Imperial Gallic helmets. They were just too heavy.

So the legionary that marched out of the Crisis period just had a hasta, spartha, ridged helmet, Gallic shield, and ridged helmet, the bare essentials.

The lighter equipment sounds more like a cost cutting measure then a real strategic shift towards fast marching soldiers.
Especially considering that march speed is much more limited by supply lines or foraging then how fast the men can actually run around--otherwise, armies would routinely march 50+ km a day, a feat only the Mongols (famous for operating entirely on horseback and largely without supply lines among other things) seemed to be able to reliably pull off without a forced march that came with its own host of problems.

As for the javelin's value against cavalry charges, that might have held true, if the men throwing the javelins were disciplined enough to volley them on command with horsemen bearing down on them (and given the javelin's limited window of engagement, that's a very big if), and if the javelin throwers are fast enough to switch over to a spear between the time the javelin was thrown and the horsemen made contact, in case the javelins proved insufficient.
Honestly, it seems move practical to just stick to the spear to begin with. Or use a javelin like a spear, if that's all you have.

The real problem with javelins vs. cavalry warfare is horse archers. They out range the javelins without even trying, meaning you'll need some dedicated archers of your own just to keep them from firing at you with impunity. Seeing as you're already spending a lot on dedicated missile support in the form of archery, spending resources on javelins suddenly doesn't seem as important.

On a partially related note, the sword is not an inherently offensive weapon. When carried alongside a spear, a sword usually leans more towards the direction of a FUBAR weapon, for when the formation broke (or was unavailable to begin with due to terrain) and the whole mess disintegrated into a melee, where individual fighting is key and a spear held in one hand alongside a shield preforms poorly.
A sword does however, offer better synergy with a javelin. Mostly because the javelin has a very short range, and is often thrown right before contact, when there simply isn't time to bring an unwieldy spear to bare after throwing, while there is time to draw a sword. As the legionary's primary weapon shifted from the sword to the spear, the javelin would have make way, as is doesn't work very well alongside the new primary weapon.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

- Too heavy.

- Too expendable (one time usage only).

- Too expensive (one time usage only).

- Took too much training.

All common misconceptions.

To clear things up:

First of all, the Romans kept using heavy Javelins, called a Spiculum, well into the 6th century. And they were not "single use" because the Pilum was never designed to bend on impact. The device was a penetrating weapon, designed to smash through a shield and hit the guy behind it (if possible), but otherwise render the shield useless making the man defenseless in combat.

As mentioned, the heavy Javelin was an offensive weapon, not something you'd see in the standard Limitanei garrison. It was designed for pitched battles, which the Romans began trying to avoid due to the manpower shortages and the difficulty of recruitment, but the Comitatenses (mobile field armies) certainly used them. However, the purpose of it, which was to render shields useless, could also be achieved with Plumbatae, which you could carry more of.

Light Javelins were in common usage well into the medieval era (the Romans called them Verruta and Lancaea) and were used by primarily the cavalry called Armaturae, Scutarii, Mauri, etc. Some Auxilia Palatina units also probably used them, as well as some Limitanei infantry units.

And the standard equipment of the Legionnaire of the 4th century was Ridge Helmet, Sagum or Paenula Cloak, Fibula, Lorica Hamata or Squamata, Balteus, Spatha, Plumbatae or Spicula, Feminalia, Calcei, and Scutum.

[Ecthelion]

As mentioned, the heavy Javelin was an offensive weapon, not something you'd see in the standard Limitanei garrison. It was designed for pitched battles, which the Romans began trying to avoid due to the manpower shortages and the difficulty of recruitment, but the Comitatenses (mobile field armies) certainly used them. However, the purpose of it, which was to render shields useless, could also be achieved with Plumbatae, which you could carry more of.

Light Javelins were in common usage well into the medieval era (the Romans called them Verruta and Lancaea) and were used by primarily the cavalry called Armaturae, Scutarii, Mauri, etc. Some Auxilia Palatina units also probably used them, as well as some Limitanei infantry units.

I don't really see how a lead dart can disable a heavy Germanic shield. Just with common sense and experience in recreational darts, I've always doubted the effectiveness of the plumbata, It's quite difficult to throw a dart accurately, and the fact that plumbata were substantially larger than a modern dart doesn't help. Again, common sense and practical experience tells me that it was a purely opportunistic weapon.

I'd also like to point out that the load weight on a soldier does indeed impact the overall speed of the army. It's pure science. More carry weight means more calories expended, more calories means greater demand for food, and more food means more time to acquire and transport that food. Mongol armies and nomads in general were able to move so quickly due to the high carry capacity to carry weight ratio (remember that for every Mongol warrior, there were between 5 to 10 spare ponies), and the fact that they had almost no wheeled transport to deal with. Everything was carried on foot and hoof.

[Mangalore]

....

I don't agree with the argument that the pilum was phased out due to the Roman's switch to a defensive posture.

The Romans were defensive strategically, but still very much offensive tactically. In fact, any formation other than spear and shield wall was offensive tactically. The sword is an inherently offensive weapon.

The increased importance of cavalry, especially shock cavalry should work to the benefit of javelins. A volley of javelins against head on horses would be devastating as horses crash over dead and injured horses. The momentum of the charge would be greatly reduced.

....

I meant the infantry was less offensive, their archer ratio points to them providing a firm firing base to serve as a safe zone for the cavalry and harras/bind the enemy until the cavalry can make a deceisive blow.

Otherwise a javelin has about 30 - 50 (at best) metres of range. Skirmishing horse archers would safely harrass you for a long time beyond that and when the heavy guys turn up 30 metres are not enough to disrupt a cavalry charge particularly when the heavy shock cavalry also has horse armor so the number of dead horses might not be what you expect. If anything head and neck protection was pretty much standard for war horses even if you didn't have a cataphract. Depending on your one javelin volley at 30 metres to stop cavalry is a far cry from using longbows at 100 - 300 metres.

I would say the strategic effects most likely were so that dedicated javelins were not that useful anymore. E.g. why have infantry with dedicated javelins when a big chunk of your guys are archers with compound bows and most of the maneuvering takes place between cavalry?

That said some of the clarifications on the Late Roman military also point to the javelins being not suddenly abandoned but rather over an extended period of time as warfare overall changed.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I don't really see how a lead dart can disable a heavy Germanic shield. Just with common sense and experience in recreational darts, I've always doubted the effectiveness of the plumbata, It's quite difficult to throw a dart accurately, and the fact that plumbata were substantially larger than a modern dart doesn't help. Again, common sense and practical experience tells me that it was a purely opportunistic weapon.

I'd also like to point out that the load weight on a soldier does indeed impact the overall speed of the army. It's pure science. More carry weight means more calories expended, more calories means greater demand for food, and more food means more time to acquire and transport that food. Mongol armies and nomads in general were able to move so quickly due to the high carry capacity to carry weight ratio (remember that for every Mongol warrior, there were between 5 to 10 spare ponies), and the fact that they had almost no wheeled transport to deal with. Everything was carried on foot and hoof.

Might help you a bit understand what the Plumbata was for, also it was considered a highly penetrative weapon.
http://www.comitatus.net/romanplumbatae.html

But indeed as Magister has already rightly pointed out, later 'versions' of the Pila- the Spiculum and lighter Javelins were still very much in use. Also the equipment of a Late Roman Solider in the Comitatenses wouldn't be much lighter than those of the earlier Legionaries particularly. Though again Magister rather got the point home well here- especially as they still used Javelins much akin to the Pila (indeed some scholars argue the Spiculum may have been heavier- being more like a German Angorn)

[Ecthelion]

Might help you a bit understand what the Plumbata was for, also it was considered a highly penetrative weapon.
http://www.comitatus.net/romanplumbatae.html

But indeed as Magister has already rightly pointed out, later 'versions' of the Pila- the Spiculum and lighter Javelins were still very much in use. Also the equipment of a Late Roman Solider in the Comitatenses wouldn't be much lighter than those of the earlier Legionaries particularly. Though again Magister rather got the point home well here- especially as they still used Javelins much akin to the Pila (indeed some scholars argue the Spiculum may have been heavier- being more like a German Angorn)

Skimmed through the article... and well, it's the internet, anyone can write anything and someone will always believe it.

But there's the indisputable fact: the plumbata was the only widely used hand thrown dart weapon in history. Any effective weapon will see wide use until it's technologically obsolete. Thus you see the spear, axe, bow, sword, crossbow in armies across the world and across time. Any weapon that appears only in one nation/empire, for a short time and is copied by none of its opponents probably wasn't an effective weapon, regardless of its cool factor.