¿Whatever happened to the spearthrower? -- myArmoury.com

Peter Bosman

or throwing stick, the arm extension that greatly enhances the thrust applied to a thrown spear?

Those were at one time known all over the world, on every continent. WHY was it SO important for the hunt and WHY did it NOT feature in warfare?? This is not counting the relatively (in the age of modern fire-arms!) efficient use by the australian aboriginal people against the white invaders.

To me it is just as baffling as to why the bow that seems to have been invented in NW-Africa was forgotten there by the time warfare became important. The spear, javelin was still around but neither the throwing stick nor the bow were.

Peter

John Cooksey · Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject:

It was important for hunting because it greatly increased range/velocity/kinetic energy for the thrown spear. Equally important for warfare until the bow and arrow were invented. Bows replaced the atlatl and dart because of their greater range, accuracy, and rate of fire.
The atlatl and dart *did* survive as a weapon of war in Mesoamerica *after* the widespread adoption of the bow and arrow, largely because it became associated with a certain class of professional/ceremonial/noble warriors.

Don't know much about Northwest Africa, but in Northeast Africa (The Nile Valley and its environs), both the throwing stick and the bow were used for hunting from the Paleolithic until the early Bronze Age (Early Dynastic period in Egypt, and even later).

Peter Bosman · Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject:

George Hill · Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject:

We need more information on atlatl projectiles. Are we basically looing at big arrows, or small javelins? Now, it's worth noting from a soldier's perspective, the javelin is a stand alone piece of equipment, which one basically picks up and throws. The Bow and the Atlatl have to be 'loaded and discharged' both are a two hand thing to do. So in the context of the Romans and others of the time, a javelin could be used with a shield in the other hand, whereas a bow or an atlatl would need loading with the other hand.

Also, I can see a the atlatl using light weight 'arrow-like' projectiles, with less accuracy then the bow, and less pure impact then say, the pilum. The pilum was a (relatively) heavy javelin, and whilst it might not have the range or accuracy of the bow, a volley would hit a shield wall much harder due to pure mass and shield penetration.

As such, the atlatl could be considered to lack the force of a 'heavy' javelin, and one could say that when looking at on target effects, the bow was a superior launching platform.

But of course, I have so little information on atlatl projectiles that all of the above is subject to review by those with more information.

EDIT: Oh, as to why the bow did not take over sooner, you might be looking at local areas. Most cultures with bows are not shown using the atlatl as well, though there maybe be a few exceptions.

Matthew K. Shea · Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject:

Not that I'm an expert on the atlatl, but one reason it might have been replaced, especially in organized warfare, is that (I assume) it takes more room to use effectively than a bow. This would be a very important factor to consider when fighting in close ranks.

Jean Thibodeau · Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject:

One could also throw in the use of the sling along side the bow or instead of the bow by some cultures.

Slings using lead projectiles could have greater maximum range than most any bow and in the hands of an expert very accurate at close range.

Using found random rocks would mean less range and accuracy but useful logistically unless fighting in a rockless desert.

With a javelin one could use it as a small spear with a shield or throw it.

From what I have read here in other threads the spear throwers were very effective and impressed the Spanish Conquistadors when fighting the Aztecs.

Maybe as some have suggested the spear thrower was so much a " tweener " between the bow and the javelin that either or both in combination could fill the same " niche " by overlapping range and missile impact.

Culture and tradition can have a random arbitrary effect on what is used and good expertise with one weapon system does create a bias against it's abandonment as a different system, like the bow, will initially mean a reduction of skilful use until those skills catch-up. Also people like Rhodean slingers, renowned because of their skill, wouldn't change over to using bows unless some drastic cultural change or a much better weapons system became available ( Like muskets. )

Jared Smith · Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject:

When Hernando DeSoto explored the SouthEast United States, the native indians were unable to penetrate the plate armour with their bows and arrows (bows described as being as thick as a man's arm.) However, they were did penetrate armour with in a couple of instances with their spears.... The spear thrower was described in at least one instance. Unfortunately for the indians, they had primarily adopted the bow by that time.

George Hill · Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject:

Peter Bosman · Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 12:26 am Post subject:

Let us calculate then.

what is the average weight & speed of an arrow
idem javelin
idem atatl & dart

We can then put this kinetic potential in perspective with the speed of use, simplicity, range and techniques.

Peter

Randall Moffett · Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 1:50 am Post subject:

If you look at 14th and 15th century sieges but especially naval warfare great fletched javelins or spears are often depicted. In some inventories of shipss I have read I often wonder if some of the spears or other 'common' items are not these items. They would seem fairly effective to me from a castle wall or ships castle,especially the top mid or top castle.
Aside from these it seems they only clung on in Ireland, Spain and a few other places.

RPM

Lafayette C Curtis · Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 6:37 am Post subject:

Jean Thibodeau · Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 7:05 am Post subject:

Benjamin H. Abbott · Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject:

Jared Smith · Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject:

The only text I have read is Charles Hudson's "Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun." This is based on all three accounts (one later account known after the author's town of Elvas was recorded some 14 years after the expedition ended.) The atlatl is mentioned twice in Hudon's book. The bow with stone pointed arrow was also described as piercing a Spaniard's leg mail, going through his leg, through the saddle tree, and approximately 1/3 of the way into a horse's body. The author and index of the book is not interested in the weapons (only references tribes and locations) so I will have to look a long time to find specifically which locality and tribes these accounts correspond to. I am thinking the spear thrower accounts occured near the Missisippi River in what is believed to be Missouri as well as Northern Missisippi/Arkansaw (before DeSoto died.)

The route of the expedition is believed to have passed close to my home (middle Tennessee.) I bought Hudson's book after visiting a local park and museum (Old Stone Fort Park in Manchester Tennessee). The park has a female ranger who gives demonstrations using reproductions of what are believed to be authentic construction (modern built based on artifact finds) of bow and arrow, blow dart, and the spear thrown with atlatl. What some archeologists consider to be true stone arrowheads were very small (thumbnail sized.) Most stone points we would recognize as having significant mass (finger sized) were quite possibly spear heads. When demonstrated, the spear is most convincingly destructive compared to the other native weapons. On the other hand, blow dart is most accurate, and bow was pretty accurate too. Indians were fairly capable of shooting arrows into the eye slits and joints of armour on the De Soto expedition (some of the more skilled and daring ones sniped Spanish targets with guerilla tactics... leading them into the trees, then shooting them when they were unable to charge on horse.)

Jeroen Zuiderwijk · Industry Professional

One point against the atl-atl would be transporting ammo. The darts for the atl-atl are quite a bit larger then arrows, so you don't take them with you in a quiver that easily. So you have to hold them in your hand, and you can't take a whole lot of them with you.

In the case of slings, you can't see the bullits coming, you've got a much larger chance of seeing it comming and running for cover. And of course for a sling, transporting ammo just requires a small bag of bullits.

Peter Bosman · Posted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 3:47 am Post subject:

Peter Bosman · Posted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 3:58 am Post subject:

Jean Thibodeau · Posted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 4:21 am Post subject:

Anyone have information about the velocity/weight of Roman lead sling bullets ? I would assume a velocity close or even higher than the bow and a mass at least equal or better than a large calibre musket ball: In the 12 gauge or 8 gauge range ?

From what I remember reading but don't remember a specific source, lead sling missiles would pierce flesh and go deep !

Compared to a musket bullet the velocity and kinetic energy would be a lot lower but the mass and momentum could still be high and very effective.

I also vaguely remember that some troops using sling maybe as late as the Napoleonic period where nicknamed as being a kind of " musketeers " because in part because their lead sling pellets were very deadly and their accuracy was much greater than the average musketeer. Regionally I think it could have been Corsica, Sardinia or maybe the Balearic Islands ?

In any case a people with a long tradition of sling use well into the 18th century, but it might be some other than what I mentioned. ( The curse of memory fragments not attached to the memory of the source ! Sad

)

( EDITED: Nice article on Wikipedia that mentions sling expertise if you scroll down a bit. The odds are good that this is the right place. I'll edit my post again if I find other sources later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balearic_Islands )

( EDITED2: A sling Wikipedia article. http://mallorca.costasur.com/en/piedr.html )

( EDITED3: Wikipedia again but an Atlalt article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl )

( EDITED4: A site dedicated to slings. http://www.slinging.org/ Well I'll stop now as anybody really interested should be able to do their own searches. Wink

But I hope this is useful for a quick look. )

Shane Allee · Industry Professional

Being able to post just isn't what it used to be for me, but I have been wanting to post to this topic and thinking about it since it started. Seems to me that one of the biggest factors involved in this topic really hasn't been address yet, and that is the changes in society that were often times happening at the same time.

To me at least the Atlatl, bow and arrow, and the sling were tools that came into use to improve upon the thrown rock and spear for hunting. These tools were then applied to warfare. The Atlatl throws what is very similar really to longer, only slightly larger arrow. It really would have been for hunting a great advancement over a javelin as long as the game wasn't too large or thick of skin, longer distance and greater accuracy like has already been mentioned. Don't know about any in Europe, but I'm pretty sure that there have been quivers found in the Americas for atlatl arrow/darts. Overall there is going to be a high learning curve for accuracy.

The sling still has that high learning curve, but one of the advantages is that it doesn't require specially crafted tools. At least not to the extent of the atlatl anyway. So one of the things that you have happen is that the atlatl would have been more of a tool specifically for hunters. The sling on the other hand would have been something that would have found its way very early on into the hands of children.

With early warfare, in chiefdom or smaller societies, most of the time you aren't going to have large masses of people to make it worth using large numbers of atlatl arrows in volleys worth while. Slings on the other hand are a different matter. Ammunition isn't going to be as big of drain, plus it can be used by the non warrior elite and children who most likely are going to be the most familiar with using it anyway.

When you start getting into State level societies we start getting the large armies that have specific purpose fighters. They also start doing what we see with Rome, and that is pulling in people from smaller societies who have slingers, archers, etc. As the numbers of those people decrease and demand increases, the state level societies have to start training their own warriors. Archers are going to be easier to train then slingers would be since the learning curve isn't as high to effectively use a bow and arrow. Plus once you reach that point, the resources for ammunition shouldn't be as much of a burden as they would have been to smaller level societies.

Another thing that may be of influence is the mentality of warrior elites from smaller societies vs that of soldiers in larger state level societies. If we look at the Celts from the La Tene period, they had bows and used them for hunting. They never seem to have applied it to warfare though. Some of this may have been a result of factors that I already mentioned, but they also had a certain mentality that most likely played a part as well. To them warfare was a very personal thing and a way to gain respect, honor, recognition, etc for acts performed on the battlefield. You don't get that from being one of a bunch of guys shooting a volley of arrows. So I think it is something that would be pretty common when you have warrior elite in a smaller society to have a more personal and self driven style about the warfare.

Shane

Jean Thibodeau · Posted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: