Quote: |
One thing I've thought was the close order employed by rodeleros made hurling javelins impractical. Diaz wrote about standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellows during battle. In the European field, advance targetiers - such as the ones Fourquevaux described - would have been in loose enough formation to throw admirably, but it's unlikely that javelins could have accomplished much against the typically well-armored front ranks of an opposing pike formation. |
Ancient Roman and medieval Berber infantry could fight in close order, with javelin-men throwing from the rear ranks. So 2 ranks of targeteers could form a shield wall, and the next 2 ranks could hurl javelins. Even well-armored ranks would probably scatter when engaged with javelins. Psychological effect is much more important that physical effect in warfare. Arrow fire, javelins and even modern artillery are mainly used to soften up the enemy psychologically.
For example the english archers at Agincourt: While the arrows were ineffective against full plate, they could disorganise and demoralise the enemy, making them vulnerable against melee attacks ans slowing them down.
@Timo:
Quote: |
So they don't have too much stuff to carry? So that they don't hang back from engaging in hand-to-hand fighting in order to throw some javelins? |
First point is reasonable if we talk about light infantry. Targeteers were normally light troops, so it makes sense. But as you said: If they were used in greater numbers, things are different. In some concepts (Nassau, Machiavelli) targeteers are envisioned as heavy infantry, thus a spear or javelin would have been a good addition.
The second point is somewhat convincing at first glance, but did not the roman legionary prove that javelin useage and swift attack are not mutually exclusive? Of course it would require better training/morale.