[Alexis Bataille]

Hello folks, i want to talk again about javelin vs self/simple bow

"the most common light infantrymen were those that used javelins"
"A man on foot could accurately hurl a javelin about
90m when utilizing a throwing thong"
"The simple bow was a single piece of wood with an animal-
gut string that could project an arrow up to 300m as part of a directional barrage, but
only some 90–135m with accuracy against a specific target."
"The task of light troops was to neutralize their opposite numbers and prevent
them from interfering with the phalanx."

"The amount of drill that it took to become proficient with the bow accounts in part for
its lack of popularity among militiamen."

Book : Land Battles in 5th Century B.C. Greece -
Fred Eugene Ray



i probably already talk about this before but i can't find the thread sry.
i get some answers like :
"Bow is too expensive" Ok for a composite bow but self/simple bow is not that complicate to make and you need iron/bronze for javelin head too.
"Bow is hard to learn" Is it so much easier to hit at 90m with a javelin than with a self bow ? (with a little training)
There is something i don't (or don't want to ) understand !

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

We had the javelin discussion here (which you also took part in):
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=29604&highlight=

You have a point: Is hitting accurately long distance with a javelin as difficult as hitting with a bow? (having actually only tried longbow and that was damned hard). Guess only one that have trained both can answer that.

The question here is probably whether it is flexing javelins (darts) thrown with an atlatl (for greeks “string ankyle“) for long distance OR stiff non-flight-flexing javelins for shorter distance and more penetration we talk about.
I have only tried modern (stiff) spears used in athletics and they are not very precise.

So maybe an atlatl might give you much more precision and not only length?

I think the reason could also be cost. Bows are expensive to make and so is arrows (especially flight feathers). Tips on both javelins and arrows would likely be the same cost. So it is perhaps more economic to have javelin throwers than archers?

[Alexis Bataille]

thanks for the link but i was thinking of another discussion (again x))
for the cost of bow i would say yes, more expensive for a composite bow of course. But a simple bow is easy to make and don't require exotic materials or complex procedures like composite bow.
Perhaps javelin low ammunitions and short range is counter balanced by the incapacity power and close combat capability.
i mean even if your formation take some damage approaching archers then archers can only flee because they lack close combat weapons.
if someone already train with self/simple bow and javelin please help me

[Matthew Amt]

I think one factor that is not always considered enough is that weaponry is a *cultural* thing. If your society has been using javelins for generations (or centuries), there simply isn't anyone who can just start making bows and arrows that are any good. A self-bow may seem simple to us, but to someone who has never seen one, it's going to be surprisingly tricky and subtle. You can try to import skilled craftsmen, or simply import the weapons, but remember that your troops are not *soldiers*-- you have to convince them to give up what has always worked and try something new and unfamiliar and therefore untrusted. Possibly even contemptible!

Note that when Athens found that archers were useful or necessary, they simply hired them in bulk from Crete or elsewhere. There was no attempt to rearm hoplites or peltasts. And for a long time, Athens' Cretan archers were just a local police force, they don't seem to have been a major component in many of the known battles. Some, yes!

I also think some of Ray's range estimates are a little exaggerated, but that's mostly been discussed elsewhere. I'd sure love to be able to chuck a javelin even half that far! And if I were an archer's "specific target" at a range of 100 m/yards, I'd just laugh and step to the side. 300 meters on an ancient battlefield? Forgeddaboudit.

So to me, the flat cost of a weapon isn't the deciding factor. If your kids are growing up with bows and arrows, you'll have archers on the battlefield. Otherwise, it's more likely javelins. Of course, if you can hire a thousand Thracian peltasts reknowned for their ferocity for the same cost that will get you only 500 Cretans who are more worried about messing up their hair (or about sinking on the way over!), still an easy choice!

Matthew

[Timo Nieminen]

The javelin is better for penetrating armour (and shields). For going through metal armour and shields, you need energy. A javelin can deliver energy that would make a military archer weep with envy (see numbers in thread linked above).

[Dan Howard]

[Pieter B.]

[Matthew Amt]

It should be noted that the favorite javelin-chuckers of ancient Greece, Thracian peltasts, did have shields but were unarmored. Mostly they fought each other, of course. So while armor penetration may have been a nice side effect, it was NOT the reason that javelin use developed in Thrace.

Just saying that effects are not necessarily causes!

Matthew

[Dan Howard]

[Alexis Bataille]

i buy your wonderfull book "Bronze Age Military Equipment – Daniel Howard" and many test inside on bronze age shield say that javelin don't really penetrate more than arrows. Or i need to read it one more time ^^.

[Mart Shearer]

And why ignore slings and stones or bullets?

[Michael Brudon]

I throw javelin and in Australia have also used the Aborigine woomera( which allows launching spears further). I also hunt trad bow, longbow and with crossbows.

No doubt javelins had an important part in armies for a long long time, I am a fan being a thrower myself after all. But I think the maximum ranges and facts quoted are stretching practicality.

Some facts and cons of javelins to me are
1. Javellins which can reach 90m-100m aren't the same as war heavy javelins. The aboriginies who have been throwing them for 40,000 choose the lightest shaft with wooden barbed heads for past that.
2.Energy expenditure, any sort of rate of fire with a javelin, if it occurred, is very tiring.
3. Obviouslly the logistics of carrying and transporting large number of javelins, compared to arrows.
4.Trajectory of javelins is terrible, from a ballistics point of view they are actually a lobbed object, versus a projected object. The difficulties of lobbed accuracy, having no line of sight convenience when aiming and the trajectory as mentioned also makes ranging much more difficult.. Admittedly during packed formation targets this would be less important
5. Javelins flights are far less stable, particularly at range, non straight flights will destroy accuracy and penetration.

Some comments on penetration are also erroneous. A javelin has less energy than a bow, but more momentum, since kinetic energy squares the velocity( and bows are several times faster than Javelins) whereas momentum has a linear relationship with velocity. Penetration relationships to either momentum or energy are a tricky subject with a lot of non linear variables as it is with guns. At certain targets, momentum is a better predictor, at harder targets kinetic energy may be a better predictor. Also angles of impact with armour, higher velocity and a smaller projectile(like the arrow) may still dig into armour )better if it is a glancing angle, rarther than a slower heavy projectile, that may glance off. The drag coefficient on the projectiles body is another factor as it passes through the target as well. For example the thicker higher surface area of the javelins shaft will create more drag as it penetrates the shield/armour/body and may stop it faster. Again this may only be through soft targets, like peoples bodies. For example, it is possible to get complete penetration on a hog with an arrow, and have the arrow keep travelling. But doubtful you will ever get a javelin to even get half way out the other side

I could be totally wrong about all of this to maybe Javelins were a superior weapon that went out of fashion when people lost the skills to throw spears at food. Maybe if a bunch of native javelin or peltast guys were transported in time to the battle of hastings they would have broken up the cavalry.

I guess someone could do specific tests on specific materials, I don't have the shields but could try other things if anyone is interested?Generally my gut feeling is javelins don't penetrate 'better' than arrows on a lot of media.

Lastly, I am not a historian as a lot of you here are, so don't know what is written, I can see in the old times, perhaps less metal armor on tribal or bronze age bodies,?and people carrying big shields, you had two great reasons to employ javellins against armies? After that they lose their effectiveness against better bows?

[Dan Howard]

[Alexis Bataille]

[Matthew Amt]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Alexis Bataille]

On a shield with fabric/leather glued on wood ,the pressure of the splited wood slow more big diameter.
pilum is thin, penetration
conventionnal javelin is thick wood claws trap them
arrows is thin, penetration, wood claws stop them somewhat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG0hLNXr9M
consideration about the ground ...
perhaps the hilly greece help middle range skirmishers.

[Dan Howard]