[Michael Edwards]

I was just wondering if anyone here could help me with some information I'm trying to find about certain medieval European missile and thrown weapons. Specifically I'm trying to find out how far certain weapons could be used and still have a likely chance of hitting and injuring a single human target (not the maximum or volley fire ranges). The weapons I'm interested in are:

crossbow
bow
javelin
sling
throwing axe (francisca)
throwing knife

How much did the draw weight of crossbows and bows effect their range? What were the most common draw weights for medieval crossbows and bows?

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Er...the first four at least would give you lots of trouble since their ranges vary depending on various variables of shape, material, and skill. As an archer and a slinger I'd say you don't have much hope of hitting a single human-sized or smaller object at more than ninety meters (about a hundred yards)--and that's for an archer or a slinger who practices very frequently. The run-of-the-mill archer or slinger would probably have problems with hitting an individual man-sized target at about half that distance.

As for lethality, it depends on a huge variety of factors. First, you haven't mentioned how much armor your "default" target wears. And then bows varied from twenty-pound practice bows to forty- or sixty-pound hunting bows and up to war bows that could go as high as eighty or even one hundred and eighty pounds. We haven't even talked about the arrows, since a heavier arrow would go slower but pack a bigger punch (read: better penetration) at the point of impact.

Slings, too, varied somewhat in length and construction, although most practical slings tended to be fairly short since an increase in length beyond a certain point would create problems of control without significantly increasing effectiveness; material and construction also tended to determine the slings' durability instead of its projecting ability. Soft factor like skill plays a great deal here since an experienced slinger who doesn't waste time whirling the sling around and around his/her head (one or two swings is enough!) is more likely to be accurate and to impart more energy more efficiently into the slingstone. (Now that I think of it, a good archer with a smoother release and a steadier bow-hand would do very much the same to an arrow.)

And then the slingstones! God forbid I'd dare to go in-depth into their characteristics right here. A stone randomly picked up isn't likely to be accurate or to retain its energy very efficiently, so it probably won't hit and if it hits it has a smaller chance to hurt. A well-chosen stone would give better results on both counts. A shaped clay bullet would be even better, and a lead bullet would be best although this last requires a very stout sling just like a heavy arrow needs a good heavy bow that can loose it without causing damage to either.

The variation in crossbows, just to say the least, is bewildering. Some crossbows were essentially weak toys that won't hurt without poisons. By the Middle Ages, though, these were no longer so popular except for shooting birds. The war crossbows still varied widely from something like thirty pounds (though I strongly doubt this was the original draw weight) to the arbalests that could store up to four hundred pounds of force. I've also heard about a thousand-pound crossbow, but this might have been a toxoballistra instead. Don't talk about ammunition. You'd get anything from small, all-iron quarrels to huge, spear-sized bolts to stones to lead balls.

Now, talking about accuracy, it's much easier to be accurate with crossbows at short ranges because their aiming is quite straightforward, unlike archery or slinging where you have to control every detail of the swing or the draw and release. However, an ordinary crossbow would probably have used a relatively crude bolt with only a single feathers and a flat butt (no nock), so the accuracy falls off much more readily than arrows and slings. In the end, I wouldn't bet much on their accuracy beyond fifty meters, about the same range as with bows and slings. Well-made hunting crossbows with nocked bolts are a different matter entirely since I've seen a Chinese model (repro of a 15th-century weapon, I believe) reliably hitting a 60cm (2ft) target reliably at about a hundred yards.

Javelins and throwing spears did not seem to have grown into very advanced weapon systems in medieval Western Europe, mostly being ordinary spears thrown by hand without the aid of throwing devices. The range and punch still varied considerably according to mass, shape of head, and manner of throwing. Generally you'd only want to throw them in formation or against a formation because a single javelin is fairly easy to dodge when there's enough room to do so.

[Michael Edwards]

[Bram Verbeek]

what you need to get effective answers:

state a target, for instance a mail clad shieldless lancer with norman helmet

state the exact type of missile weapon and skill of the wielder

eg
frascisca
irish javelin
throwing knife
sling with selected stone
genoese crossbow as used in crecy
turkish composite bow

only this way can you compare

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Michael Edwards]

I'm still kind of new to all this but I'll try to give more specifics. I'm mainly interested in European weapons, so nothing from turkey, china, etc. Will armour effect the range of each weapon differently? If so then it's probably best to say the target doesn't have any armour except regular clothing.

For more specific weapons how about:

average light bow (say around 50lb draw weight)
average medium bow (say around 100lb draw weight)
average heavy bow (say around 150lb draw weight
average light crossbow (say around 100lb? draw weight)
average heavy crossbow (say around 200lb draw weight)
average arbalest (say around 400lb draw weight)
spear-type javelin (not the pilum-type)
sling (lead bullets. If stones weren't complete ineffectual I'd like to know the range for them too)
francisca throwing axe
throwing knife (a knife specially designed for throwing, not just a regular knife)

I don't need anything too exact, just an idea of the maximum range at which the weapon still has some chance of not only hitting the target but also injuring, or even killing, the target.

If any more info is needed just let me know and I'll try to provide it.

[Dan Howard]

What sort of armour is your target going to be wearing?

[Robin Smith]

He stated an unarmoured man. And I don't think he is worried about morale effectivness. I believe he is asking at what range would the following weapons have a reasonable chance of injuring or killing an unarmored man.

[Michael Edwards]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Armor would not affect accurate range, but it would affect effective range dramatically, especially for the weaker weapons. I suppose all of the first six weapons you mention would have been reasonably accurate and effective out to around fifty yards; the bows, in the hand of a skilled and experienced archer, might reach further, up to about a hundred yards, but I suppose the fifty-pound bow might have problems penetrating even a man clad in thick but normal clothing at that range, especially if this clothing is multilayered (and most historical clothes in medieval Europe were). It would probably penetrate but not necessarily deep enough to do significant harm. A sling with manufactured bullets would have approximately the same effective range with an overarm swing. An underarm swing would send it much further but in my experience it isn't quite as accurate as the overhand style, though that may simply be due to my lack of long-term slinging experience.

A pilum is actually a "spear-type javelin," if by that you mean a javelin that can also function as a reasonably effective spear in close-quarters fighting. I'm not sure about the effective range--if the spear has enough weight and the thrower has enough skill, it might well go up to more than fifty yards, but I can't say about accuracy because I've never been a very good spear- or javelin-thrower so I can't give any first-hand opinion. Note that I said enough weight. The spear has to be heavy enough to be thrown, since a weapon that is too light wouldn't have enough inertia to resist aerodynamic friction and go on flying for long after leaving the thrower's hand.

A throwing knife isn't a very long-range weapon, that's for sure. But more important than absolute range is the fact that it's not effective all over the spectrum of ranges--it will reliably injure or kill when thrown at the exact distances at which the blade would be facing forward and preferably rotating towards the target rather than away from it. I've talked more about it in my journal:

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/279614.html

Remember that the range where weapons can kill doesn't mean the range where it will kill. It will have to hit either a vital organ or a large blood vessel in order to incapacitate; as if this is not already hard enough, this incapacitation sometimes won't happen until 10-15 seconds after the hit because the victim's blood pressure hasn't dropped far enough to render him/her unconscious before that. Of course, some people might react by falling down from shock (and therefore getting out of the fight) without being actually incapacitated.

This is a matter far too complex for simple assertions like what we can make here.