What was the range of an ancient javelin?

[Patrick Waterson]

We have the Trebia (Polybius III.73).

When the two forces came within distance, the light-armed troops (euzonoi) in front of the two armies closed with (sunepleskan) each other. In this part of the battle the Romans were in many respects at a disadvantage, while the Carthaginians had everything in their favour. For the Roman spearmen had been on hard service ever since daybreak, and had expended most of their weapons in the engagement with the Numidians, while those weapons which were left had become useless from being long wet. Nor were the cavalry, or indeed the whole army, any better off in these respects. The case of the Carthaginians was exactly the reverse: they had come on the field perfectly sound and fresh, and were ready and eager for every service required of them.

Polybius uses euzonoi rather than psiloi for the light troops, probably to indicate that the Carthaginian troops were mainly peltasts and the velites had a less scattered fighting style than the classic light infantry javelin skirmisher.  Sunepleskan, from sumpleko, to mesh or join together in an entwining sort of way, presumably means interaction rather than actual physical contact.

The battle description continues:

As soon, therefore, as their advanced guard had retired again within their lines, and the heavy-armed soldiers were engaged, the cavalry on the two wings of the Carthaginian army at once charged the enemy with all the effect of superiority in numbers, and in the condition both of men and horses secured by their freshness when they started.

One does not get the impression of great determination to drive the enemy skirmishers back through their own troops; rather, the impression is of stopping the enemy light troops and keeping them busy, then pulling back when the main line is ready to engage.

[PMBardunias]

Thanks for this.  I have been working on Archaic hoplite battle as a war of ranges, and find something like this based on published data or study of records, with the progression being Slings 200m+ but capable of more at extreme range, Bows effective to 175m, but capable of twice that at extreme range, Javelin/ankyle out to 66m, spear with (24m) or without ankyle (16m) depending on date, and hand thrown rocks at close range.

Along with maximum ranges, these missile type have minimum ranges if they have to shoot indirectly over men in front of them.  This means there is a big dead zone in front of Persian Sparabara for example, where only an archer moving up and shooting directly over the top of a Gerra could hit a man. The thing about rocks is that they do damage more by mass than velocity, so they can be lobbed over ranks of men who are actually engaged in combat.  We see hoplites use them even late in the period.

This makes me wonder two things about your passage above.  Either the "half-spears" are meant to be chucked over the top of them men in front who have already tossed their own extra spears and are moving to close, or the mass of these dart- throwers is specifically throwing to support the  men in front as they close. Or, perhaps it is the spearmen themselves throwing light darts in the way Franks threw axes or Roman's pila as they advanced. I would like to know more about hurlbat use.

There is just one troop type - men are armed with both javelins and "half-spears" which they throw as the range closes (whether they do so on the move or not isn't specified). This episode is something of an outlier in that it suggests different ranges for different weapons; in most accounts of Irish battle the two lines come to missile range (not specified, but close enough to recognise individuals in the opposing battle-line) then shoot (with spears, bows and hand-stones, and occasionally slings) until one side or other decides it's time to close. Once the melee begins, rear ranks then continue to throw spears and stones overhead.

As an aside, smooth pebbles were preferred for slingstones, larger and more jagged stones preferred for hand-stones (being more abrasive when thrown at mostly unarmoured targets, I suppose).

Cheers
Mick

That is even more useful to me then, thanks.  The reason for the different rock types may be that sling stones need to be aerodynamic, but hand thrown stones are not travelling very fast, and so are less influenced by drag. With a low speed and a reliance on mass to injure, jagged edges that focus that mass in a small impact some would be a great help.

[manomano]

 Returning to javelins and Talamone.

RANGE

-We know that  a 800 gr jav in olimpic game can reach a vel of 100-110 km/h , so  about 30 m/s ( olimpic rec is 94,6 m.)

the formula for max range is:

         V*V * sin (2 alfa)
X  =     _____________
                 g

V= vel in m/s
alfa = angle of throwing
g= 9,8 m/s

max range is obtainable with an angle of throwing of 45 grades because 2 time sin of 45 is 1.

But ,how many men have the strenght to give to the jav this vel.?
How many men have the capability to obtain the correct angle of hurl ?
What is the weight of an ancient jav?

EFFICACY ON FLESH

We know that no hand-hurled stone can penetrate flesh. ( 12 m/s )
Because to penetrate skin we have to use the Sellier's formula:

                           1
V lim =  125  -------------  + 22
                             D

D =  relation between weight and section  of the weapon.( gr. and cm.square)

Try and  the vel lim is over 20 m/s for a  800 gr jav.

We know that at Talamone  the insubri with a simple protection given  by cloaks suffered nothing, because they were over  the useful range.

For these motives I think that max effective range against exposed  flesh for a light jav is not more that 30-40 y : 40 paces is reasonable.
against a shield is useless.

PERCENTAGE OF HITS

I admit that use  musket's percentage of hits table  is sligtly forced because the calculation is on the vertical plane and
not in the orizontal one but the substance is the same ( some shots are wrong)
on a stationary and close target.
Against skirmishers is much less.
A musket shot may be too high or too low to hit the target, a jav one  too short or too long.
So we have to think that  shots from a jav, bow or crossbow are distributed in elliptical shape as for a howitzer.
The length of the ellipse is primary related to the training of the soldiers, the width to the accuracy of the weapon.
But hit does not mean a killed or a wounded enemy.
Javs and arrows are not musket balls : target protetion make the difference. (shield, mail, plate, leather,helmet....)

I dont' think that the Gaesati were destroyed by velites:
How many velites in the roman south army ?
Also if each velite had 7 jav , to destroy the gaesati we have an unacceptable ratio shots to hits : too high.
Javs are not radar,GPS or IR guided weapons.

[Patrick Waterson]

Useful numbers; thank you, Mariano.

It is probably best to assume that the hasta velitaris was at least as efficient as an Olympic javelin in flight and much more efficient at penetration; it had hundreds of years of development and continuous use in which to evolve its optimum form and the techniques of throwing it.

It also had the amentum, which Olympic javelins lack.

Learning how to throw a javelin effectively takes about five minutes of instruction. See here.  A few weeks of practice will see most recruits doing well enough to be effective on the battlefield.

The fact that the velites' javelins were not penetrating the cloaks and trousers of the Insubres does suggest the velites were throwing at maximum range; good point.  If I understand correctly, the velites were throwing uphill, which might also lessen the impact of their projectiles.  They were throwing at a massed formation (a target approximately 1,200 yards wide and 8 yards deep), so individual accuracy would not matter very much.

Regarding penetration of flesh, use of Sellier's formula must take into account the razor-sharp nature of classical weaponry, i.e. the weapon cross-section is actually much less than one would think.  One can cut oneself with a razor blade at less than 1m/s (don't try this at home, gentlemen!) and a properly sharpened weapon will penetrate at almost any speed provided it has any sort of pressure behind it.

The other point to consider concerning penetration is that missile speed actually increases resistance to penetration (explained here).  Slow-moving heavier projectiles have greater penetration for their speed than do lighter, faster projectiles (bullets are actually very inefficient at penetrating flesh, hence the concept of a 'spent bullet').

All this is essentially working up to my continued assertion that the velites at Telamon could have shot at ranges of 55-70 metres (70-90 paces, say 80) and most probably did.

How many velites were shooting at the Gaesati at Telamon?  Very good question; the normal two-legion complement of 2,400 Roman velites plus 2,400 allied Italian velites (total 4,800 for the whole army) would have taken a very long time to kill, maim or incapacitate perhaps 12,000 Gaesati.  But also present was what remained of the praetor's army, which could have been as many as 40,000 infantry, of whom approximately 9,600 could have been additional velites.  A total of 14,400 velites (and 100,800 javelins) would have caused considerable execution to 12,000 Gaesati, and finsihed them off in a reasonable length of time.

[Erpingham]

For these motives I think that max effective range against exposed  flesh for a light jav is not more that 30-40 y : 40 paces is reasonable.
against a shield is useless.

Sadly, this is one we can doubt from modern evidence.  Modern sports javelins will penetrate unarmoured athletes and officials well out past 70m.  Google "javelin accident" for examples. 

I think we should be careful with max effective range - it means different things to different people.  Here is the US DoD definition

"maximum effective range : The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect. "

This gives you two parameters, accuracy and effect.  What it doesn't do is define the degree of accuracy and the effect is tactically dependent.  So we need to define acceptable levels for these parameters to talk about effective range.

[manomano]

My opinion is that:
- a regular unit obey order, law in roman's army  was very hard.
- the NCOs in roman army were competent people.
- they followed procedures : they knew well when to do it ( Stategikon was later but the base is the same)
  ( in my military experience I had to obey orders and had to give it :
   sorry, if you do not obey my orders  I break your head in half) 
   NECESSE EST ( otherwise nothings work)
- They avoided to waste munitions without purpose

- I have many doubts about razor blade javs, I know well scalpels. ( I had to use it countless times)
- a reasonable point for an ancient jav or  an arrow mass produced is one square millimeter, not a katana's blade.

In my opinion a reasonable range for javs for an average man remains 40 paces or 30 mt.

Over this range it have only some psychological effects on the target.

In battleday I post my final considerations about Talamone.

[Patrick Waterson]

The effects of javelins on the Gaesati at Telamon were much more than just psychological, so either

1) the velites were shooting at closer than expected ranges, or

2) velites could throw further and with greater effect than Mariano's modern analysis allows.

One detail mentioned by Polybius makes me think the range was quite long.  He noted that individual Gaesati would run at the velites and be cut down.  If they were only 30 yards away, it should have been possible for the whole mass of Gaesati to charge and catch many of them before they could fall back on their protecting hastati - but nothing like this happened.  The Gaesati stood and took it, apart from a few individuals who went on suicide trips.  To me, this suggests a separation of at least 60 yards or 55 metres, probably more.

From various indications, weapon sharpening was taken very seriously in the classical period.  The Roman Emperor Aurelian used to inflict severe punishments on any soldier found without really sharp weapons.  Even if the weapons were mass-produced, the users still had to keep them sharp, whatever effort that took.

[manomano]

"DAMN the javelins"
paraphhrasing Adm. Farragut at Mobile Bay.

Searching I discovered that:

Modern javs:

- the first olimpic record with a jav of 800 gr was  in 1912 62,32 mt. and  in 1984 104,8 mt. with
  a well balanced weapon and with 30 mt run-up.
- after this record the weapon was modified and the center of gravity was moved foward so the next
   record was only 84 mt.
- The average range in the initial period was only 32 mt. for men and 27 mt. for women
- Modern javs are hollow so are best suited weapon for traveling
- The men in this reports are very strong,much more  above  the average.

Ancient javs of regular forces:
- A surely unbalanced weapon because it cannot be uniform:
  we have a body in wood (light)   and a head  of iron (heavy)
- The head must be enough heavy to have the cinetic energy to penetrate and make a suitable wound, not only a scratch.
- The ordinary soldier had to use a standar weapon suitable agaist any enemy, armoured or not.
  " Hey bad fellow...behind your shield you wear the mail that made you mom?'"
   "Little dark bastard man... I am naked, I am an hero"
    "Roger wilco, therefore I will use toothpicks to lauch at you"
- A  1,9 onces  arrow from a 90 lbs longobow have a cinetic energy of 44-58 joule and sufficient only to penetrate a
  buff coat of 5 mm at close range, against mail is ineffecctive.
   a bodkin of 4 onces with a bow of 150 lbs have energy of over  120 j: it penetrate mail and make a wound 35 mm deep.
   A jav much less of these examples.

-  I have seen some roman  historic  javs heads in a photo from  Vindonissa Musuem -Brugg CH
   Very pointed and  heavy heads .

I am sorry  but I remain of my opinion:
an ancient jav from an average unprofessional soldier had an effective range not over 40 paces.

For the 20 mt distance of launch of javs:
- only very few men in the world cover 100 mt in ten seconds and only from a prepared position.
- How much time for a men with a shield and a sword against an enemy who shot at you?
   and the shot came not from the nearest enemy,he run away, but from the  rear ranks.
- In the world now and then they have  fortunately few crazy people.

20 mt are a prudential distance, maybe less.

However this is my opinion , I respect the others
but I like confront with other people.
 

[Patrick Waterson]

A few things we have to be careful about.

1) Assuming that modern athletes are stronger than classical soldiers.  The average classical soldier (Greek or Roman) not only grew up accustomed to a life of hard physical labour, but also honed his skill and fitness in games like javelin-throwing, which were practised from childhood.  Modern athletes practise and condition themselves for a few years; the classical soldier did so for most of his life.

2) Assuming that classical weaponry was amateurishly or badly made.  We only have a few left-over rusty bits from the period, which give us an approximate idea of size and shape, but we lack complete examples.  Our attempts at re-creating classical period weaponry lack the care and dedication of a classical weaponsmith who did this sort of thing for a living; in particular, our re-enactors seem happy with any old wood, while Greeks, Macedonians and Romans tended to choose their wood very carefully.  The weapon designs had centuries in which to evolve and be perfected; they were in regular use and any shortcomings would have been rapidly attended to - especially with regard to balance.

3) Using modern kinetic energy equations.  We (the Society) have had a few discussions about this, in which it emerged that modern studies were often not very useful because they emphasised 'blunt trauma' and bullet impact energy without considering the sharpness of a weapon.  A good, sharp weapon will penetrate with very little energy - as one can demonstrate in one's own kitchen (preferably upon the food rather than on oneself!).

I am sorry  but I remain of my opinion:
an ancient jav from an average unprofessional soldier had an effective range not over 40 paces.

This might be true of a heavy weapon like the pilum, angon or spiculum, but lighter weapons like the lonche, grosphos or hasta velitaris would carry much further, especially with an ankyle/amentum (the loop attachment popular with classical javelinmen).  Classical soldiers were also very professional even by today's standards, and may in fact have had more weapon practice than any of today's troops except special forces.

However this is my opinion , I respect the others
but I like confront with other people.

Everyone here is happy to respect your opinion ; the assumptions on which you base it do, however, seem questionable to some - to me, at least.

And do please feel free to discuss these matters; that is what this forum is for, and you are very welcome.  Even if nobody changes their opinion, readers can learn something from the discussion.

[Erpingham]

With respect to Patrick (as always), the issue on penetration is not "modern kinetic energy equations".  It's what kinetic energy has to do with weapon effect.  As stated , it doesn't take much energy to penetrate unprotected skin with a sharp weapon and we know modern javelins can do this to lethal effect at long range.  There are lots of calculations on armour penetration out there.  Here are some predominantly from Williams Knight and the Blast Furnace

Modern Mail (mild steel) alone 80 J
Modern Mail & Jack Penetration 100 J
Modern Mail and Tailor's Dummy 100 J (Soar et al)
Modern Mail, Jack Penetration, and 35 mm penetration of Plastilene behind 120 J
15th c. Mail (low carbon steel hardened by quenching) two links broken and jack behind completely penetrated: 120 J

So, was this armour potentially effective against a javelin.  Kinetic energy-wise possibly, possibly not.  (a 450g javellin launched at 30 m/s will give you around 200 J launch energy - I've not seen any calculations on loss of energy in flight or terminal energy).  But these are all arrow simulations and arrows are much smaller diameter, meaning they impact less rings at a time, which needs less energy to defeat the armour than a wider weapon.  I've not got any bronze armour penetration tests, to look at helmets etc.

Then there are shields.  They aren't difficult to penetrate but, if the shield is held away from the body, they are difficult to hit the man behind.  A shield could probably take a number of hits with a non-bendy javelin before it was reduced to uselessness.  Then of course, a major role for a shield is not to catch missiles but deflect them.

It's all quite complicated, really.

Add : I'd written the above in a hurry, so I've clarified a couple of bits.

[Mark G]

Complicated indeed, although the important bit is still the easy bit.

Why throw away your weapons in a fight when you know they are not effective at that distance when you could just wait a bit until they are closer and you have a chance of achieving something if you manage to hit the target?

[Erpingham]

Complicated indeed, although the important bit is still the easy bit.

Why throw away your weapons in a fight when you know they are not effective at that distance when you could just wait a bit until they are closer and you have a chance of achieving something if you manage to hit the target?

Fair point but back to the effective range definition quoted earlier.  What is the effect we are after?  If it is disruption or de-shielding, rather than striking lethal blows, we might order our javelin men to let fly at longer range.  If its killing we're after, against a group of cavourting naked blokes we might let fly at a longer range than if the target was a bunch of guys in helmets and mail with scuta.

[manomano]

I am sorry,I have not been able to explain correctly my ideas.

-I dont stated that ancient javs were bad weapons builted by idiots,
  I stated exactly the contrary:
  Were well good mass prodution weapons builted for killing enemy  not to win olimpic game.
  (to have a sufficient impact on the target and  make some damage necessarily  were unbalanced weapons)
  Sacrificate range for penetration. Unbalanced dont' mean bad.
  In the example about modern javs  I wrote we see that moving centre of gravity foward have a
  significative impact on range: ancient javs had a heavy  suitable iron head.
- about range of pila I observe that iron have a specific weight of 7,8 kg for dm3, so 7,8 g for cm3
  how much does it weight ? Make some calculations and some pratical considerations about effective range of pila.
  an example: an  iron rod of 1cm diameter 10 cm long  weight 0,5* 0,5*3,14 *10 * 7,8 =  61,3 gr
  but a rod of 2 cm diameter weight 245 gr.

https://www.roma-victrix.com/summa-divisio/armamentarium/pila-hastae-et-sagittae/pila-iv-sec-a-c-v-sec-d-c.html

I am sorry but I am used to base my ideas only on real facts and archeological edvidences.

Polibio stated the celts swords were bad weapons but archeological findings stated the contrary:
I think that no man go in battle with a bad weapon, so Polibio is wrong.

We have to know  the average range for an ancient jav hurled from an average unprofessional soldier
and the range to which the expenditure of a limited ammunition supplie was justified.
Obviusly there are exception :
a balearic slinger or a cretan archer were not average, so an agrian javelinman was not an ordinary soldier.

Now, we enjoy us

In human body we have primary III grade levers, very ineffective. It's no a bow or a crossbow.
An human arm can generate in hurling 400 Newton
         
            Kg m
N=        -------
              s2

so a Joule is a N on a metre.
I have many doubs about the real possibily  to give to a jav the force of 200 J on the impact
over point black range.

Bow at point black range
BOW(lb)    Arrow (oz)      V (m/s)    E (J)   
150               3,8                    52         146
90                 1,6                    44           44
68                 2,5                    40           58

Make some comparison.
Distance and loss of strinking power are influenced primary by gravity force and so from the time of flight,
aerodinamic influence on a jav or an arrow are neligible.

Returning to the arrovs examples:


                             start                                                              final

W               V (m/s)                E  (J)             distance(m)        V           J
1,9oz           64,3                   111                   310                  49          64
3,3oz           53                      134                   230                  43          90


It's very difficult
We have to reaserch better  and deeply without preconceptions.

We have however to split  between real effect ( hits, protection,shields) and psycological one,
in many occasion a unit broke or charge  for fear of the danger not for a real danger.

But we have to remember that at extreme range  also a  hand-huled stone can kill.

[Erpingham]

I have many doubs about the real possibily  to give to a jav the force of 200 J on the impact
over point black range.

However, this is our start point.  30 m/s is a fairly good launch speed for a modern javelin - top athletes get higher but an average person may be lower.  The 450 g. Javelin used in the ankyle experiment is half the weight of a modern javelin.  It has greater mechanical advantage too.  I suspect it launched at a higher speed but a 200J launch energy seems a conservative estimate.  At what point its loss of energy drops it below the ability to penetrate armour is anyones guess-timate, especially as we don't seem to have a resistance to heavier weapon than an arrow.  Anyone with appropriate scientific or mathematical knowledge feel free to step in here.

[Andreas Johansson]

All else equal, a heavier weapon will lose less energy to air resistance. So you'd expect that the effective range (in an armour penetration sense) of a javelin would be a greater percentage of the maximum range than for an arrow.