What was the range of an ancient javelin?

[Duncan Head]

The lonche is an interesting question.  As the dory could be thrown with a thong, it seems plausible that the lonche could be - it was used in hunting, I believe.  Do we have any evidence on this?

There was an instance where Alexander the Great found a soldier still winding the thong on his lonche as a battle was about to commence, and dismissed him on the spot, saying there was no room for sluggards in his army (sorry, forgotten the reference).

Plutarch, Sayings of Kings and Commanders, 27.13; but it's not longche, it's akontion.

[manomano]

 From some notes from web posted on the web from rebel_mc


"Il record del mondo di lancio del giavellotto appartiene all'atleta Ceco Jan Železný che nel Maggio del 1996 raggiunse la distanza di ben 98,48 metri!

Considerando trascurabile l'attrito dell'aria e l'influenza del vento sulla traiettoria, calcolare la velocità iniziale v0 (in m/s) impressa al giavellotto dall'atleta per

un angolo di lancio a = 45° rispetto al suolo.
Se invece supponiamo che la forza impressa dall'atleta nel lancio sia sempre costante e che  possa essere variato solo l'angolo, per quale valore di a si ottiene

la gittata massima?

Soluzione.
Questo problema si può facilmente affrontare con le leggi del moto parabolico, possiamo immaginare un piano perpendicolare al suolo (un grande foglio) che

contenga il lanciatore stesso, la traiettoria ed il punto di impatto del giavellotto.
Per prima cosa assegniamo un sistema di riferimento cartesiano che combaci proprio col piano di cui parlavamo ed in cui l'origine sia nella posizione del

lanciatore all'istante iniziale e l'asse delle X sia parallelo al terreno (vedi figura). Le equazioni che ci servono per questo tipo di moto sono quattro:

coordinata x = velocità lungo x per tempo

coordinata y = velocità lungo y per tempo, "meno" un fattore dovuto all'accelerazione di gravità moltiplicato per il tempo al quadrato

velocità lungo x = modulo della velocità iniziale v0 per il coseno dell'angolo a

velocità lungo y = modulo della velocità iniziale v0 per il seno dell'angolo a "meno" un fattore dovuto all'accelerazione di gravità moltiplicato per il tempo

come si vede tutti e quattro questi parametri sono funzioni esplicite del tempo e le componenti x non dipendono da g.
Dal momento in cui lascia la mano dell'atleta il giavellotto risente solo della forza peso e quindi dell'accelerazione di gravità, la quale ovviamente sarà diretta

verso il basso [ vettore g = (0: - g) ], per cui

x(t) = v0 cos (a) t           y(t) = v0 sin (a) t - ½ g t 2

vx(t) = v0 cos (a)            vy(t) = v0 sin(a) -g t

Per trovare la gittata cioè la distanza coperta dal giavellotto prima di cadere al suolo possiamo usare la seconda equazione "imponendo" y(t) = 0, in questo

modo troviamo il tempo necessario a percorrere tutta la traiettoria fino al momento dell'impatto al suolo:

½ g t 2 – v0 sin (a) t = 0   "ho cambiato tutti i segni dell'equazione 2"

½ g t – v0 sin (a) = 0        "ho diviso ambo i membri per t"

t = (2 v0 /g ) sin (a)          "isolo la variabile t"

quest'ultimo è quindi il tempo di arrivo al suolo. Se lo inseriamo nella prima equazione, quella della coordinata x(t), troveremo la distanza coperta dal

giavellotto, cioè la gittata:

x(t) =  v0 cos (a) (2 v0 /g ) sin (a)  =  (2 v0 2 /g ) sin (a) cos (a)

L = (2 v0 2 /g ) sin (a) cos (a)                 > gittata <

Dai dati del problema conosciamo a ed L ma ci manca v0, possiamo perciò sfruttare una formula inversa:

v0 2 = g L / (2 sin (a) cos (a) ) → v0 = √ {g L / [2 sin (a) cos (a) ])}

sostituendo i valori numerici si trova v0 = 31,1 m/s    (circa 110 Km/h)

Per calcolare l'angolo di lancio iniziale che dia valore massimo alla gittata bisogna considerare quest'ultima come una funzione della sola variabile a :

L (a) = (2 v0 2 /g ) sin (a) cos (a)

con v0 e g costanti. I teoremi fondamentali dell'Analisi ci dicono che se calcoliamo la derivata prima di L rispetto ad a e la poniamo uguale a zero troveremo il

punto (o i punti) di massimo e di minimo di tale funzione:

L ' (a) = 0 → (2 v0 2 /g ) [ cos2(a) - sin2(a) ] = 0 →

→ cos2(a) - sin2(a) = 0 → cos2(a) = sin2(a) →    a =  p/4   ±  1/2 k p      k = 0, 1, 2, ...

Quindi l'angolo di 45° "massimizza" la funzione gittata."

I am sorry , too long  to translate in english.
Tecnically is right.

We have not however any  interest about  how far can travell a shoot, but only on the pratical range to  which it make  some effect to justify
the expenditure of ammunitions.
We know that a shot of  18 lbs from a culverine of  XVI sec could reach a distance of nearly 7000 yards, but pratical range was 1700 yrds.
A note for Bosworth......
I think that the  snare used  ina  javellin  cause a spin that increase precision not range, the same differnce betwen a smoothbore and a
rifled barrel  gun.
Perhaps my range of 30 mt for a javellin is optimistic.
We have to consider several factor on the real effects of a single jav lauched by a single men and a volley of javellins  throw by
an experienced unit.

The tactical position of the units
The training of the throwers,

the training of the target  unit:
they know that overange the javellin is harmless?
how the men perceived the lauch? what morale effect have on them?
and several others factors: almost endless.

In suitable rules for wargame I think it's better to be cautious about efficiency of weapons.
I think it's more important morale and tactical situation.
A unit dont' necessarily break for the losses but more often because the men think they are lost.
They are endless examples of units fighting to the last men and units running away intact.

[Patrick Waterson]

Plutarch, Sayings of Kings and Commanders, 27.13; but it's not longche, it's akontion.

Thanks, Duncan. Not as useful as I thought, then.

[Patrick Waterson]

We have not however any  interest about  how far can travell a shoot, but only on the pratical range to  which it make  some effect to justify the expenditure of ammunitions.

And this will depend upon the accuracy of the shooter and the nature of the target. At Telamon (which was our original subject of interest), the Roman velites were shooting at a static Gallic line of battle several men deep, so just about every shot which travelled far enough would hit someone.

We know that a shot of  18 lbs from a culverine of  XVI sec could reach a distance of nearly 7000 yards, but pratical range was 1700 yrds.

Gunpowder weapons usually carried much further than man-powered weapons, but were less accurate. Hence although a musket shot could kill at perhaps 400 yards, a musket could reliably miss a stationary individual at 100 yards.  A longbow shot could kill at perhaps 250 yards, and could hit a stationary individual at perhaps 150 yards.

In suitable rules for wargame I think it's better to be cautious about efficiency of weapons.
I think it's more important morale and tactical situation.
A unit dont' necessarily break for the losses but more often because the men think they are lost.
They are endless examples of units fighting to the last men and units running away intact.

This is true, although sometimes the efficiency of weapons does matter.  Telamon is a case in point: the velites more or less destroyed the gaesati witout needing help from the legionaries.  We do not know how long they took to do this, but we do know this was the result.  Conversely, the velites had little effect against the Insubres, and the legions had to move in and deal with them in a prolonged fight.

You are right about not over-emphasising weapons in wargames; the key is to find the right balance.

[manomano]

  "A longbow shot could kill at perhaps 250 yards"

If you are in defence and are fool ,I am sure of this.
Not only a man, all in your unit will be destroyed.

But if you move quickly and attack the enemy archers  and if they dont' have support from others troops,
and  you are been able to avoid the volley the enemy is lost.

Maratona docet.

But too many if.

The only way to make a reasonable rules for a game is to use statistic.
For example:
How many times the italics  fight against celts?
How many time they win?
Why?
ad so on
It's a very difficult job.
I propose  that individual thinking ,reasonable supported ,
can be put in the statistic and using it with the mathematical formula standard deviation  to built
a percentage result.
But, how  insert the data in  a properly  way?

Wait answerses.

I know the reason why it's necessary but I dont' know how to do it.

[Mark G]

This is the key point until you reach high explosive.

There is maximum range
There is accurate range
And there is effective range.

When looking at weapons thrown at armour or shields, it is not important whether you can thrown to maximum range. 
It is not even important whether you can throw and hit at a long range.
Unless you are only intending on being a nuisance (such as Asian long flight arrows), or are simply hoping to make your first time on the battlefield and then go home, the only time you would commit your ammunition is when you expect your missile to have a chance of defeating the shield or armour.

With a weapon like a pila, some tests have even been made to show this.
The range is very close, 15 m rather than the 50 at which the target can be hit.

For young men being introduced to battle, they are fine to throw at long range, and retire.  I always expect their purpose on the field to be more for morale anyway, and only after a long campaign would they be expected to fight properly I think.

Discuss effective range not long range or accurate range.

[Patrick Waterson]

Effective range is the range at which shooting has an effect (other than allowing troops to fight in the shade).  Thus, at Agincourt, the English archers were able to stir the French into attacking with flight arrows shot at over 300 yards and then inflict on their slow massed formations sufficient casualties and disordering effects to slow them, disrupt them, funnel them towards the English men-at-arms and just incidentally leave numbers of bodies lying in the mud.

The point is that battles are fought by formations and weapons are part of a weapon system; what we need to assess for military simulation purposes is the effect of a weapon system when used against a formation.

Regarding missile weapons, we need to assess: at what range are they effective against particular formations?  And the answer will vary with the target formation and with circumstances.

At Falkirk in AD 1298, the English (and Welsh) archers shot at unspecified ranges to kill men and disrupt schiltron formations in the Scottish army.  They inflicted heavy casualties and weakened the formations to the point where a charge by the English knights was able to smash each schiltron and win the battle.

At Halidon Hill (AD 1333) and Homildon Hill (AD 1402) an English army was able to do the same to an attacking Scottish army, mainly on foot.  Similar results were achieved at Crecy (AD 1346) and Agincourt (AD 1415).

Conversely, at Bannockburn (AD 1314) and Patay (AD 1429) English archers were swept away by a cavalry charge.  As Mariano notes, opponents who can attack rapidly are at much less risk from archers and will take fewer losses.  The classic archers' counter is to erect an obstacle (pits, stakes, etc.) to slow, disarray and perhaps even halt the attacker.  Failing that, add a troop type (polearm, pike) which can stop a cavalry charge and work in close cooperation with them.

So ranges are effective relative to particular formations and troop types; longbowmen will disrupt and repulse slow-moving cavalry but are vulnerable to fast-moving cavalry wearing exactly the same armour at exactly the same ranges.  A longbow arrow might not penetrate plate arour at more than 30 yards, but a rapid blizzard of longbow arrows will affect cavalry at 300 yards (if only because injury to horses induces the knights to charge).

Against other skirmishers, velites are not going to litter the field with bodies; they will inflict some casualties, lose some, and then retire, by which time the rest of the army is warmed up and ready to fight.  As Mark says, their usual contribution was mainly to morale.

But at Telamon, they found they were rapidly thinning the ranks of the Gaesati; they were having a disproportionate effect against a particularly vulnerable target.  So they were kept at it until they had effectively shot the Gaesati to pieces.

Similarly, when using a pilum, individual accuracy is less important than the ability to hit a massed target.  There is nevertheless some element of skill involved; our account of Munda in Caesar's (Hirtius'?) Spanish War notes that when the (inexperienced) Pompeian troops threw their pila they inflicted few losses, but when the experienced Caesarians threw, their opponents 'went down in heaps'.  An important part of defending against a pila volley, as in Livy's account of Silanus' operation against the Iberian iusta legio in 207 BC, seems to have been the crouch-down-and-raise-shield action; if Pompey's recruits omitted to do this (perhaps wanting to watch their pila landing) it could accoutn for the disproportionate casualties.

In conclusion, wargame design is not about 'book' ranges so much as the range at which a particular weapons system has an effect on a particular formation over a certain timescale.  Against massed formations, one can use missile weapons at extreme range and still be effective.  Or one can cause losses but without appreciable effect on the formation.  Against skirmishing formations, losses will typically be low and fairly even unless one side has a distinct superiority in experience, technique or both.  Against armoured formations, even an shower of ineffectual missiles can cause a slowing down and raising of shields which inhibits other activity (a 'suppressed' result, as it were).  Against unarmoured formations, few missile types will be ineffective even at the longest ranges; they key will be the effect they have on the formation's cohesion and behaviour.

Wargaming is ultimately about systems meeting systems.Trying to hit a dodging individual with a pilum at 15 yards would be a futile exercise.  Trying to hit a slowly advancing enemy formation at 30-50 yards (being uphill adds to range) would be so easy that the entire enemy front rank would end up with pierced shields (Helvetii, 58 BC).  Effective ranges depend upon your target and your technique much more than on the modern re-enactor's individual efforts, which merely establish a baseline for inexperienced troops unfamiliar with their weapons and not practised in their system.

[Erpingham]

"A longbow shot could kill at perhaps 250 yards"

If you are in defence and are fool ,I am sure of this.
Not only a man, all in your unit will be destroyed.

But if you move quickly and attack the enemy archers  and if they dont' have support from others troops,
and  you be able to avoid the volley the enemy is lost.

Not wanting to divert us to talking about longbows but this does show us some of the issues.  Longbowmen had a reasonable chance of hitting a mass of men at 250yds and some of those shots would hit someone, and some of those people would not be well-enough protected to avoid harm.  But was it worth engaging a target with massed shooting in this way?  You had only a limited ammunition supplies, so it may be better to reserve them for ranges when you could be more certain about hitting something and your shots to penetrate armour.  This essentially Mick's point - just because you can engage at maximum range doesn't mean you did - tactically preferred range could have been different.  This doesn't mean that the thonged javelin's range advantage wasn't used, just that we cannot assume that everyone threw/shot missiles at maximum range and we need some battlefield evidence to show what happened to set alongside our experiments.

[Patrick Waterson]

But was it worth engaging a target with massed shooting in this way?  You had only a limited ammunition supplies, so it may be better to reserve them for ranges when you could be more certain about hitting something and your shots to penetrate armour.  This essentially Mick's point - just because you can engage at maximum range doesn't mean you did - tactically preferred range could have been different.  This doesn't mean that the thonged javelin's range advantage wasn't used, just that we cannot assume that everyone threw/shot missiles at maximum range and we need some battlefield evidence to show what happened to set alongside our experiments.

Towton, AD 1461.

Both sides seem to have unloaded their arrow inventory at maximum range at the beginning of the battle (or at least the Lancastrians appear to have done so).  Snowy weather and a cunning Yorkist commander ensured the Lancastrians shot to no effect, but the interesting part is the arrow storm at extreme range at the commencement of the battle.

So at least sometimes, maximum range is the tactically preferred range.  It depends upon your system - and, I would suggest, your opponent.

[Erpingham]

So at least sometimes, maximum range is the tactically preferred range.  It depends upon your system - and, I would suggest, your opponent.

A fair point, though the Towton example can be explained by archers advancing to an expected engagement distance rather than absolute maximum range.

The opposition point is interesting.  Between missile troops, closing to a more effective range means your opponent is also more effective.  You might be happier closing to a short distance of a body of close order infantry without missile weapons than with a line of fellow missile troops.

[Patrick Waterson]

A fair point, though the Towton example can be explained by archers advancing to an expected engagement distance rather than absolute maximum range.

I am not sure how that explanation would account for the Lancastrian archers' arrows all missing through falling short.  Perhaps one could argue that the range was judged, then the snow obscured visibility just as the Yorkists stepped back and so the Lancastrians shot at the desired range - but at an absent target.  If however it was not snowing at the time, then the lack of effect of the first volley should have been observable and correction made.  Or so it seems to me.

I must confess to preferring the simpler explanation that the Yorkists opened the engagement at maximum range and avoided retaliation with a simple step-back combined with the wind being in their favour.  The increased disatance might also account for the Lancastrians not appreciating that their shooting was not having an effect.

However I do not wish to tie us down in a longbow discussion in a javelin thread.

The opposition point is interesting.  Between missile troops, closing to a more effective range means your opponent is also more effective.  You might be happier closing to a short distance of a body of close order infantry without missile weapons than with a line of fellow missile troops.

Yes, true, assuming you can get clear of any sudden charge the missile-less opponents might launch at you (Iphicrates, Spartans and all that).

Against missile-armed opponents, you might find a range where both sides are 'differently effective', allowing your men to perform significantly better until the other side manages to open or close the range.  If not, my best guess is that both sides would alternate trying to close in for accuracy with trying to open out to minimise the effects of retaliation.  A short dash-and-hurl followed by a quick fall back would seem to hold much appeal for the individual.

[manomano]

We have some  extreme  effects in ancient history ( and not only)  about efficiency of throwning weapons:
some of which totally ineffective some deadly.
Lancastrians at Townton lost their nerves and wasted their arrows after Yorkist's provocative  single volley.
But I note that Harold, Hadrada and Richard Lionheart were killed by a fortunate shoot.
We must considered many factors : experience of local commander,visibility,training of troops, morale and several others things.
The only wise to make reasonable rules  is to use statistic.
I know well  M.Twain, G.B.Show, Disdraeli and Darrel  stated but there is no other way.
I think is best to use a Gauss curve and that fictional  battles and campaigns must be controlled by a team of umpires
and a single move debated serenely by players and umpires.
True : it's only a game for fun not real life but I  love bridge I dont' like poker.
A basic factor about efficiency and serveral percentage's corrections about  possible tactical situations.
I know it's very  long but this is my choiche.
I admit that battles in our old club lasted days, but  we had a closed room for this to advoid that cats
finished the game for us: cats love model ships and soldiers.

It seems to me that in too many rules concerning ancient warfare we have thelepatic controlled units and
radar directed and traced shooting..

[Erpingham]

The only wise to make reasonable rules  is to use statistic.

The problem with ancient and medieval warfare is we have very few data points to take a statistical approach from.  Even if we assemble data, say, on the range of weapons, we can't always decide what battlefield ranges, as opposed to maximum ranges, might be.  If we know that, we have very little data on hit rates of weapons.  Often, all with have is a qualitative result - A engaged B effectively in these circumstances,  B failed against C in these circumstances - and from that assign likelyhoods of results, extropolating where needed (e.g. what happens when A meets C).  But that is about rule writing theory, not weapon ranges

[manomano]

See my last update on  my previus post.
Roger willco, about your observations.

Musket hits are stated in Hughes's "Firepower"

for experienced soldiers at
80-100 y  from 53 to 75 % hits
200 y from 25 to 40 % hits
300  from 16 to 23 % hits

but for an average soldier only  40 18 15

against a static and close target.

This give us also  the standard deviation about hits.

This can be a good base on which work.
I think there can be no a real difference for percentage of hits for a
bow, jav or crossbow compared to  a musket.
The same for artillery.

A turkish composite bow can lauch an arrow  perhaps at over 400 yards
The olimpic game record for a javellin is over 80 mt.
A shot from a crossbow at  500.

these are extreme ranges.
A reasonable range can be a half of these.
See culverine example:
over 1/2  max range the shoots are erratic and unpredictable.

So for bow and crossbow 250 y and for jav 30- 40 y.

he know that an arrow against plate is useful only at 30 y and for a crossbow's  shot sligtly  more.
So, go on.

[Erpingham]

While I don't disagree that we can make some estimates, they are estimates.  I'm not sure you can take 19th century musketry experiments and translate them into ancients, for example.  There is debate as to how much they can be translated in actual battlefield results in the era they came from.  I think I'd build my estimates out from known effects, coupled with experimental data on accuracy, rate of fire, armour penetration. 

Turning back to javelins and whether they should be thrown at the maximum range possible, such throwing would be at an area target rather than accurately targetting individuals.  It would be more effective against a denser target, less effective against a target moving perpendicular to the shooters at any speed (increased proportion of unders or overs), moving across less of an issue.  Against skirmishers, lower target density would probably be key - if we assume skirmishers move back and forward to throw or shoot, we have a wider target zone but even less average density.  Sensibly, we can see that ancient armies will put out a skirmish force to prevent enemy skirmishers interfering with the denser, slower main lines.  Tactical question is whether you get your skirmishers to attack and drive in the enemy skirmishers or just keep them busy to screen you while you prepare for the main event.  Perhaps not an either/or.  Keep them busy till your army is ready to attack then get them to clear the road, maybe get a few shots against the main line before falling back?  The actual use and effect of the javelinmen in an army should actually be known to us - anyone have any relevant examples?