SoA Forums

I decided to lift this point of debate out from the Telamon discussion, as it was perhaps lost there, and has a wider application to our interests.  The principals in this part of the debate were Mariano Rizzi and Patrick Waterson

QuoteMariano : a pila was a very heavy weapon , I am  dobtful about the possibilty to throwing it effectively over ten yardes and
    the same about throwing an ordinary javelin over 30 yardes.
    Simply try it.


Patrick : I find that how far one can throw a javelin depends mainly on practice.  At school, some people I knew managed 70 yards without too much trouble (and, I must confess, with a run-up) and a few even approached 80.

Now, my interest in weapons performance was piqued so I did a little digging and turned up this article (https://www.academia.edu/2631534/Recreating_the_Ancient_Greek_Javelin_Throw_How_Far_Was_the_Javelin_Thrown), which provides information from a variety of tests (many 19th century) as well as more recent tests in the USA and some limited ancient data.  I thought they may be of interest, if only to avoid discussion in a vacuum.

I'm sure I've seen re-enactment tests of pilum throwing at some point - anyone able to point to that to set alongside this?

[Fixed the link - it just needed an '=' :)]

Thanks, Antony.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 15, 2019, 07:02:14 PM
[Fixed the link - it just needed an '=' :)]

Thanks, Antony.

This paper is also of interest to those reading the Chigi olpe: https://www.academia.edu/1406260/Throwing_the_Greek_Dory_How_Effective_is_the_Attached_Ankyle_at_Increasing_the_Distance_of_the_Throw

And this one (https://www.academia.edu/27962186/Hasta_Velitaris_-_The_first_edge_of_the_Roman_army) for throwing the Roman hasta veitaris.

Thank you, gentlemen.  The ankyle (leather throwing loop) makes a noticeable difference to battle ranges, and is well attested by classical authors - but I had forgotten to mention it!

The use of an ankyle with the doru/dory (Greek hoplite spear) in the Murray et. al. paper is interesting given Xenophon's references in the Hellenica to spears being thrown in battle, especially by Thebans, and Epaminondas being brought down by a thrown spear (doratos) at Second Mantinea (Diodorus XV.87.1).

Klenjowski's paper on the hasta velitaris is also of interest, not least because it gives some good experimental data for throwing velite-type weapons with the ankyle (and useful evidence of their employment in classical Italy) but also makes the point about training bringing about a considerable improvement in ranges achieved.  The range of techniques used for throwing with the ankyle is also illuminating.

Fascinating, woukd anyone be able to tabulate the results in a Slingshot article?  It would only heed light commentary. I am sure members would find it most interesting.
Roy

For comparison, two tests on reproduction plumbatae

https://www.academia.edu/30544051/Vermaat_Robert_M._2007_Testing_Late_Roman_Plumbatae_1_-_Veerse_Dam_2007

https://www.academia.edu/30545939/Vermaat_Robert_M._2011_Testing_Late_Roman_Plumbatae_2_-_Breezand_2011

I must admit, I do find experimental archaeology with weapons interesting  :)

Several questions occurred to me when reading these studies, worthy of more consideration.

Firstly, people were all for exploring maximum distance.  Nothing on accuracy.  So, our test subjects could get the hang of throwing the weapons quite quickly but we don't know how accurately they could deliver them on target at a range below maximum - this may have been where the skill came in.

A second related point is a common point in similar tests.  Athletic javelin throwing, then as now, was about distance.  Was this what military javelin throwing was about?  Did skirmishers reach 60-70 m separation and bombard each other with javelins thrown in roughly the right direction?  Or was skirmishing done closer together with aimed shots?  I don't know the answer, but it does impact on using these results in rule design.

Talking of rules design, should we allow a range bonus for the ankyle?  Not unrelated to the above, of course. 

How much does the equipment affect range?  The tests seem to involve people in athletics gear on sport fields or beaches.  Now this might approximate to many skirmishers but velites had large shields.  Hoplites had even bigger shields.  How does this affect things?

All fascinating stuff.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2019, 10:44:29 AM
I must admit, I do find experimental archaeology with weapons interesting  :)

Several questions occurred to me when reading these studies, worthy of more consideration.

Firstly, people were all for exploring maximum distance.  Nothing on accuracy.  So, our test subjects could get the hang of throwing the weapons quite quickly but we don't know how accurately they could deliver them on target at a range below maximum - this may have been where the skill came in.

A second related point is a common point in similar tests.  Athletic javelin throwing, then as now, was about distance.  Was this what military javelin throwing was about?  Did skirmishers reach 60-70 m separation and bombard each other with javelins thrown in roughly the right direction?  Or was skirmishing done closer together with aimed shots?  I don't know the answer, but it does impact on using these results in rule design.

Talking of rules design, should we allow a range bonus for the ankyle?  Not unrelated to the above, of course. 

How much does the equipment affect range?  The tests seem to involve people in athletics gear on sport fields or beaches.  Now this might approximate to many skirmishers but velites had large shields.  Hoplites had even bigger shields.  How does this affect things?

All fascinating stuff.

Wasn't throwing javelins on a battlefield more about range than accuracy since it was impossible to miss - your enemy was 1km wide and 8 or more deep. Somebody was going to get unlucky.

DBx seems to work on 1 inch = 50 yards, which wouldn't make much difference between a javelin thrown to 60 yards and one thrown to 80. Though one could increase an ankyle range to 2 inches I suppose.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 11:18:44 AM
Wasn't throwing javelins on a battlefield more about range than accuracy since it was impossible to miss - your enemy was 1km wide and 8 or more deep. Somebody was going to get unlucky.

"... they discharge their javelins indiscriminately, expending ten of them on one chance kill" - Julius Africanus on the performance of Roman infantry C3rd AD.

QuoteWasn't throwing javelins on a battlefield more about range than accuracy since it was impossible to miss - your enemy was 1km wide and 8 or more deep. Somebody was going to get unlucky.

Which is OK with one side throwing javelins and the other standing there playing target and everyone staying at the same distance.  What if somebody did something clever like deploying their own skirmishers or even moving forwards?  I think maybe there was a bit more skill involved :)

That said, Duncan's quote certainly implies precision was not a high priority.  That said, a 10% hit rate would not have been sniffed at in many periods of history.

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 16, 2019, 11:31:08 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 11:18:44 AM
Wasn't throwing javelins on a battlefield more about range than accuracy since it was impossible to miss - your enemy was 1km wide and 8 or more deep. Somebody was going to get unlucky.

"... they discharge their javelins indiscriminately, expending ten of them on one chance kill" - Julius Africanus on the performance of Roman infantry C3rd AD.

Shields and armour?

Is Julius Africanus criticising Romans of his day, with the implication that those of the Glorious Past would have done better (been more accurate, or expended fewer javelins, or both)?

DBx - IIRC DBx doesn't do ranged attacks at all so it's moot. I don't think 30, 50 or 80 metres would make much difference to any rule set - it certainly shouldn't, since what matters is not maximum range but effective range or battlefield range (same as in the various archery discussions), and that is much harder to determine (and could be much shorter than maximum range).

I always assumed combat javelin throwing would be at a lower trajectory than athletic javelin - both for greater accuracy and greater penetration. I don't know that I've any basis for thinking that though.

Quote from: RichT on April 16, 2019, 12:18:41 PMDBx - IIRC DBx doesn't do ranged attacks at all so it's moot.

True, not for javelineers or skirmisher archers but only for massed archers. Perhaps give ankyle-thrown javelins slightly better combat factors?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 12:22:59 PM

Quote from: RichT on April 16, 2019, 12:18:41 PMDBx - IIRC DBx doesn't do ranged attacks at all so it's moot.

True, not for javelineers or skirmisher archers but only for massed archers. Perhaps give ankyle-thrown javelins slightly better combat factors?

But was the thonged javelin more effective or did it just go further?  If range doesn't matter in the rule set, it is hard to rationalise a better combat factor.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2019, 12:46:33 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 12:22:59 PM

Quote from: RichT on April 16, 2019, 12:18:41 PMDBx - IIRC DBx doesn't do ranged attacks at all so it's moot.

True, not for javelineers or skirmisher archers but only for massed archers. Perhaps give ankyle-thrown javelins slightly better combat factors?

But was the thonged javelin more effective or did it just go further?  If range doesn't matter in the rule set, it is hard to rationalise a better combat factor.

Ankyle were used in hunting, so the javelins must have been accurate.  I wrote a bit in my book about how the ankyle functions, which some might find interesting:

"The manner in which the ankyle functioned bears some explanation.  When accelerating any weapon, the amount of force applied is of course crucial, but just as important is the length of time that the accelerating force can be applied.  This is probably most readily understood by a modern audience by the example of length of barrel in a firearm.  Once a bullet leaves the gun barrel, the expanding gas that was pushing it down the barrel dissipates and the bullet then begins to decelerate as it is resisted by the air it is moving through.  For this reason, 'muzzle velocity' is most informative because it represents the moment when the bullet is moving fastest.  So the longer the barrel, the more time the confined gas spends accelerating the bullet and the more velocity imparted to the bullet.  The ankyle functions in a very different manner to produce the same result.  The thin leather thongs, of generally less than a meter in length, were wrapped around the shaft of the spear at a point just behind where it would have been gripped to throw.  The thrower would insert his first two fingers into a loop in the thong and grip the shaft.  As he released his grip on the shaft, his fingers pulled on the thong, which unwrapped as the spear moved forward, causing the shaft to rotate.  As with projectiles from firearms, this spin may enhance stability in flight, but is not the source of added range. The throwing motion involves many major muscle groups, but over half of the accelerating force is derived from elasticity in joint structures in a manner similar to a torsion catapult.  In fact, humans may have specifically evolved to throw objects, because our nearest ancestors, the chimpanzee, cannot perform this motion due to limitations in the shoulder carriage.   When launching a spear or javelin, it must be released at an angle of around 40 degrees upwards so that it follows an arching trajectory to gain distance.  This means that the thrower must release the shaft, and this ends spear acceleration when the arm has only moved through a portion of its arc in rotating around the shoulder.  The ankyle remedies this.  The spear is still released at an upward angle, but the two fingers in the thong's loop continue to pull the spear forward even after the shaft has left the hand.  It is this extension of the time that the thrower spends in contact with the shaft and accelerating it that accounts for the additional velocity.  As the shaft moves forward, the angle between thong and shaft becomes greater, imparting less and less acceleration and eventually slipping free of the thrower's fingers."

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2019, 12:46:33 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 12:22:59 PM

Quote from: RichT on April 16, 2019, 12:18:41 PMDBx - IIRC DBx doesn't do ranged attacks at all so it's moot.

True, not for javelineers or skirmisher archers but only for massed archers. Perhaps give ankyle-thrown javelins slightly better combat factors?

But was the thonged javelin more effective or did it just go further?  If range doesn't matter in the rule set, it is hard to rationalise a better combat factor.

If it was used it must have been good for something. Thonged or non-thonged would probably make no difference when targeting non-missile troops. Perhaps give a thonged javelineer a plus modifier when fighting a non-thonged javelineer since the former could outrange the latter.

Paul's explanation is very useful.  Paul (and Murray) don't think the thong causing spin helps with range - it seems to be a consequence of wrapping the thong round the javelin, not a deliberate design goal.  The hunting element does indeed suggest they could be thrown accurately if required, though not necessarily more accurately than a thongless javelin.  But, if the thong increases the velocity by allowing force to be applied longer, the javelin will have more KE and could, therefore, be a harder hitter.  Pretty irrelevant against unarmoured targets (e.g. fellow skirmishers) but more dangerous against line of battle?  Bit hypothetical, of course - the only thing we definitely seem to have evidence of is using them for range.

Yes in order to fly further (at a given trajectory) the javelin must be going faster, so the ankyle, by increasing velocity, both increases range and increases KE and so hitting/penetrating power. Spin might help with accuracy maybe.

But does it do so to a tactically significant degree? Tactically significant enough to represent in wargames rules? Tastes vary, but for me it would be - definitely not. If we have:

Javelins equipped with ankyle +1

Then we should also have:

Shields 60cm or more wide +1
Shields 10mm or more thick +1

And then why not:

Thrower particularly athletic and fit +1
Thrower ate especially filling breakfast +1

It's to avoid all this that we throw dice!

Roll of 6 - javelinmen have ankyles (or are Olympic athletes)
Roll of 1 - the ankyles got wet / fell off / the men weren't trained to use them

Maybe all else being equal ankyle-equipped javelinmen could sometimes have their quality upgraded a step (in rules that grade by quality), if not cancelled by other factors.

Richard, I really thought tgat tge 'specially filling breakfast' was a minus one, not a plus....at least that is how it affects my chubby little fellows.
Roy

In DBM(M) terminology you could make ankyle-throwing javelineers superior and the non-ankyle types average or inferior. That way no need to add more rules.

At the level of abstraction of DBx (and indeed most wargames rules) different combat factors would not make sense. Also, it presumes all javelins are equivalent - Irish texts mention individuals using multiple spear-types, some mostly for throwing and others mostly for thrusting (though thrusting spears could be cast and vice versa) and illustrations show some with throwing-loop and others without.

One passage may indicate that effective range varied for different spear-types "The King of Ireland had not finished saying the last of those words when their enemies came near, and first they loosed vast showers of arrows and afterwards showers of spears, and the third shower was of javelins, so that the King rose against them with his followers, and they fought bravely against them." (Fragmentary Annals 366 - translation from https://celt.ucc.ie//published/G100017/index.html  (https://celt.ucc.ie//published/G100017/index.html)). The "javelin" in the translation might be slightly off - the base text has  (frossa diomóra do sháighdibh ar tús, & frossa d'faghaiph iar t-tain, & an treas fross do leathgaibh where "leathgaibhh" is literally "half-spear" though usually translated as "dart". The context implies that the different missiles were loosed as the battle-lines closed, so we have the lightest spears thrown at the closest range. A Tudor writer described these darts as "more noisome... than deadly" so it may be that they were held until close range to maximise their effect.

Cheers
Mick   

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 02:37:45 PM
In DBM(M) terminology you could make ankyle-throwing javelineers superior and the non-ankyle types average or inferior. That way no need to add more rules.

I don't know enough about the balance of these rules but I suspect this may give too great an advantage to the ankyle-users.  Mick and Richard clearly feel that the difference between javelins with and without thongs is insufficient on a tactical level to warrant a rules bonus.

In a less abstracted set of rules, where a differences between weapons are the basis of combat, it may be different.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 02:37:45 PM
In DBM(M) terminology you could make ankyle-throwing javelineers superior and the non-ankyle types average or inferior. That way no need to add more rules.

I don't know enough about the balance of these rules but I suspect this may give too great an advantage to the ankyle-users.  Mick and Richard clearly feel that the difference between javelins with and without thongs is insufficient on a tactical level to warrant a rules bonus.

In a less abstracted set of rules, where a differences between weapons are the basis of combat, it may be different.

In DBMM the Ankyle-users would slaughter those without. 
Cheers
Mick

Quote from: Mick Hession on April 16, 2019, 03:08:56 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 16, 2019, 02:37:45 PM
In DBM(M) terminology you could make ankyle-throwing javelineers superior and the non-ankyle types average or inferior. That way no need to add more rules.

I don't know enough about the balance of these rules but I suspect this may give too great an advantage to the ankyle-users.  Mick and Richard clearly feel that the difference between javelins with and without thongs is insufficient on a tactical level to warrant a rules bonus.

In a less abstracted set of rules, where a differences between weapons are the basis of combat, it may be different.

In DBMM the Ankyle-users would slaughter those without. 
Cheers
Mick

Let's see......basic factors for psiloi are 2 vs foot, which means a good chance (8 in 36) of one psiloi doubling and killing the other. Making one psiloi superior affects only the grading factors for close combat (which is what psiloi are considered to be engaged in).

Quoting from DBM 3.2:

Compare your element's total score before grading factors to that of its shooting or frontal close combat opponent before grading
factors then adjust it by each of the following that apply:

-1 if your element is neither artillery shooting nor elephants in close combat, and scored more than (S) opponents.

So the ordinary psiloi loses 1 from its die roll if it scores more than the superior psiloi. Without the modifier it has 9 out of 36 chances: it scores a 6 vs a 1,2,3; it scores a 5 vs a 1,2. It scores a 4 vs a 1,2; it scores a 3 vs a 1; it scores a 2 vs a 1. Now it has 6 chances out of 36: 6 becomes 5 vs 1,2; 5 becomes 4 vs 1,2; 4 becomes 3 vs 1; 3 becomes 2 vs 1. That's 25% reduced to 16.7%. Hardly a slaughter.

Mick was referring to DBMM, which is significantly different from DBM 3.2. And in neither M nor MM can Ordinary psiloi be javelinmen, anyway.

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 16, 2019, 03:57:57 PM
Mick was referring to DBMM, which is significantly different from DBM 3.2. And in neither M nor MM can Ordinary psiloi be javelinmen, anyway.

Oh right. I see javelinmen in the DBM lists are generally inferior and sometimes superior. There does seem to be a mix of javelinmen and archers of which 1/4 count as ordinary (I suppose those are the archers). Using DBM rules anyone fighting an inferior javelinman will get a +1 if his score equals or exceeds that of the javelinman, which will make a difference.

Is there any difference in how DBMM handles superior/inferior modifiers?

In DBMM superiors get +2 if they win and Inferrior are -1 if they lose so (with some variation depending on whose bound we're playing) you get something like:

I Dies   36%
I Recoils   22%
S Dies   6%
S Recoils   22%
Draw           14%

That's on a straight up single-element frontage fight of course. When you fight with a group the Superiors create overlaps that make things even worse for the Inferiors.

But a big battle set has no business getting into such granularity, IMO - even the notoriously detailed Newbury rules foreswore going down to that level. You could make an argument for a  skirmish set giving a range bonus though that's also an argument to encourage people to chuck their weapons away at maximum range, which didn't happen (accounts of Papuan tribal warfare describe missiles being thrown at ranges that are likely to hit; disarming yourself at extreme range on the off-chance of a hit is not a good idea)
 
Cheers
Mick

Quote from: Mick Hession on April 16, 2019, 02:39:03 PM
At the level of abstraction of DBx (and indeed most wargames rules) different combat factors would not make sense. Also, it presumes all javelins are equivalent - Irish texts mention individuals using multiple spear-types, some mostly for throwing and others mostly for thrusting (though thrusting spears could be cast and vice versa) and illustrations show some with throwing-loop and others without.

One passage may indicate that effective range varied for different spear-types "The King of Ireland had not finished saying the last of those words when their enemies came near, and first they loosed vast showers of arrows and afterwards showers of spears, and the third shower was of javelins, so that the King rose against them with his followers, and they fought bravely against them." (Fragmentary Annals 366 - translation from https://celt.ucc.ie//published/G100017/index.html  (https://celt.ucc.ie//published/G100017/index.html)). The "javelin" in the translation might be slightly off - the base text has  (frossa diomóra do sháighdibh ar tús, & frossa d'faghaiph iar t-tain, & an treas fross do leathgaibh where "leathgaibhh" is literally "half-spear" though usually translated as "dart". The context implies that the different missiles were loosed as the battle-lines closed, so we have the lightest spears thrown at the closest range. A Tudor writer described these darts as "more noisome... than deadly" so it may be that they were held until close range to maximise their effect.

Cheers
Mick   

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.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2019, 12:46:33 PM
But was the thonged javelin more effective or did it just go further?  If range doesn't matter in the rule set, it is hard to rationalise a better combat factor.

The consistent and persistent use of the ankyle in the classical world suggests that it conferred a noticeable and desirable edge; this can be represented  in DB-whatever by using the S (superior) categorisation, which does not adjust the combat factor per se, but ameliorates the die roll added to it, making a poor result less likely.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 16, 2019, 09:00:19 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2019, 12:46:33 PM
But was the thonged javelin more effective or did it just go further?  If range doesn't matter in the rule set, it is hard to rationalise a better combat factor.

The consistent and persistent use of the ankyle in the classical world suggests that it conferred a noticeable and desirable edge; this can be represented  in DB-whatever by using the S (superior) categorisation, which does not adjust the combat factor per se, but ameliorates the die roll added to it, making a poor result less likely.

But the view of experienced users of the rules is that this creates too great an advantage.  You would also have to compare it with other troop types within the rules who are in the category.  For example, I don't think the Psiloi category differentiates by weapon but by function, so all sorts of archers and slingers are in the mix.

So far, we have certainly established the widespread use of the thonged javelin and experiments do point to a significant range advantage.  If one were writing a set of rules about Greek and Roman warfare, it would be reasonable to model light troops as having ranges out around 60-70m, assuming they all use these longer range weapons.  But in a more general set, it depends how many weapon types we distinguish.  Do we want two javelin types?  Do the rules differentiate different types of bows, or crossbows?

Quote from: PMBardunias on April 16, 2019, 08:35:50 PM

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

In DBMM, troop grading is supposed to be based on a holistic estimate of historical efficiency. A bunch of javelinmen with ankylai might be graded better than one without if they showed a marked battlefield superiority, but the immediate cause for the grading would be the performance, not the equipment causing the improved performance.

Now, in practice we frequently have only the vaguest idea of historical efficiency, and the lists commonly guestimate it based on equipment (javelinmen without shields are usually graded as Inferior, frex), but to automatically grade ankyle-users as Superior would single out one equipment detail for special treatment for no good reason I can see. Nobody is going to argue, I hope, that the use of ankylai automatically trumps any advantages in morale, skill, protection, weaponry, etc. that non-users may have.

If one feels that every possible advantage in equipment has to be represented by a modifier, better troop grade, or whatever, one should in any case stay away from DBX, where each +1 makes a big difference.

(Personally, I think it's a fool's errand to try and construct troop efficiency from the bottom up: you're not going to get anything real out of summing up +1 for ankylai, +1 for shields, -1 for no helmets, +2 for excellent morale, +1 for mother's lucky charm, + etc. etc., because we have no way of judging the relative contribution of these factors, still less to judge any combinatorial effects. But if you disagree, you'd be doing yourself a favour by starting with a rulesset embracing this sort of thinking from the outset, rather than one that in principle rejects it.)

Put it another way: it would be weird to give a bonus for ankylai in a system that gives no bonuses or penalties for the nature of the spears themselves!

Needless to say I agree with Anthony and Andreas.

It also seems it's not established that the point (or benefit) of ankylai is greater range rather than greater hitting power and/or greater accuracy (I understand the ankyle doesn't itself confer accuracy, but a lower trajectory and higher speed missile is more likely to hit a target, especially a moving one). Range isn't an advantage if, as we've said, it just means expending more ammunition ineffectively. No doubt, depends in part on circumstances.

Atlatl experiments I've seen seem always to stress the greater power.

Also - is the benefit that it allows a heavier spear to be thrown?

Not something it's possible to determine either way I expect. The ankyle was worth having or people wouldn't have had it; but it's not certain this is because of greater range, and whether it is or not, not many wargames rules would be better off for modelling this factor explicitly (at least not ones that anyone would ever want to play).

I suppose a lot depends on what one wants to model. Rulesets correspond as much to playability and the players' imaginations as to historical accuracy. Some aspects of DBM(M) - like the substantial lack of fog of war (Caesar would have stood no chance at Pharsalus if he was playing DBM) and the PIP command system - are wildly inaccurate but are used because any alternative becomes unplayable or at least burdensome to play. If players became keen about the ankyle and how cool it is that you can throw a javelin further with it then it will be incorporated in the rules - make (I) javelineers in DBMM (O) for example. It would probably give the ankyle-throwers a bigger advantage than they historically had, but overall shouldn't make the wargamed battles less historically accurate in their outcomes than they already are.

QuoteIt would probably give the ankyle-throwers a bigger advantage than they historically had, but overall shouldn't make the wargamed battles less historically accurate in their outcomes than they already are.

It's not just about historical accuracy though.  Even if we were admitting to playing fantasy, there would still be the internal consistency of the game to think of. 

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 17, 2019, 11:44:57 AMSome aspects of DBM(M) - like the substantial lack of fog of war (Caesar would have stood no chance at Pharsalus if he was playing DBM)

Strange, he won the DBMM Battleday refight quite comfortably.

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 17, 2019, 01:25:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 17, 2019, 11:44:57 AMSome aspects of DBM(M) - like the substantial lack of fog of war (Caesar would have stood no chance at Pharsalus if he was playing DBM)

Strange, he won the DBMM Battleday refight quite comfortably.

Yes, I've wondered how 6000 cavalry would lose against 1000 cavalry if the Pompeian player knows there are some cohorts behind the Caesarian cavalry and just outflanks them.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 17, 2019, 08:13:31 AM
But the view of experienced users of the rules is that this creates too great an advantage.  You would also have to compare it with other troop types within the rules who are in the category.  For example, I don't think the Psiloi category differentiates by weapon but by function, so all sorts of archers and slingers are in the mix.

Fair enough.  I have only used DBM once and DBMM never, so will just accept that the system is too insensitive for historically-based differences in weaponry accoutrements to be meaningful.

This appears to be a recurrent problem; we identify what appears to be a useful historical practice conferring an effective historical edge only to find that our current rules sets are too insensitive to accommodate it.  Assuming people see this as a problem, of course.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 17, 2019, 07:37:55 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on April 17, 2019, 08:13:31 AM
But the view of experienced users of the rules is that this creates too great an advantage.  You would also have to compare it with other troop types within the rules who are in the category.  For example, I don't think the Psiloi category differentiates by weapon but by function, so all sorts of archers and slingers are in the mix.

Fair enough.  I have only used DBM once and DBMM never, so will just accept that the system is too insensitive for historically-based differences in weaponry accoutrements to be meaningful.

This appears to be a recurrent problem; we identify what appears to be a useful historical practice conferring an effective historical edge only to find that our current rules sets are too insensitive to accommodate it.  Assuming people see this as a problem, of course.

I think there is a whole package of rule writing theory and practice wrapped up there.  You favour, as I recall, bottom-up systems and a level of granularity which distinguishes quite similar weapon types.  Others prefer "effect" based systems which contain more abstraction.  Other than having sound evidence that thonged javelins can be thrown further and hunting practice suggesting they could be thrown with some accuracy, we have no obvious "effects" to model.  Even with range, many modern rules don't use strict ground scale, so the differences in javelin throwing distances may not be significant.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 18, 2019, 08:49:38 AM
Even with range, many modern rules don't use strict ground scale, so the differences in javelin throwing distances may not be significant.

The old conundrum: different enough to matter, but not to show.  That is, different enough to matter in real life but not in wargame rules.  As you correctly mention, currently popular rules have a higher degree of abstraction than their forebears, which tends to swallow up such niceities.  This can be mildly disappointing to some who spend time and effort answering historical equipment analysis questions and then ask: "How do we reflect this in wargame rules?" - and find they cannot.

The only real harm I can see is that when people are brought up on abstract rules, they tend to have an abstract approach to how armies fought, which can be less than conducive to clear perception when addressing historical questions.  That said, the day I find a rules set which is quick and easy to play and reliably includes all equipment, doctrinal and command/control effects, I shall let you know. :)

One feature of the javelin-and-ankyle arrangement is that it was part of an overall combat doctrine, a thought-out approach: long, thin weapon heads increase penetration and deform upon impact, resulting in casualties tending to be incapacitated rather than lightly wounded, and being difficult to reuse.  This indicates an emphasis on a short and presumably sharp skirmishing period as opposed to an extended session, whereas the longer lonche (and perhaps the Romans hasta) remained reusable, perhaps encouraging an anklye-less foe to throw them back, thus helping with the supply of friendly ammunition and keeping open options about when to commit the heavy infantry.  If we assume correctly that the ankyle improved accuracy as well as range, a lonche-equipped skirmishing force could have a range and accuracy advantage over their grosphos or akontion*-equipped targets.

*ordinary javelin

This could be relevant when Hannibal's peltasts encountered Roman velites, as the shorter, lighter hasta velitaris, Polybius' grosphos, might well have been outshot by the Carthaginian lonchophoroi.  Just a thought, and one which raises the question: has anyone attempted to work out the useful range of a lonche?

All of which assumes that

- javelin-armed troops with a throwing strap chucked their weapons at maximum range, not the range when they're likely to hit anything
- the opposing javelin-armed troops without a throwing strap didn't advance 10 paces to return the compliment.

Mick

QuoteThe old conundrum: different enough to matter, but not to show.  That is, different enough to matter in real life but not in wargame rules.

Was it different enough to matter?   Certainly, the use of thonged javelins was pretty universal in classical times, which must mean it was advantageous.  You could throw further with it.  But was it just a marginal advantage?  Do we model all these marginal advantages?  There are rules out there that do this.  I remember a set of Western gunfight rules that modelled the characteristics of different types of revolver.  Outside skirmish games, it seems to me few people would want this.

QuoteOne feature of the javelin-and-ankyle arrangement is that it was part of an overall combat doctrine, a thought-out approach: long, thin weapon heads increase penetration and deform upon impact, resulting in casualties tending to be incapacitated rather than lightly wounded, and being difficult to reuse.

You are muddling your reading here, I think.  The hasta velitaris appears to be a Roman tactical innovation unconnected to the use of the amentum, which was widely used by other cultures, presumably with their favourite type of javelin.  Whether velites should have an advantage over other skirmishers because of their special javelin, heavier kit (big shield, proper sword), different tactics or historically recorded enhanced effect is another question which you are free to open another topic on - I note that you were discussing velite tactics elsewhere with Mariano.

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?

Quote from: Erpingham on April 18, 2019, 10:29:02 AM
But was it just a marginal advantage?  Do we model all these marginal advantages?  There are rules out there that do this.  I remember a set of Western gunfight rules that modelled the characteristics of different types of revolver.  Outside skirmish games, it seems to me few people would want this.

It becomes a case of: what do all these marginal advantages actually add up to?  Who won the skirmishing at the Trebia or Cannae, and with what effect?  Did it make any difference to the next stage of the battle?  Or did the battle proceed much the same but with a lopsided casualty ratio between both sides' skirmishers?

I have reason to suspect the latter at the Trebia; there were of course other 'marginal advantages' Hannibal cunningly added in, notably encouraging the Romans to use up most of their javelins against the Numidians and to get themselves thoroughly wet before engaging his troops.  The Carthaginian skirmishers operated effectively during each phase of the battle (once they had done their usual skirmishing, they pulled back through their own heavy infantry, split and came round the Roman flanks).  The velites appear to have been comprehensively outfought.

At the Trebia, Hannibal added up the effects of several minor advantages, none of which in themselves made a significant diference, but taken together resulted in clear superiority.  If reflecting this in rules, I would favour a 'star system' in which mini-advantages each accrue a star (*) and if you have three more stars than your opponent, you get a combat factor (or whatever) advantage.  This would of course only be meaningful in a system where the random element was not very great.  Since any stars conferred by equipment and training would be permanent, the only ones requiring to be checked for would be (usually) one to three situational modifiers (e.g. wind? wet? weariness?).

Quote

QuoteOne feature of the javelin-and-ankyle arrangement is that it was part of an overall combat doctrine, a thought-out approach: long, thin weapon heads increase penetration and deform upon impact, resulting in casualties tending to be incapacitated rather than lightly wounded, and being difficult to reuse.

You are muddling your reading here, I think.  The hasta velitaris appears to be a Roman tactical innovation unconnected to the use of the amentum, which was widely used by other cultures, presumably with their favourite type of javelin.

Kind of you to say 'reading' rather than 'thinking', but yes, fair point.

QuoteThe 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).

Quote from: Mick Hession on April 18, 2019, 09:50:49 AM
All of which assumes that

- javelin-armed troops with a throwing strap chucked their weapons at maximum range, not the range when they're likely to hit anything
- the opposing javelin-armed troops without a throwing strap didn't advance 10 paces to return the compliment.

And that the men of the ankyle-equipped side were in a position to fall back when the other side threw.  Yes, it predicates a ceretain tactical approach and that at any given range the chaps with thongs would have a better hit rate than those without.  Au fond, it is just one of those assumptions that if you bother with an extra bit of kit, it is because the extra item is worthwhile.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 18, 2019, 10:54:26 AM

QuoteThe 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.

 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.

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 18, 2019, 11:31:20 AM
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.

Quote from: manomano on April 18, 2019, 04:22:22 PM
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.

QuoteWe 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.

QuoteIn 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.

  "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.

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.

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.

Quote"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.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2019, 10:30:52 AM
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.

QuoteSo 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.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2019, 10:52:04 AM
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. :)

QuoteThe 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.

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..

QuoteThe 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 :)

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Mick Hession on April 17, 2019, 09:08:06 AM

Quote from: PMBardunias on April 16, 2019, 08:35:50 PM

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.

 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.

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 (https://youtu.be/3WFqbVGYIXU).  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 (https://www.grizzlystik.com/Tissue-Resistance-to-Arrow-Penetration.aspx)).  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.

QuoteFor 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.

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.

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.

"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.
 

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!).

QuoteI 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.

QuoteHowever 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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Mark G on May 03, 2019, 12:20:34 PM
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.

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.

QuoteI 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. :)

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.

Others considerations

I wrote about arrows not for only  for the loss of the energy on the distance but
primary to estimate the loss in distance  to lauch a similar object with a double weight with the same strenght ( 150 lbs)and the contrary.
Note: the 1,9 oz arrow have a diameter of 10 mm, the 3,3 oz of 12,7
Others results by Pratt,Stretton,Stanley,Walker are very similar.

Why?
Because the olimpic jav is 800 gr , our battle jav is 400-500 gr
To built a reasonable replica  take a broomstick and mount on it a rod of iron 1 cm diameter 40 cm long:
500 gr total weight , 150 cm long
a better balance weapon  that  using  a more short and large point.
Instinctively  you hold it just behind  the point, you hold an uniform bar at the middle.

History of Jav in modern olimpic games.
Modern jav are hallow and made in Al  and or glass fiber and follow rigid rules in making and
have much more than  some help from aerodynamic lift
To decresed the range the centre of gravity was moved foward of only 4 cm
giving a loss of performance of 1/5   (100:80)
But in the first years the javs were solid and much similar to the ancient one.
In 1912 the record is 62 m in 1906 53 m  ( 24 m/s , 22  m/s ) but the average was only 32 m  ( 18 m/s)
with a balanced object built to fly not to kill.
So, these last values must be used in comparison.
But remember with a run-up.

Returning to the arrows:
A 150 lbs bow lauch a  60 gr arrow at  320 ys  ( Strickland and Hardy)
A 100 lbs bow lauch the same arrow at  230 ys (Pratt also  24- 300 , 40 - 255)  (Stretton 50- 250 , 100 225 )

1 lbs = 4,448 N

At what distance a man with a force in the arm of 400 N  can launch a unbalanced 400 gr jav?
It' not the double of olimpic jav but less.
But the distance for a pila is not the half but more.

In my opinion:
An exceptional trained man  at 70 m , the average  trained man at  43 m , an ordinary draft soldier probably  less.
This give us for a jav a average  K of 80 J , so the historical effect can be understood.
At  very long range also a modest protetion given by a coat can be sufficient to avoid wounds.

Quote1 lbs = 4,448 N

In the UK we would write this as 4.448 N, for those confused.

As to range, we have experimental data (its where this all started).  I'd rather we started from there than speculation based on 100 year old javelin records, adjusted on a guesstimate basis.

To get a launch energy of 80 J with a 450g javelin would give a launch speed of around 19 m/s, I think.  While I can understand the reasoning that trained athletes were more efficient and therefore ancient throwers would not attain the same launch speed, is this an appropriate scale reduction?

For , . sorry

I dont' make any reduction for an eventually unbalanced weapon, too many variables:
the iron  head is long and narrow as I think is better or short and large?
No reduction for air resistance but I reported it for jav are:   drag coefficient  1,2  aerodynamic index 5,53
I calculate a 400 gr weight because it's is  just the half of 800 gr and I think a reasonable weapon , so vel is 20,6 m/s for average shot  and over 26 m/s for the best shot.
The bow was discovered because is much better than a man's arm.
The difference between  the best and average shot  for  ancient warrior is the same as for  athletes  in 1906-30 period,
The olimpic ranges are increased  for ancient jav because weapon is more light.
I used confirmed reports for the average range  when olimpic jav was solid.