The effects of missiles - how important were armour and shields?

[Patrick Waterson]

I have never tested a javelin but I guess that it cannot pierce bronze, am I right?

Yes and no: it depends upon a number of factors, such as the weight of the weapon, the force with which it is thrown, the angle at which it strikes the target (a direct 90-degree strike has more chance of penetrating) and how well the armour fits the wearer (loose-fitting or very tight-fitting armour is easier to penetrate).  There are (if I remember correctly) 52 factors or variables that affect penetration of armour by a projectile, from quality of manufacture to wind and humidity, but of these only about 10-12 will really matter.

Hoplites mostly ceased to wear bronze between 479 BC and 431 BC: the linen thorax (linothorax, pictured here) seems to have replaced it as the armour of choice and remained in fashion until Parthians and the expanding Roman Empire caused metal armour to start being re-adopted as protection.  (I would point out that Macedonian kings also wore iron armour styled to resemble the linothorax; an example was discovered in Philip II's grave at Vergina).  Here are some modern reproductions of the 'linothorax' style of armour.

It would seem that the hoplite relied on his shield to stop a javelin, and it is possible that the round, convex hoplon or aspis was a better javelin-stopper than the rectangular scutum or thureos; in the incident at Lechaeum, Iphicrates' peltasts place great importance on getting to the right (unshielded) side of their hoplite targets in order to shoot effectively.  The younger Spartans who chased the peltasts suffered losses when returning to the main formation, when their shields were away from the enemy, leaving them vulnerable.

When in formation, hoplites would be able to rely on the protection of their shields.  A combination of direct and indirect shooting, as seems to have occurred at Sphacteria, would give them problems because of the difficulty of holding shields up to cover their heads and forward to cover their bodies at the same time.  Simple volleys of javelins from ahead do not seem to have troubled them (this may be why Greeks gave up the second, throwing, spear during the 6th century BC - it would have been ineffectual against shielded hoplites).

Even when bronze armour was in general use, e.g. in 480-479 BC, the Spartan hoplites at Plataea still suffered casualties from Persian arrows and remained behind their shields until the order was given to advance (Herodotus IX.61).  Most if not all of these casualties would have been arrow wounds in unprotected parts of the body: arms, legs, neck and perhaps a few unlucky shots through helmet slits into the face.

Greek armour was designed to keep an active wearer alive in melee: it provided reasonable protection against missiles but not complete safety.  It would seem that the shield was intended to provide the additional protection the armour lacked, and this is also the case with Roman legionaries, Caesar (Gallic War V.35) noting that legionaries were vulnerable to javelins thrown at their unshielded (right) side.

All armour is a compromise between protection and mobility.  If one wears too little armour, one rapidly becomes a casualty.  If one wears too much armour, one can collapse under the burden and become a casualty, like a Parthian armoured camel or a dismounted Sarmatian - so the ideal amount of armour reduces vulnerability and makes it more likely that the wearer will emerge from a hard fight wounded but still alive.