Reading through Karen Becker's dissertation (see the Morgarten thread) that stone throwing was a distinctive part of Swiss tactics. She notes its use at Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1386). It is also recorded at laupen (1339).
Now, stone throwing does occur in various medieval combats. The Vikings were quite into stone throwing (and, indeed, the Kings Mirror, a manual for household warriors, includes stone throwing as something they should practice). In Britain, it appears at the battle of Falkirk (1298) and at Lincoln in 1141, where king Stephen is disabled by a stone and captured. In Italy, a thrown stone wounds Konrad von Landau in the face at the battle of Canturino in 1363, leading to his mortal wounding by a lance shortly afterwards.
Doubtless, the more classical among us will find numerous examples of similar rock hurling in antiquity.
Now, clearly, in many cases, the stone is a weapon of opportunity and, outside skirmish games, probably doesn't need to be considered rules wise. But are there examples where we should take it into account e.g. as a skirmisher weapon?
Quote from: Erpingham on November 18, 2015, 10:48:20 AM
Doubtless, the more classical among us will find numerous examples of similar rock hurling in antiquity.
Indeed (http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/XDB/ASP/recordDetailsLarge.asp?recordCount=1&id=%7B8A3D8D18-F058-47B6-8429-40A99D7BBBEC%7D&fileName=IMAGES100%2F207%2F207390%2EB%2F&returnPage=&start=).
DBM/MM tends to just treat stone-throwers as "inferior psiloi", which seems fair enough. But I vaguely recall one older WRG edition which allowed troops on a steep hill to throw stones or roll rocks down the slope.
Piles of fist sized pebbles (for throwing by hand, or with a sling/staff sling) are a relatively common feature in the archaeology of fortifications throughout our period. The also feature in various written sources.
Warriors throwing stones were also a feature of Guanche armies in the Canary Isles.
Not sure if tiles quite count as stones but certainly tiles are generally an improvised weapon and rather useful in certain circumstances - as Pyrrhus of Epirus found out to his cost.
Hand-thrown stones were very common in Irish warfare and could be more effective against Norman Knights than javelins. An Irish account of Pharsalus (for which I'm working out a slingshot piece) has this passage, for example:
"With that the armies resorted to their missiles, and began to hurl them from each of the two sides. They were too numerous to estimate. Hurled between them were many edged javelins and deadly, pointed darts, and stakes with their ends burnt, and arrows dipped and gilded, and conical hand-stones, and flagstones for flinging, and apple-lumps of iron, and plug-lumps of lead, and round sling-stones."
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Tim on November 18, 2015, 07:54:56 PM
Not sure if tiles quite count as stones but certainly tiles are generally an improvised weapon and rather useful in certain circumstances - as Pyrrhus of Epirus found out to his cost.
millstones (for a household not a watermill) dropped on people were a popular option as well
Jim
Hussites kept boxes in their wagons full of stones, apparently
cheap, widely available, everybody has been practicing using them since the age of about three or four
In urban areas, roof tiles take the place of stones. Just ask Pyrrhus.
Come on rules writers - Civilians +1 v. Superior General in BUA, or your rules are rubbish.
Josephus, Jewish War, Book III, chapter 7, section 21:
"And here a certain Jew appeared worthy of our relation and commendation; he was the son of Sameas, and was called Eleazar, and was born at Saab, in Galilee. This man took up a stone of a vast bigness, and threw it down from the wall upon the ram, and this with so great a force, that it broke off the head of the engine."
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 19, 2015, 09:53:08 AM
Josephus, Jewish War, Book III, chapter 7, section 21:
"And here a certain Jew appeared worthy of our relation and commendation; he was the son of Sameas, and was called Eleazar, and was born at Saab, in Galilee. This man took up a stone of a vast bigness, and threw it down from the wall upon the ram, and this with so great a force, that it broke off the head of the engine."
Almost qualifies as an ethnic weapon :)
Judges 9:50-57
50 Next Abimelek went to Thebez and besieged it and captured it. 51 Inside the city, however, was a strong tower, to which all the men and women—all the people of the city—had fled. They had locked themselves in and climbed up on the tower roof. 52 Abimelek went to the tower and attacked it. But as he approached the entrance to the tower to set it on fire, 53 a woman dropped an upper millstone on his head and cracked his skull.
54 Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can't say, 'A woman killed him.'" So his servant ran him through, and he died. 55 When the Israelites saw that Abimelek was dead, they went home.
We seem to have several trends here. In defensive warfare, rocks can be stockpiled or ad hoc weapons. They can also be larger, able to breal siege equipment. In the open field, two strands of use - weapon of opportunity and coming into the field expecting to throw rocks. In this latter case, do we presume rocks are picked up from the battlefield rather than carried on to it?
I vaguely recall a Roman account of soldiers being sent to collect stones from a riverbed. I think it may be in a play
?? Patrick ??
Quote from: tadamson on November 19, 2015, 12:52:57 PM
I vaguely recall a Roman account of soldiers being sent to collect stones from a riverbed. I think it may be in a play
Vegetius IV.8 - "Saxa rotunda de fluuiis, quia pro soliditate grauiora sunt et aptiora mittentibus, diligentissime colliguntur".
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 19, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: tadamson on November 19, 2015, 12:52:57 PM
I vaguely recall a Roman account of soldiers being sent to collect stones from a riverbed. I think it may be in a play
Vegetius IV.8 - "Saxa rotunda de fluuiis, quia pro soliditate grauiora sunt et aptiora mittentibus, diligentissime colliguntur".
A quick look up on this shows that this is in the context of fortification and stockpiling. However Vegetius I 16 apparently talks about training soldiers to throw stones of one roman pound in weight.
From Xenophon's Anabasis 4.8.3, c. 400 BC (quoted from this page (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0202%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D8%3Asection%3D3) of the Perseus Digital Library for ease:
But the Macronians, armed with wicker shields and lances and hair tunics, were drawn up in line of battle opposite the place where the Greeks must cross, and they were cheering one another on and throwing stones, which fell into the stream; for they never reached the Greeks or did them any harm.
Macronians = Macrones, one a of a number of tribal names reported by the ancient Greeks from the southeastern shores of the Black Sea, towards its eastern end. In this case, it seems to imply the stones were weapons of opportunity in the absence of any better missile options.
Ariovistus' cavalry throw stones at Caesar's mounted legionary bodyguard to provoke them at the pre battle cnference.
Caesar Gallic War I 46
While these things are being transacted in the conference it was announced to Caesar that the cavalry of Ariovistus were approaching nearer the mound, and were riding up to our men, and casting stones and weapons at them. Caesar made an end of his speech and betook himself to his men; and commanded them that they should by no means return a weapon upon the enemy. For though he saw that an engagement with the cavalry would be without any danger to his chosen legion, yet he did not think proper to engage, lest, after the enemy were routed, it might be said that they had been insnared by him under the sanction of a conference. When it was spread abroad among the common soldiery with what haughtiness Ariovistus had behaved at the conference, and how he had ordered the Romans to quit Gaul, and how his cavalry had made an attack upon our men, and how this had broken off the conference, a much greater alacrity and eagerness for battle was infused into our army.
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 19, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: tadamson on November 19, 2015, 12:52:57 PM
I vaguely recall a Roman account of soldiers being sent to collect stones from a riverbed. I think it may be in a play
Vegetius IV.8 - "Saxa rotunda de fluuiis, quia pro soliditate grauiora sunt et aptiora mittentibus, diligentissime colliguntur".
Tom, Duncan beat me to it ... well done, Duncan! :)
Quote from: Erpingham on November 19, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
A quick look up on this shows that this is in the context of fortification and stockpiling. However Vegetius I 16 apparently talks about training soldiers to throw stones of one roman pound in weight.
This seems to be Vegetius I.15:
Recruits are to be taught the art of throwing stones both with the hand and sling. The inhabitants of the Balearic Islands are said to have been the inventors of slings, and to have managed them with surprising dexterity, owing to the manner of bringing up their children. The children were not allowed to have their food by their mothers till they had first struck it with their sling. Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city.Overall, as Anthony points out, we do see a couple of trends emerging: stones, especially of considerable size and weight, are often stockpiled by defenders when a siege is in prospect, on the basis that weight+height+gravity gives you plenty of thump for the buck. Or rock. On the battlefield, they tend to be weapons of last resort or, at best, substitutes for decent missile weapons (however, the Galatians in 189 BC appear to have relied upon them as their principal missile weapon when holding mountain positions against Romans - a bad idea, as the Romans came prepared with plenty of proper missilemen and missiles, probably on account of Pergamene advice).
WRG 6th had an 'Improvised Peasant Weapon' category to cover "spades, rakes, forks, scythes and cloddenbeatles" brought to the battlefield. Rules systems with similar levels of detail could introduce an 'Improvised Missile Weapon' category which underperforms against 'proper' missile weapons except when gravity is in its favour. In today's faster-play and more abstract systems, activity with stones is probably subsumed under that one-die-roll-decides-all combat outcome.
This is going to seem a bit sad but googling revealed
Archaeology in Confrontation: Aspects of Roman Military Presence in the Northwest : Studies in Honour of Prof. Em. Hugo Thoen, wherein is a chapter The Hand thrown stones from the Roman Fort of Maldagem Vake (East Flanders Belgium) which has more archaeological evidence than you'd really want about the stones stockpiled in Roman forts - size, shape etc. (and pictures of stones!).
Oh, and the article locates the "stones of one pound in weight" - it's in Vegetius II, 23.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 20, 2015, 12:40:24 PM
Oh, and the article locates the "stones of one pound in weight" - it's in Vegetius II, 23.
Thanks, Anthony.
Just to quote Vegetius II.23 (subsumed under II.17 in Clark's translation (http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/)):
"
The archers and slingers set up bundles of twigs or straw for marks, and generally strike them with arrows and with stones from the fustibalus (http://www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2013/05/24/the-mighty-staff-sling/#_ftn4) at the distance of six hundred feet. They acquired coolness and exactness in action from familiar custom and exercise in the field. The slingers should be taught to whirl the sling but once about the head before they cast the stone. Formerly all soldiers were trained to the practice of throwing stones of a pound weight with the hand, as this was thought a readier method since it did not require a sling. The use of the common missile weapons and loaded javelins was another part of the drill strictly attended to."
If anyone is interested there is a fascinating article on lethality of projectiles here and was done to actually assess the non-lethality of projectiles as an alternative means of incapacity of targets. The rules, formulae and underpining principles apply to ancient and well as modern weapons and can be used to assess the effectiveness of stones thrown by hand. There is a rather nice little graph on page 12 which gives a 'crude' indicator of projectile lethality. In the case of our humble stone I did a quick calculation using the principles of the '4 parameter model' and applying it to the graph
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwii3b2xzqbJAhVGvBQKHXp2BHMQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isofms.org%2Fcms_uploads%2FKineticNon-LethalWeapons_Koene_Id-Boufker_Papy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHbTsBKlWHVXShX7seHmrFOGCKHvA (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwii3b2xzqbJAhVGvBQKHXp2BHMQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isofms.org%2Fcms_uploads%2FKineticNon-LethalWeapons_Koene_Id-Boufker_Papy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHbTsBKlWHVXShX7seHmrFOGCKHvA)
If we assume that the the target is 70kg in mass (as per the model in the article) and that the projectile is approximately 7cm in diameter (approximately a cricket ball size) and comprised of granite (density 2.5 g/cm3) and the speed of the throw is 30m/s (67mph) then:
ln (mass of target x diameter of projectile) = (70kg x 7cm) = 6.19 (vertical axis mark)
ln (mass of projectile x speed of projectile squared) = (450g x 30m/s2) = 12.9 (horizontal axis mark)
This result comes up as just in the non lethal range of results. Of course this doesnt take into account area hit (eg head) and a few other variables but it is interesting non the less. By increasing the weight and size of the rock to 10cm but keeping the speed of throw the same, it is still non lethal. The true way to increase lethality is to increase the speed and in our example we would need to increase the throw of our cricket ball sized stone to 47m/s (105mph) for it to creep into the mixed results bag. Alternatively the other way is to increase the lethality of the projectile is to increase the density, for example lead, which is around 11g/cm3 or over 4 times denser than granite!
Anyway, read the article and have a play with the calculations, most illuminating!
Also not specifically to do with stone throwing but an interesting article overall with regards to projectiles
http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/JOHT59Faster.html (http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/JOHT59Faster.html)
Interesting find Dave, but I'm not sure lethality is necessarily the key element here. A broken limb, concussion, flesh wound (any of whose chances of lethality was far higher subsequently in ancient times than modernly) or simply the fear of severe bruising would be enough to make thrown stones effective at putting an enemy off its stroke, plus I'm not sure how anyone would manage to achieve an impact velocity of 105 mph with a hand-thrown stone, given that the fastest modern cricket deliveries barely reach 100 mph as the ball leaves the bowler's hand - and the speed will have reduced by the time it reaches its target, depending on how far away that target is (cricket fast bowling records page (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/95065.html)).
A head hit has a greater chance of lethality in even quite a low velocity case too (given an adult can accidentally kill themselves by simply falling from their own height and striking the ground with their head).
In addition, this "rubber bullet" analysis deals with projectiles that have no projecting edges, and are made of materials designed not to kill, which doesn't seem to apply to many types of stone.
absolutely. Head strikes will incapacitate if not kill at lower speeds. Found it really interesting as an article in its own right as you wonder if acient slingers using lead bullets had worked out that they could do more damage than with an equal-sized (if much lighter) stone
Quote from: Holly on November 23, 2015, 08:10:29 PM
absolutely. Head strikes will incapacitate if not kill at lower speeds. Found it really interesting as an article in its own right as you wonder if ancient slingers using lead bullets had worked out that they could do more damage than with an equal-sized (if much lighter) stone
I recall an early Slingshot article on Balearic slingers mentioning that they carried three different slings for delivering three types of ammunition at different ranges. Slings not in use were wrapped around the belt or forehead.
Ammunition types were:
Long range: small stones (about the size of lead bullets)
Medium range: lead bullets
Short range: heavy stones.
The heavy stones used seem to have been of a size and weight that others would hurl by hand, so the Balearic slinger added a bit of velocity and impact, not to mention range, to these missiles. Apparently they would stop a Roman in his tracks, shield and all.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 24, 2015, 10:10:18 AM
I recall an early Slingshot article on Balearic slingers mentioning that they carried three different slings for delivering three types of ammunition at different ranges. Slings not in use were wrapped around the belt or forehead.
Ammunition types were:
Long range: small stones (about the size of lead bullets)
Medium range: lead bullets
Short range: heavy stones.
The three Balearic slings come from Diodoros, V.18.3:
QuoteTheir equipment for fighting consists of three slings, and of these they keep one around the head, another around the belly, and the third in the hands. In the business of war they hurl much larger stones than do any other slingers, and with such force that the missile seems to have been shot, as it were, from a catapult; consequently, in their assaults upon walled cities, they strike the defenders on the battlements and disable them, and in pitched battles they crush both shields and helmets and every kind of protective armour. And they are so accurate in their aim that in the majority of cases they never miss the target before them. The reason for this is the continual practice which they get from childhood, in that their mothers compel them, while still young boys, to use the sling continually; for there is set up before them as a target a piece of bread fastened to a stake, and the novice is not permitted to eat until he has hit the bread, whereupon he takes it from his mother with her permission and devours it.
Florus I.43 has a shorter version of the same story:
QuoteThey fight with three slings apiece; and who can wonder that their aim is so accurate, seeing that this is their only kind of arm and its employment their sole pursuit from infancy? A boy receives no food from his mother except what he has struck down under her instruction.
According to Livy XXXVIII.29 the Achaian slingers were better than the Balearics anyway:
QuoteA hundred slingers were recruited from Aegium and Patrae and Dymae. These peoples were trained from boyhood, in accordance with a tradition of the race, in hurling with a sling at the open sea the round stones which, mingled with the sand, generally strew the coasts. In consequence they use this weapon at longer range, with greater accuracy and with more powerful effect than the Balearic slinger. Moreover, the sling is not composed of a single strap, like those of the Baleares and other peoples, but the bullet-carrier is triple, strengthened with numerous seams, that the missile may not fly out at random, from the pliancy of the strap at the moment of discharge, but, seated firmly while being whirled, may be shot out as if from a bow-string. Having been trained to shoot through rings of moderate circumference from long distances, they would wound not merely the heads of their enemies but any part of the face at which they might have aimed.
Nobody mentions differing ammunition for different ranges, though.
Thanks, Duncan: I do remember the article being unreferenced, which made checking details a bit problematic.
I wonder if the Achaean sling is of a family, or at least some form of vague relationship, with the Macedonian dart-hurling kestrosphedrone.
'which has more archaeological evidence than you'd really want'
Exactly how much is that in relation to Romans? Not ever reached that point myself...