Princepes with spears?

I was just wondering why the Eb team decided to have the princepes wield a spear instead of a gladius? It seems other mods [and the vanilla version] agree they were just a heavier amoured, veteraned, hastati-type infrantry, while this mod sees them without the swords of the hastati. In the EB they are almost a cross between hastati and triarii.

Does the EB team have any super secret evidence the other modders and games designers don't have? Is the spear just a hunch? Did they use both a spear and a sword and so you decided that for a more unique unit the spears were right?

I'm very curious about this. I love the mod and i have a blast no matter which faction i play. Sometimes when I need a break from the loading times i fire up vanilla or another RTW mod, and they just look ridiculous in comparison, and i quickly exit and play EB.

So cheers, and thanks for your time and help.:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swebozbozboz

Sometimes when I need a break from the loading times i fire up vanilla or another RTW mod, and they just look ridiculous in comparison, and i quickly exit and play EB.

---

Haha I knoew what you mean, today I startes a Vanilla RTW campain as Egypt, and I almost fell out of my seat laughing as soon as I saw the charioteers and Egyptain New-Kingdom infantry.

No idea about the Principes though, if it's in EB, then chances are it's historically accurate.

That's a good question - that's what I wanted to know too when I first started playing.

Also, not trying to hijack the topic from the poster, but: Why do almost
80%+ of the foot soldier units have javelins they can throw? I didn't know so many barbarian, egyptian, easter, etc factions threw pillas before charging...

AFAIK the theory goes that the early "Camillian" Princeps used spears (a sort of leftover from the old hoplite army), and the first-line Hastati were the only ones using short swords as their primary melee weapons around that time. Later this changed - probably partially prompted by the adoption of the excellent gladius hispaniensis - which is in EB represented by the "Polybian" reforms and the accompanying changes in the unit roster.

Camillan principes have a hasta (spear) in EB. Wait for the Polybian reforms to get the later principes with pila and sword. The Vanilla version of RTW started with Polybian style troops, that's why.

hope this answers your question. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

Also, not trying to hijack the topic from the poster, but: Why do almost
80%+ of the foot soldier units have javelins they can throw? I didn't know so many barbarian, egyptian, easter, etc factions threw pillas before charging...

---

'Cause it's a simple, cheap and cheerful way to provide foot soldiers in particular with some ranged punch that can be used to inflict casualties and disorder in the enemy ranks before close combat. The tactic actually survived pretty long into the Middle Ages, although Europeans weren't overall that fond of it anymore. Nonetheless period sources often refer to javelin-throwing being regarded as part of the proper training of a good soldier, and even knights practised it; they're also mentioned in use by light cavalry in some fairly late-period battles.

but is it historically accurate to portray so many foot soldiers as having javelins? even the aedui, averni, casse, sweboz, etc factions?

thxs

Yes because pretty much every foot soldier in the ancient world used some form of javelin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

That's a good question - that's what I wanted to know too when I first started playing.

Also, not trying to hijack the topic from the poster, but: Why do almost
80%+ of the foot soldier units have javelins they can throw? I didn't know so many barbarian, egyptian, easter, etc factions threw pillas before charging...

---

Sorry for the double post but several people posted while I wrote my first one and I wanted to quote for this one.


Of course the others don't use pila but various javelins. Spears and Javelins were the main weapons used especially by Germanics. In such areas where metal production was comparably low swords were only used by richer people.

In the eastern parts the light to medium skirmishers like peltastai for example were in use for quite some time already so the throwing spear was not a Roman invention although the Romans themselves thought that troops like thorakitai were copied from them. This is not true of course because the troops in the east developed independently and such types of soldiers appeared already before the Romans came into any major military contact with the east.

k thxs

I WANNA GET GOOD AT THROWING THE JAVELING!!!!!:yes:

I understand the thing is among the easiest of ranged weapons to learn (one reason to its extreme popularity), so just grab a suitable stick and go practice in your back yard. What are you waiting for, trooper ? Move move move! :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna

In the eastern parts the light to medium skirmishers like peltastai for example were in use for quite some time already so the throwing spear was not a Roman invention although the Romans themselves thought that troops like thorakitai were copied from them. This is not true of course because the troops in the east developed independently and such types of soldiers appeared already before the Romans came into any major military contact with the east.

---

By what I've read the pilum wasn't a Roman invention either - they picked it up from other mid/northern Italian peoples and refined the concept. Specimen have been excavated from Etruscan contexts, apparently, for one example.

Out East the idea of "precursor" throwing-spears AFAIK go back at least to Late Bronze Age. For more "primitive" peoples it was a very logical developement in any case - just about all of them used javelins for hunting larger game to begin with, so warriors could be expected to both own and be skilled with them; after skirmish use (the easily most logical one, especially for low-organization low-population "primitives) the idea of tossing them at the enemy warband en masse before charging in cannot have been a very demanding leap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

I WANNA GET GOOD AT THROWING THE JAVELING!!!!!:yes:

---

Okay here you go:
grab yourself a stick, make sure the front is relatively heavy compared to the rest of it;
lean over to the side of one of your legs (either left or right depending on what you prefer), so that your other is tensed;
grab your stick, and make sure to use your left hand if you're leaning over on your left leg and use your right hand if it would be your right leg - make sure that the arm is tensed;
make sure that the tip of your stick is on the same height as your nose, and that it's pointing in a 45 degree angle with the ground - keep everything tensed;
quickly move your weight from one of your legs (the right one if your hold your 'javelin' in your right hand) to the other, whilst jumping up a little without actually getting "airborne", and hurl away your javelin - all at the same time.

If you use a proper javelin like you're given for atletics, then you should be able to easily hurl it some 18 metres away or more. After just 1 - 3 rounds of practice that is.

Now time to go for the kill. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Okay here you go:
grab yourself a stick, make sure the front is relatively heavy compared to the rest of it;
lean over to the side of one of your legs (either left or right depending on what you prefer), so that your other is tensed;
grab your stick, and make sure to use your left hand if you're leaning over on your left leg and use your right hand if it would be your right leg - make sure that the arm is tensed;
make sure that the tip of your stick is on the same height as your nose, and that it's pointing in a 45 degree angle with the ground - keep everything tensed;
quickly move your weight from one of your legs (the right one if your hold your 'javelin' in your right hand) to the other, whilst jumping up a little without actually getting "airborne", and hurl away your javelin - all at the same time.

If you use a proper javelin like you're given for atletics, then you should be able to easily hurl it some 18 metres away or more. After just 1 - 3 rounds of practice that is.

Now time to go for the kill. :grin:

---

Yes but for some reason medaeval troops in MTW2 dont prefer javilins anymore...

These are early Romans, I wouldnt expect to have them gloriously outfitted untill the time of Marius.

*shrug* Javelins sort of fell out of fashion in most parts of Europe by the Middle Ages. Dunno why really, but in any case they were quite popular among all warriors in the Iberian peninsula, High Medieval Italian city militia laws make passing references to them, and they remained in reasonably wide use in the Muslim world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

These are early Romans, I wouldnt expect to have them gloriously outfitted untill the time of Marius.

---

Given that the Republican militia armies bought their own gear I'd actually expect them to be more 'gloriously outfitted' (whatever that now means here) than the post-Marians with their mass-produced standard-issue kits...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Given that the Republican militia armies bought their own gear I'd actually expect them to be more 'gloriously outfitted' (whatever that now means here) than the post-Marians with their mass-produced standard-issue kits...

---

Comon! glorious as in Imperial troops of Rome (at least I think so...). The Hastati couldn't afford equipment like the triarri.

I think the Roman standard legionary kit went for "practical" rather than "imposing". The soldiers themselves of course, in a display of peacockry AFAIK common to all warriors everywhere over the ages (yes, even the modern ones; you know how much importance they actually load to those rank and service and unit badges and the fancy jewelry they're given for doing their jobs well, right ?), would then go on to add all kinds of decorative paraphenelia to suit their personal tastes and look more impressive. I understand many Centurions for example preferred the lorica squamata scale armour to the standard mail hamata, mainly because the scales could be polished to very impressively bright sheen...

Whew! ok WatchMan, You are quite the discusser and debater

But can you name an army that did not try to make themselves imposing by there equipment?

*crosses fingers

Well, guerillas have tended to be more concerned with stealth. Betcha that's one reason real soldiers have always so looked down on them. :balloon2:

Guerillas, maybe?

Whoops, Watchman beat me to it!

:2thumbsup:

Soo tired, I need to rest my brain.

I cant think of anything else

wow, this has turned into quite an informative thread!

ya, i would always get distracted with other factions before i got to any roman reforms.


@caesar augusus: ya i actualy did laugh out loud once when i saw some barbarians come from the britishs isles. they looked like a really really bad holloween sotume mixed with cheesy american football jersey's.



@watchman obviously his noodly appendage granted you witrh some major debating skills to fight off all the non-beleivers!


@everyone: this is excactly why i LOVE this forum! so many well read people, all gathered to talk about the stuff i love to talk about! not many flame-wars either, just a lot of discussions! it's so amazing! what a community EB has!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:2thumbsup:

---

Muhaha!

Ok, even guerillas raided in a scary (lack of a better word "scary") fasion. The brythonic raids, German raids and invasions at some points. Celt dyed their hair to promote teriffyingness (scariness).:2thumbsup:

@ Swebozbozboz- American football is awesome

the wolves of wodan are pretty scary! [xcept on my computer their weapons don't show up. they look like they are core dancing, if anyone knows what that is.]


ya i love american college and highschool football, and i play highschool football now. that's where it is at. But sometimes i take a step back and look at what we are wearing, it makes me laugh a lil'.

bright colors, metallic stripes, and big "scary" mascots, 3/4 length trousers, and long striped socks.

All for the benefit of the player though!

What is core dancing?

I don't think painting yourself black or blue, combing your hair into spikes, contorting your face (à la the Maoris) etc. quite count as "equipement". The Gaesatae are debatable of course. :eyebrows:

Anyway, they did that for set-piece battles too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swebozbozboz

@watchman obviously his noodly appendage granted you witrh some major debating skills to fight off all the non-beleivers!

---

Oh ye of little faith, His appendages mostly supply me with nutrition. Assuming enough mayonaise is available.

My 1337ness comes from the pirate regalia of course. :pirate2:

No but are part of their "promoting scariness" which is also part of armies tactics. I so won.

core dancing is what you do at moshcore or hxc shows. some do it at grindcore but it doens't work as well.


it may look a little silly but man it is a blast because the music is sooo loud and the lights are sooo bright that you just feel like you want to explode. I didn't see any spin kicks but i can do those and and double spin kicks.


this is the best video i could find in 20 seconds. [edit better vid]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oK0mGLtlAE


it's a blast. search around the net for more videos.

HAHA! every one of EB's unit should fight like that...

"Modern day barbarian battle", I presume ?:viking:

ya it was kinda funny how it worked out. I mixed in some of my own music into the EB music mix. some of my original and some real heavy moshcore for the battles to get it all suspenceful. Well, my wolves of wodann weren't fighting, they were just thrashing it up hardxcore!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Well, guerillas have tended to be more concerned with stealth. Betcha that's one reason real soldiers have always so looked down on them. :balloon2:

---

Oh no partner.. Every single soldier, wheather a guerrila, lowly militia, terrorists, etc, will always try to deck himself out to look good/bad-ass/make-a-statement whenever possible.

Fair enough, but some have to try to pull it off while remaining all stealthy & sneaky. Tall order, no ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

'Cause it's a simple, cheap and cheerful way to provide foot soldiers in particular with some ranged punch that can be used to inflict casualties and disorder in the enemy ranks before close combat. The tactic actually survived pretty long into the Middle Ages, although Europeans weren't overall that fond of it anymore. Nonetheless period sources often refer to javelin-throwing being regarded as part of the proper training of a good soldier, and even knights practised it; they're also mentioned in use by light cavalry in some fairly late-period battles.

---

Europeans were fond of it, actually, they just used more primitive missile weapons, like the hurlbat, or heavier throwing spear. They lost the javelin aerodynamic shape or thongs used to give them greater range.

Javelin throwing is a learned skill, and Roman infantry practised it until the 1400s. The problem in Europe is that most soldiers were merely farmers given some rudimentary training ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Fair enough, but some have to try to pull it off while remaining all stealthy & sneaky. Tall order, no ?

---

You could always get a bunch of guys to hide by a well used road and then jump up in all your scary make up and crap and attack. When in doubt, get out of the line of sight. IE Behind a bush in your shiny armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

You could always get a bunch of guys to hide by a well used road and then jump up in all your scary make up and crap and attack. When in doubt, get out of the line of sight. IE Behind a bush in your shiny armour.

---

Heh shiny armour behind a bush? Say hello to Mr. Sniper.

All these posts and the original question still has not been answered. Shame really, because i also would love to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

All these posts and the original question still has not been answered. Shame really, because i also would love to know.

---

I believe Watchman answered the Q in post #4. The thread was kinda hijacked after that.


Interesting sig choice btw :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Every single soldier, wheather a guerrila, lowly militia, terrorists, etc, will always try to deck himself out to look good/bad-ass/make-a-statement whenever possible.

---

Tell that to a front line officer in a drawn out confrontation any time after the development of decent sniper rifles.
On parade or charging yes, lying in the mud with poor cover no :no:

Well, yes. There is a difference between line battles and modern combat, but in peacekeeping duties (which take up the majority of troops) troops have always tried to look as imposing and/or professional as possible.

Firstly, it is really quite easy to look imposing whilst still being camaflaged. To begin with, modern soldiers do all sorts of things to their faces, helmets and hats, it might not be visible until close range but in the end having some guy just appearing out of the bushes is pretty scarry, I can tell you.

To the OP: The reason our Princepes have spears is quite simply that this is what the evidence tells us. As to the why of that, well there are several reasons.

Tactical flexability: It's easier to fend off cavalry or even form a phalanx.

Cost/reliability: Spears are cheap, reliable and very effective. Remember, Princepes also have a sword as a backup weapon. A spear is also easy to use

Hastati carry two javalins, early princepes only one, so another way of looking at it would be to say the Hastati (which ironically means "spearman") have no room for a spear.

Most importantly though, the spear is in general an excellent weapon for soldiers fighting in close formation and it allows you to keep others, such as swordsmen at bay.

Later Roman soldiers are the exception that proves the rule, they were highly trained to work together as a unit, the gladius was ideal as a weapon for them because it was quick and unlikely to get stuck, as a spear might. Later Roman warfare was about momentum and it's interesting to not that when momentum was lost individual units would easily get bogged down.

Look at the invasions of Greece and Macedonia, the Hellenes were well past their prime but in several cases the pikemen and hoplites were able to push back the Roman sword-infantry and only the lack of dicipline on the Greek side allowed the Romans victory.

I hope that answers your question.

Oh, and the pila may be Italian, or Spanish, it's even possible it was developed from two distinct weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Yes but for some reason medaeval troops in MTW2 dont prefer javilins anymore...

---

I've always wondered why javelins fell out of use also, I know levies might of unable to learn, with all that getting thrown in the battlefield as meatshields and stuff, but why couldn't professional soldiers who tend to live a bit longer buy or get some javelins to learn how to use to help kill a few of the enemies before they killed them. Was it the armor of the time being good enough to turn away a Javelin? Was it considered dishonorable by the Knight Class?; Or were Generals/Kings just to lazy to equip there soldiers with javelins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilder

I've always wondered why javelins fell out of use also, I know levies might of unable to learn, with all that getting thrown in the battlefield as meatshields and stuff, but why couldn't professional soldiers who tend to live a bit longer buy or get some javelins to learn how to use to help kill a few of the enemies before they killed them. Was it the armor of the time being good enough to turn away a Javelin? Was it considered dishonorable by the Knight Class?; Or were Generals/Kings just to lazy to equip there soldiers with javelins.

---

I'm pretty sure the eastern european and mid-east nations still used javalins

The countries on the iberian penisular were of course famous for still using the javelin during this period as well.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilder

I've always wondered why javelins fell out of use also, I know levies might of unable to learn, with all that getting thrown in the battlefield as meatshields and stuff, but why couldn't professional soldiers who tend to live a bit longer buy or get some javelins to learn how to use to help kill a few of the enemies before they killed them. Was it the armor of the time being good enough to turn away a Javelin? Was it considered dishonorable by the Knight Class?; Or were Generals/Kings just to lazy to equip there soldiers with javelins.

---

Not the armor. Not even the best quality Gothic Plate armor could not whitstand a bolt from an arbalest. The longbowmen used the bodkin arrow with more pointy ends to shoot down drowes of heavily armed French knights.
With a similar tip a javelin would have sufficient mass and penatrating power to go trough any armor.
Someone else posted on another thread that the reason some weapons fell out of use, even though they were better than their more modern replacements was due to human laziness.
The same may apply to the use of javelins. The use of javelins was to break up enemy formations and if you were good in it's use, inflict some amount of ranged casualties before engaging in a melee.
How long do you think it would take you learn the use of a javelin and become sufficiently proficient to hit a man-sized target, on the move in the heat of battle. Days? Weeks? Months? Years?
Now consider a crossbow. Give it to a common peasant. Give him some rudimentary training and in a matter of hours he should be proficient enough to hit most of what he's aiming at. A good crossbow can kill a heavily armored knight who spent his whole life training for war.
Give the crossbow to a hundred peasants and you got a respectable force of nearly certain killers at a short-medium range. With an arbalest you can increase that range to long. With a musket you have even further reach.
Neither weapon (crossbow, musket) requires a fraction of the time to become proficient at as a javelin.
Good javelin throwing requires a comparatively long training time as opposed to simple, almost fullproof crossbow or musket. Not surprisingly a general or a king would propably favor such modern, simple and efficient weapons to all his troops regardless were they levies or professionals.
A professional soldier would propably choose the crossbow for that same ease of use and efficiency as opposed to spending years to learn the proper throwing technique of a javelin.
How many javelins can a soldier carry 3 or 4. How many crossbow bolts or leadshots can he carry in comparison.
Ease of use and efficiency in killing has always been man's priority in warfare. You can teach a monkey how to use a gun. Can you teach a monkey to throw a javelin?
Which do you think is faster? And which has more guaranteed results...

You can build a javalin quicker...

GREAT POST ERRANT!!!

Nah buddy... you can build a crappy javeling really fast (just cut a peice of wood and sharpen its tip) but a good quality one takes time. But besides, wheather it takes less time or more time to make javelings compared to a crossbow or musket is not the important part.

Errant, it takes a few hours to learn to hurl a javalin provided you don't have a woman's elbows (women's elbows are actually built differently), nor do you need to learn to hit a moving target. You lob the javalin into the formation and it'll hit something.

The problem, I believe, was the lack of dicipline in later Mediaeval armies. Franks, Saxons, Danes and Norse all used angons, (barbed pila) or fransciscas (axes) before a charge but it requires cohesion from the attacking unit to be effective. Such weapons rely on volley fire, every man hurling his own when he feels like it is a lot less effective.

Hmmm, to be VERY speculative on why javelins became outdated in the middle ages, I would guess that the reason may be that medieval feudal warfare was mainly based on capturing alot of your opponents. The medieval knights were much happier with capturing the enemy than killing them, because they earned some coin by that. Other reasons may be the upcoming of heavier armour (though the roman legions form an exception) and the much developed cavalry warfare.

Just some reasoning though, with not a lot of historical research involved :embarassed:

The catalonian almogaveres were probably the most known exemples of medieval soldiers using javelins in combat, and were reportedly very effective agains mounted kinghts. Mind you, they weren't properly the most orderly or disciplined soldiers ( read the history of the Catalan Company in the Byzantine Empire...), but at least they were professional foot soldiers, which wasn't that common at the time , though that started changing with the 100 years war.

I think i am agreeing with Ailfertes, because in the Middle Ages the knights were all about ransom. It was a gentlemen's war. They would all have there own banners and look for who has the richest parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Errant, it takes a few hours to learn to hurl a javalin provided you don't have a woman's elbows (women's elbows are actually built differently), nor do you need to learn to hit a moving target. You lob the javalin into the formation and it'll hit something.

The problem, I believe, was the lack of dicipline in later Mediaeval armies. Franks, Saxons, Danes and Norse all used angons, (barbed pila) or fransciscas (axes) before a charge but it requires cohesion from the attacking unit to be effective. Such weapons rely on volley fire, every man hurling his own when he feels like it is a lot less effective.

---

Have you tried hurling a javelin. I have. Part of PE where I come from. We kept practicing a couple of hours a day for a few weeks. None of us could hit anything with accuracy. Sometimes we got lucky. Most of the time we were fortunate to get the javelin going in the right direction.

Granted those were the sport javelins used in modern competitions but the principle is still the same.

As for volleys, your right. A volley is more effective since "the general area" is basically what your aiming at. But volleys can also be used by crossbows and longbows.

Muskets aren't all that accurate either, but when your enemy marches against you in neat rows, to the pace fo drums and trumpets, and stand in brightly colored uniforms just waiting for you to take aim and shoot, the general direction will suffice. With the tightly packed formations it's harder to miss than hit.

I'll never understand the Napoleonic era of warfare. It's more like duels where you march politely at your opponent, take time to aim, and shoot. If you missed the enemy will do the same to you. If he misses you're back to where you started. :dizzy2:

Could be your right about the lack of discipline in medieval armies, but the Byzantines used a professional army a long way into the medieval time. Even they gave up javelins and heavy infantry in favor of heavy cavalry and light foot archers.

edit. Why am I arguing history? Better to ask a EB team-member. Why did javelins fall out of use during medieval times?

I think it was more a question of range and the quantity you could carry with you than other thing.

Mid east countries must've used them, and when thet coquered most of spain I guess they kept that weopon. Byzantines used them because they still used the old Roman military traditions and tactics. I also believe eastern European countries used them because there technology was not as advanced as the west ( no offense, correct me if I'm wrong:sweatdrop: ).

And look up the song "gangstas paradise" by coolio.:hijacked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Errant

Have you tried hurling a javelin. I have. Part of PE where I come from. We kept practicing a couple of hours a day for a few weeks. None of us could hit anything with accuracy. Sometimes we got lucky. Most of the time we were fortunate to get the javelin going in the right direction.

---

Yes I have, and I have watched others. A few hours of doing nothing else and most people can get them going in the right direction. Which is all you need, aiming is superfluous, otherwise the Franks wouldn't have used throwing-axes but instead javalins. In a couple weeks you'd be plenty good enough to hit massed ranks of men.

Quote:

---

As for volleys, your right. A volley is more effective since "the general area" is basically what your aiming at. But volleys can also be used by crossbows and longbows.

---

True, but bowmen take months to train rather than weaks and both weapons are more expensive, have one-use ammunition and suffer in wet weather. Javalins also have a higher lethality and penetrating power, they go strait through steal plait, so I have read.

Quote:

---

Muskets aren't all that accurate either, but when your enemy marches against you in neat rows, to the pace fo drums and trumpets, and stand in brightly colored uniforms just waiting for you to take aim and shoot, the general direction will suffice. With the tightly packed formations it's harder to miss than hit.

---

Exactly the same principle as javalins, just with a longer range.

Quote:

---

I'll never understand the Napoleonic era of warfare. It's more like duels where you march politely at your opponent, take time to aim, and shoot. If you missed the enemy will do the same to you. If he misses you're back to where you started. :dizzy2:

---

Actually the idea was to advance into range and keep shooting until one group gives up. It was a hang-over from a time when the main ranged weapon was a bow and you could stop that with a shield. The British usually won because they fired twice as fast with a greater frontage. We also used rifles.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Could be your right about the lack of discipline in medieval armies, but the Byzantines used a professional army a long way into the medieval time. Even they gave up javelins and heavy infantry in favor of heavy cavalry and light foot archers.

---

Actually Byzantine infantry retained javalins for a long time. In the end though they switched over to light cav because of manpower problems as much as anything else. Not to mention infantry never has done well against massed horse archers. Ask Crassus.

Yes, poor Crassius, but the Romans did make some headway against Parthia... The only real way not to escalate a anti-HA -since the main way to really combat it is get mroe HA - is to used massed foot archers force them from the field.

Also, Arbalests don't suffer in wet weather and arrows can be collected after or during lulls in the battles. Roman Pilum on the other hand were one use due to their inherent bending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Yes, poor Crassius, but the Romans did make some headway against Parthia... The only real way not to escalate a anti-HA -since the main way to really combat it is get mroe HA - is to used massed foot archers force them from the field.

Also, Arbalests don't suffer in wet weather and arrows can be collected after or during lulls in the battles. Roman Pilum on the other hand were one use due to their inherent bending.

---

arbalasts most certainly do suffer in wet weather. Unless they're steel the laminate bow itself will be weakened and the string will get loose and soggy either way.

Bows, on the other hand, can be strung in moments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Errant

Not the armor. Not even the best quality Gothic Plate armor could not whitstand a bolt from an arbalest. The longbowmen used the bodkin arrow with more pointy ends to shoot down drowes of heavily armed French knights.

---

...no. Let's just say that it didn't quite work this way and leave it at that so I don't have to spend half an hour going over the relationship between the longbow, crossbows and armour. Suffice to say that even steel-stave arbalests and reasonably man-portable firearms had major trouble with good plate, and the longbow had issues already with mail+add-ons except at rather too short ranges to stop cavalry.

Quote:

---

With a similar tip a javelin would have sufficient mass and penatrating power to go trough any armor.

---

Lorica segmentata stops a bolt from a scorpion at reasonable ranges, and it's not even tempered steel. Decent plate more often than not bounced lance tips in full-tilt cavalry encounters. Javelins tend to get stuck halfway in wooden shields. So, not really.

Quote:

---

Someone else posted on another thread that the reason some weapons fell out of use, even though they were better than their more modern replacements was due to human laziness.

---

That was also politely put somewhat full of it, and rather ignored for example the psychological effect massed musketry has IIRC. Or in general the fact that the evolution of warfare port Middle Ages went from individuals to units, and that cohesive units of otherwise poorly trained men walked all over much more skilled but less drilled warriors. The bayonet was a bit of ultimate expresison of that really.

Quote:

---

How long do you think it would take you learn the use of a javelin and become sufficiently proficient to hit a man-sized target, on the move in the heat of battle. Days? Weeks? Months? Years?
Now consider a crossbow. Give it to a common peasant. Give him some rudimentary training and in a matter of hours he should be proficient enough to hit most of what he's aiming at. A good crossbow can kill a heavily armored knight who spent his whole life training for war.
Give the crossbow to a hundred peasants and you got a respectable force of nearly certain killers at a short-medium range. With an arbalest you can increase that range to long. With a musket you have even further reach.
Neither weapon (crossbow, musket) requires a fraction of the time to become proficient at as a javelin.
Good javelin throwing requires a comparatively long training time as opposed to simple, almost fullproof crossbow or musket. Not surprisingly a general or a king would propably favor such modern, simple and efficient weapons to all his troops regardless were they levies or professionals.

---

Seems to have been popular enough among simple, dregs-of-the-barrel peasant levy skirmishers. And I'm pretty certain those Republican Roman farmer-soldiers didn't spend most of their training time practising pila-throwing. Ditto for their "barbarian" opponents.

Once the technology base exists however, crossbows and guns give them simple soldiers a way more reach and killing power however. Both were readily adopted as hunting weapons for example, and in forested regions most of the peasantry had a decent grasp of archey anyway (javelins were incidentally used for large game AFAIK, so many would have been skilled with those too). All of them require a degree of training and practise to be effective - reloading crossbows and firearms can be quite tricky, and smoothbore guns are horrendously inaccurate - of course, but then again that's why there was a market for skilled mercenary crossbowmen and the like.

Quote:

---

How many javelins can a soldier carry 3 or 4. How many crossbow bolts or leadshots can he carry in comparison.

---

Clever fellows can probably manage a fair bundle of javelins, but yes, bolts, arrows and balls plus powder are rather easier to carry.

On the other hand, that's really only a concern for dedicated skirmishers and missile troops. For close-combat troops the throwing-spear would seem rather more useful, as it is very easy to carry around a few and you don't have to put away some cumbersome missile weapon before charging in...
Pistols are of course a different story, but then again those only really started turning up in the 1500s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The problem, I believe, was the lack of dicipline in later Mediaeval armies. Franks, Saxons, Danes and Norse all used angons, (barbed pila) or fransciscas (axes) before a charge but it requires cohesion from the attacking unit to be effective. Such weapons rely on volley fire, every man hurling his own when he feels like it is a lot less effective.

---

...what ? Au contraire, the later Medieval armies were quite specifically more disciplined and professional than almost anything seen in Europe since the Legions to that date. The 'renaissance' of infantry forced even the for a while rather impetuous and tactically unwieldy knights to become reasonably disciplined and controllable again. And for example pikemen are quite useless without some quite high degrees of discipline and excellent drill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swebozbozboz

I think i am agreeing with Ailfertes, because in the Middle Ages the knights were all about ransom. It was a gentlemen's war. They would all have there own banners and look for who has the richest parents.

---

Gentlemen and gentlemen. It was really more of entirely practical considerations between highly trained professional warriors many of whom also were part of the ruling social classes. Systems for ransoming senior warriors and general high-rankers also developed in all the war zones where the Europeans were in contact with Muslims, the Baltic pagans and Eastern Christians as well, after all, for exactly the same reasons. The efforts of the Church to keep intra-Christian bloodletting down didn't exactly hurt either. Neither did the good armour worn by the military elite, which duly made temporary disablement more likely than flatly dying against most weapons.

None of that really applied to the common soldiery, who weren't aristocrats and wouldn't fetch ransoms either. And as the European military elite became shock lancers par excellence they also developed a distaste for ranged combat as a means of war for the exact same reasons the Greek hoplites had once scorned archers and other skirmishers - although bows were often enough wielded skillfully by knights on the hunt for example, it must be added.

Not much to do with the decline of javelins I'd say, given that the elite wouldn't have used them in the first place and the common soldiery never had any scruples about any weapon anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Errant

Muskets aren't all that accurate either, but when your enemy marches against you in neat rows, to the pace fo drums and trumpets, and stand in brightly colored uniforms just waiting for you to take aim and shoot, the general direction will suffice. With the tightly packed formations it's harder to miss than hit.

I'll never understand the Napoleonic era of warfare. It's more like duels where you march politely at your opponent, take time to aim, and shoot. If you missed the enemy will do the same to you. If he misses you're back to where you started. :dizzy2:

---

You'd be surprised how easily the musketeers could actually miss the entire enemy formation... Long story short, what you're talking about is AFAIK termed "fully evolved linear tactics" (and came about with the appereance of the bayonet, which allowed for the ditching of the pikemen who'd until then been necessary to keep cavalry away) and it was all about maximum frontage and maximum weight of fire. Accuracy was quite secondary; when you have a line two hundred meters long in three ranks discharging all at once the sheer number of balls in the air ensures casualties will be severe among nigh anyone withing effective range (which, alas, is rather short wiht smoothbore muskets) and the sheer psychological shock of that kind of barrage will be too much for most soldiers. If they're still holding their groind, well, odds are they won't be after a bayonet charge.

Basically the infantry formations acted as giant shotguns.

One problem was, however, that already at quite short distances the horrible ballistics of the round balls fired from smooth barrels caused such dispersion that at any longer range the entire volley would be all but wasted, and the whole line sitting ducks for about the next half a minute or so while they reloaded (the ranks could of course fire in turns and counter-march behind their fellows to reload, but that's another story). The psychological effect was also at its greatest at close ranges. So, the units tried to get as close to the enemy as possible before unleashing their volleys, which made foot vs. foot clashes a kind of game of "Chicken!" en masse - hold too long and the enemy will blast you to shreds, fire too soon and the nearly intact enemy can march right up to you to blast you to shreds while your boys are busy reloading... Unsurprisingly, this led to the developement of assorted psychological-warfare ploys to intimidate enemies hopefully into firing early. The colourful uniforms, tall plumes etc. were part of that.

Quote:

---

Could be your right about the lack of discipline in medieval armies, but the Byzantines used a professional army a long way into the medieval time. Even they gave up javelins and heavy infantry in favor of heavy cavalry and light foot archers.

---

Heavy infantry was always necessary, if only to anchor the line for cavalry to operate around and missile troops to take cover behind as needed. The Byzantines were relatively early in ditching javelins by what I know of it - they had horse- and foot archers of their own anyway quite sufficiently for ranged combat, the heavy cavalry had lances and often bows as well, and the heavy infantry was better served by large shields and long spears to hold the enemy -particularly cavalry- at bay. Doesn't mean they weren't still used, they just weren't very "standard issue". AFAIK it was actually largely the same for the Middle Eastern Muslims as well - they had a strong infantry archery tradition of their own after all and inherited the Persian horse-archery one, and got the Turco-Mongol steppe tradition on top of that later. I'm under the impression javelins were commonly employed mainly by troops drawn from mountain peoples (one gets the impression such terrain is well suited for the weapon), and of course western North Africans and the Iberian Moors. Again, they weren't unknown in other contexts, just somewhat unusual and often rather region- or situation-specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

I also believe eastern European countries used them because there technology was not as advanced as the west ( no offense, correct me if I'm wrong :sweatdrop: ).

---

You're probably thinking of the "forest belt" like Lithuania and the Baltics, and highland regions, here, as the more open areas had the steppe archery tradition. Not that poor levies wouldn't probably use javelins there too mind you, as not everyone could afford a decent bow or practised archery in everyday life.

Anyway, "low tech" had little to do with it. Rather it was the nature of geography and warfare there just as in Iberia I think. Most fighting quite simply was done as quick hit-and-run raids often in quite lousy terrain, so even the aristocratic cavalry favoured the tactical flexibility and ease of transport of shorter spears and javelins over the cumbersome lance (Iberian Christian knights were a little unusual, as European chivalry went, in that they quite often opted to fight as light javelin cavalry - although this was perfectly sensible given the "border skirmish" nature that dominated the fighting in the peninsula; their Muslim peers similarly often fought as "lighter" troops than they actually possessed the gear for).

Although AFAIK the "forest zone" regions were also pretty archery-crazy. Came from having lots of good lumber, lots of hunting ground and not too many people I guess. Melee combatants long favoured some sort of heavy throwing spear for "opening shots" before the contact, but bows were AFAIK regarded as a perfectly normal part of a warrior's kit even if those intending to fight hand-to-hand rarely used them in battle. By Medieval times a combination of spear, shield, bow and an axe or sword for sidearm appears to have become something of a norm, judging by some royal degrees I've seen referenced. Of course, most fighting-spears were throwable if necessary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The British usually won because they fired twice as fast with a greater frontage. We also used rifles. :2thumbsup:

---

Nonsense, and not in the least because rifles and rapid fire were mutually exclusive. Without going into the technical details (I can explain them if someone wants), before the advent of the chamber-expanding Minié bullets muzzle-loader rifles took about twice as long to reload as smoothbore muskets. So they were quite out of the question for line infantry, which wasn't trained for accurate shooting anyway ("waste of expensive powder"). Light infantry, sharpshooters and the open-order skirmishers that screened line infantry formations often used them though (as did some cavalry, partly to compensate for the short barrels of their carbines; cavalry also sometimes used rifled pistols with detachable stocks for keeping enemy skirmishers away), although smoothbores were used for the job as well; the riflemen had to work in pairs where one guarded the other during the slow reloading process.

Quote:

---

Not to mention infantry never has done well against massed horse archers. Ask Crassus.

---

The Crusader Kingdoms generals would retort that stupid Crassus didn't have enough archers along. They did well enough against the clouds of Turkish horse-archers with a combination of armoured spearmen and crossbowmen curiously reminiscent of the ancient Achaemenid sparabara combined-arms tactics, which were incidentally also used by the quite effective Northern Italian communal militias.

The Romans also always did a lot better against both the Parthians and the Sassanids when they brought enough missile troops of their own along.

Quote:

---

arbalasts most certainly do suffer in wet weather. Unless they're steel the laminate bow itself will be weakened and the string will get loose and soggy either way.

---

Per defintion arbalests have steel staves. The kind with horn-composite bows are still called crossbows. Those latter can incidentally be waterproofed, as any composite bow; they would hardly have been used in the wet and cold British Isles and Scandinavia otherwise...

Longest post ever....and I enjoyed every part of it!

Chapeau mon ami!!! :toff:

What can I say, I'm erudite. :book: :beam: And always happy to... share. :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...what ? Au contraire, the later Medieval armies were quite specifically more disciplined and professional than almost anything seen in Europe since the Legions to that date. The 'renaissance' of infantry forced even the for a while rather impetuous and tactically unwieldy knights to become reasonably disciplined and controllable again. And for example pikemen are quite useless without some quite high degrees of discipline and excellent drill.

---

Very sorry, from your point of view that would be early Middle Ages, I was thinking of later in terms of after the Dark Ages, i.e. after Charlamegne and feudalism came about. My point was about the switch from a landed levy of heavy spearmen, i.e. the English Fyrd to the later feudal levy.

Quote:

---

Nonsense, and not in the least because rifles and rapid fire were mutually exclusive. Without going into the technical details (I can explain them if someone wants), before the advent of the chamber-expanding Minié bullets muzzle-loader rifles took about twice as long to reload as smoothbore muskets. So they were quite out of the question for line infantry, which wasn't trained for accurate shooting anyway ("waste of expensive powder"). Light infantry, sharpshooters and the open-order skirmishers that screened line infantry formations often used them though (as did some cavalry, partly to compensate for the short barrels of their carbines; cavalry also sometimes used rifled pistols with detachable stocks for keeping enemy skirmishers away), although smoothbores were used for the job as well; the riflemen had to work in pairs where one guarded the other during the slow reloading process.

---

Again, miss-communication. Our line Infantry fired faster, four times a minute, because they trained with live ammo and we had rifle regiments, such as the 95th. The two worked together, but you are correct early rifles fired once a minute or so. My pint was we produced a greater volume of fire, also because we deployed and advanced in broad lines, rather than narrow collumns, while the rifles outranged the enemy and allowed us to pick off the officers. IRRC the first massed use of rifles was the Battle of the Clogs in the 1812 war with Denmark.

Quote:

---

The Crusader Kingdoms generals would retort that stupid Crassus didn't have enough archers along. They did well enough against the clouds of Turkish horse-archers with a combination of armoured spearmen and crossbowmen curiously reminiscent of the ancient Achaemenid sparabara combined-arms tactics, which were incidentally also used by the quite effective Northern Italian communal militias.

The Romans also always did a lot better against both the Parthians and the Sassanids when they brought enough missile troops of their own along.

---

True, but aren't lots of heavy infantry and archers more expensives, and slower moving strategically, than a smaller number of cavalry? Not to mention less-manpower efficient.

Quote:

---

arbalests have steel staves. The kind with horn-composite bows are still called crossbows. Those latter can incidentally be waterproofed, as any composite bow; they would hardly have been used in the wet and cold British Isles and Scandinavia otherwise...

---

I was under the impression that arbalast and crossbow were infact inter-changable, I shall remonstrate with whoever told me that. In any case the string still gets soggy, less of a problem with a yew longbow. Witness Agincourt.

Edit: I really shouldn't have posted just before going to bed.

Arbalests were a later type of crossbow, steel reinforced and heavier than the standard one. Unlike common crossbows they used a steel wire for strings, hence their superior range and penetrating power.

While the string might get soggy, the problem is one of rust. Not weakness to water or wet conditions.

Really good posts fellas. Keep 'em comming :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Whew! ok WatchMan, You are quite the discusser and debater

But can you name an army that did not try to make themselves imposing by there equipment?

*crosses fingers

---

the ones where a citizen soldier bought his own gear and was in an army which divided rank between the the rich and the poor

most of the standing army didnt look at all fancy, dull grey ringmail even in the imposing post reform days, it was always about function over looks, as far as the standard soldier was concerned....all the rich red and costumes your used to from movies and romantic paintings is a bunch of crap

Greeks painted images on there shields that would be imposing to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Very sorry, from your point of view that would be early Middle Ages, I was thinking of later in terms of after the Dark Ages, i.e. after Charlamegne and feudalism came about. My point was about the switch from a landed levy of heavy spearmen, i.e. the English Fyrd to the later feudal levy.

---

We call that "Migration Period" (or sometimes "Viking Age" for the ca. 800s to early 1000s part), incidentally. In this case you are correct; the rise of feudal heavy cavalry and the castle-network system did in most parts result in a marked decline of infantry quality. The exception was of course regions for one reason or another unsuited for the feudal structure and/or the associated type of cavalry warfare (such as the sparsely populated and heavily forested Scandinavia), or socioeconomically sufficiently different that a landed feudal aristocracy of sufficient size and power simply could not develop, such as the (relatively) highly urbanized Low Countries and Northern Italy.

Quote:

---

True, but aren't lots of heavy infantry and archers more expensives, and slower moving strategically, than a smaller number of cavalry? Not to mention less-manpower efficient.

---

Heck no. Cavalry, especially the heavy shock type with its specially bred large horses, are a pure logistical nightmare and staggeringly expensive to both raise and maintain - as rather succintly demonstrated by the fact "bring yer own gear" citizen-army outfits were ever heavy on infantry (and could often turn it out in quite large numbers and high quality), while large numbers of heavy cavalry required either thorough feudalization or imperial adminstrations to field.