Missile Thrown from Foot vs. Horseback

[Bryan]

Let me clarify this a little better.

Variables
Horse's direction - I can't see the horse always going forward and as it would not allow room for disengaging if you are going to throw a javelin at less than 30 meters. Many of the classical cavalry books I have read mentioned a circle attack formation used commonly by missile armed cavalry, whereby the horsemen ride with their left exposed to the enemy force, in a circular file.

So that means that the rider would have a different throwing style for:
1. Straight ahead
2. To his left, across the horse's back
3. To his open right

Weapon - For the sake of the argument, lets say the javelin that would utilized by both rider and foot soldier is a [strike]socketed light pilum[/strike] wooden shaft with hardened iron tip (an atypical javelin). The horsemen would also carry a shield in his left hand, along with multiple other javelins. The foot soldier carries a scutum in his left hand.

Speed - Horse is at a canter or trot. Man on foot gets an 8 foot running start.

Horse Tack - Just a simple halter and bridle. No saddle.
(Think Tarantine, Numidian, Thessalians Circa < 100 BC)

Taking into account these variables, could the horse's extra momentum counter the riders inability to use a normal throwing action when compared to a man on the ground?

(BTW, this thread is turning out better than I hoped. Keep up the good posts!)

[Robert]

Now I must admit I am NOT a horseman. But in your variables I would question the use of a socketed pilum, as from what I have come to understand cavalry javelins were much smaller then a pilum. If these were to be carried on horseback, the slung quiver would be a logical way of transporting them. The point would be a small sized socketed biblade, shaft diameters from finds attributed to cavalry javelins (Kops Plateau, Nijmegen) are only 12 - 16 mm.

Also, I wonder why you have decided to leave out the saddle, as the use of the saddle is well established by archeology and perhaps more telling, by iconography. This would be important, as a good seat would allow the rider to rotate his body into the throw, taking full use of the shoulder and back muscles to propel the javelin.

Then, it would be very important to establish how the cavalry would use a thrown javelin. I would imagine it was throw at a target with the horse on the run/trot, cutting across from the target. The main use of cavalry was as a swift intervention force IMHO. I could see the javelins being used against a group of archers being run down from the flanks or against fleeing or even drawn up infantry. However, in the later case, this would be hazardous, as the infantry would also have spears capable of taking down the horse and rider. In only few scenario's would the javelin be launched in about the same direction of the horses travel. The "running down" scenario's would well qualify.
This is were vectors come in. Thrown straight ahead in the direction of travel, the forward speed of the horse would be added to the momentum, at a right angle from the horse, the added momentum would be nill. So the greater the angle of the throw becomes, the less the impact of the javelin would benefit from the forward momentum. I would guess that at an angle over 45 degrees from straight ahead, the effect of the forward momentum would be greatly reduced, as drag on the shaft would quickly strip away any speed advantage.

I believe the only way to conduct a controlled experiment is to mount a javelin launcher on a rail and fire the javelin with a controlled force at a controlled speed at different angles to the target, then noting both javelin speed and force of impact. Should be FUN! :woot:

[Frank]

I think you are mistaking a few weapons here. I know these javelins from early Roman armies and before that, but I never come acros them in Late Antiquity. Perhaps you are thinking of the sling-staff (fustibalis)?

I am pretty sure, that some late roman units used ropes to throw the small lancea. The romans adopted it propably from german mercenaries. Perhaps I will find my source again.

Cavalry archers are perhaps not the best example, as these can remain out of range - it's charging cavalry on unarmoured horses who are very vulnerable to plumbata fire.

I did not say, that a mounted archer could not stay out of range. I just said, that it was dangerous for him (if rather unarmoured) to get into optimal range for a direct targeted shot with heavy arrows, if the infantry had more than the traditional pilum. I know, there is a lot of dispute, about range, penetration and tactics of mounted archers.

However, the main point is, that the late roman army propably increased the number of units with ranged weapons and the range of weapons especially javelins as one of many answers to the enhanced use of cavalry.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

In late antiquity range wasn't a problem anymore, the Huns introduced the Asymmetric bow, something the scythians didn't have, and that's why they could drive out the sarmatians who had drivent he scyths out witht heir cataphract cavalry, as the arrows couldn't penetrate cataphract armor from a distance with the scythian symmetric bow, but the huns could stay out of range.

[Vindex]

I was also going to question a socketted pilum, but Robert beat me to it.

Also, why at the trot?

Doing anything "at the trot" and particularly bareback is a) quite uncomfortable but depends on your horse and b)unbalancing as the horse move on the diagonal (ie its legs move in diagonal pairs) and can be jolting.

A decent hand canter can be just as slow as a trot but you're in a better pace for accelleration out of trouble

(And before someone points out there are horses which tolt, this ancient warfare we're talking about so that does not apply)

[Robert]

Ah, back on topic I suppose a canter is meant, at least I am so unfamiliar with "horse terms" I wouldn't know the difference between trot and canter. Gallop, OK, now that I understand .... CHARGE!

Bareback would be a totaly different equation then with a horned saddle, the later would provide a very firm seat for someone wanting to throw something like a short javelin. Bows etc. do not come into the original question at all IMHO

Oh, and the javelin points have two sharp cutting edges on a leafshaped blade, I never mentioned a "hardened iron point". You see, it is the bleeding that kills with arrows and spearheads, well unless you shoot or throw or stab through the heart or into the skull. So you want edge.

[Vindex]

Canter is just a slow gallop in some respects... I won't bore you with the sequence of the horse's feet in each particular pace ;-) (but canter is 3 time and gallop is 4 time...but walk is 4 time too! Trot is 2 time...got it? :woot: )

And yes, the saddle gives better grip and therefore good stability, but an experienced bare back rider has the same ability as a rider with a saddle. (As Jurjen has already mentioned; and the best light cavalry the world has ever seen are, arguably, the Native American tribes)

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Second edit:...and a really good horse will come back under you when you get unbalanced when you lean out. An opinionated/ungenuine one will "step away" from your point of balance then turn and look at you after you've hit the deck...and yes, this is the voice of experience!

[Frank]

In late antiquity range wasn't a problem anymore, the Huns introduced the Asymmetric bow, something the scythians didn't have, and that's why they could drive out the sarmatians who had drivent he scyths out witht heir cataphract cavalry, as the arrows couldn't penetrate cataphract armor from a distance with the scythian symmetric bow, but the huns could stay out of range.

Yes, I am aware that there was a difference.

For our topic, which is about javelins and standard light/medium cavalry, it would be interesting to see, from what range a cavalrist could penetrate a hamata, and if the infantrist had weapons (best the same type of javelin) in order to kill this cavalrist (also with hamata) on this distance or at least his horse, which was unarmored.

The ancient sources always say that "the cavalry harrassed infantry units". Well you would not do that, if every 2nd horse dies during such an attack.

[Bryan]

Lets try to stay on topic. This isn't about who had the best missile weapons or which nationality had the best cavalry.

Whether the weapon is a plumbata, pilum or a sharpened stick that is aerodynamically stable, it doesn't matter to me. Terminal ballistics is another subject. I am just trying to find out how effective missile armed cavalry were in comparison to infantry armed with the SAME missiles.

Situation:
You are standing in formation of infantry. A troop of Numidian horsemen is circling in front of your formation as you advance. They have already chased off your own skirmishers and now stand between you and the enemy infantry ranks. They shower your units front rank with javelins, forcing you and your mates to hide behind your layered wood shields as protection. Since they are riding at a Canter or Trot, they are hard to hit with your own javelins. You still have at least 300 meters till come in range of the front line of the enemy infantry.

Questions:
Could the infantry hold their own against the horsemen, or are they "outgunned" so too speak?

Would the use of a horse hinder or help the effectiveness of the javelin thrower?

Would it increase the likelihood of penetrating the shield? Or did the horse only add mobility to the warrior while decreasing the effectiveness of his weapon?

I just am wondering if any of the esteemed members here have ever ridden a horse while throwing a javelin-like weapon from it, and if so, whether it carried more force than if thrown by foot. This would include throwing forward and to the sides at distances not exceeding 20 meters.

If you haven't, do you personally known anyone who has performed said acts? What were the results?

Does anyone have a horse and video camera where they could record the results?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'd imagine you could wait until they ran out of javelins?

[Frank]

I'd imagine you could wait until they ran out of javelins?

If you look to Julius Caesars report about his cavalry in Spain during civil war, this "harrassment" worked pretty well and cutted the supply lines of Pompeius legions nearly entirely.

The parthians fooled Crassus at Charrae, because they brought lots of spare arrows (and most propably javelins too) on camels to the battlefield. When Crassus realized, that they will never run out of ammo, it was too late.

The first thing I asked myself, when I saw a roman javelin quiver was, where was the supply point? I guess, that just 1 quiver full of javelins (scholars estimate 3-5 javelins per cavalrist) are nothing earthshattering. Therefore I am fully convinced, that a lot of resupply and other support (medical support, water, ...) took place behind the lines in a battle, which could last hours. Not just for the cavalry, for the infantry, too. Propably performed by the more than 1000 calones of a legion. Unfortunately, there is no source describing, such a supply-management.

But I am afraid, we are again off topic.

[John Conyard]

Hi Bryan,

Take a look at Duckworth's report in In the Saddle, An Exploration of the Saddle through History, ed. L.Gilmour (London 2004) 21-30. He used to ride for the ESG.

I think Hyland A. (1993) Training the Roman Cavalry from Arrian’s Ars Tactica. (Stroud 1993) had something to say about throwing from javelins from horseback.

Sarantis A. and Christie N. (2010-11) edd. War and Warfare in Late Antiquity: Current Perspectives (Late Antique Archaeology 8.1-8.2 2010-11) (Leiden 2013) certainly includes a section on missile effectiveness in the late Roman army.

And on the web you could access http://earlyridinggroup.org/ and http://comitatus.net/

Put simply the horse is a force multiplier. But access to throwing axes gives the infantry something heavy that out ranges javelins.

[Macedon]

Lets try to stay on topic. This isn't about who had the best missile weapons or which nationality had the best cavalry.

Whether the weapon is a plumbata, pilum or a sharpened stick that is aerodynamically stable, it doesn't matter to me. Terminal ballistics is another subject. I am just trying to find out how effective missile armed cavalry were in comparison to infantry armed with the SAME missiles.

Situation:
You are standing in formation of infantry. A troop of Numidian horsemen is circling in front of your formation as you advance. They have already chased off your own skirmishers and now stand between you and the enemy infantry ranks. They shower your units front rank with javelins, forcing you and your mates to hide behind your layered wood shields as protection. Since they are riding at a Canter or Trot, they are hard to hit with your own javelins. You still have at least 300 meters till come in range of the front line of the enemy infantry.

Questions:
Could the infantry hold their own against the horsemen, or are they "outgunned" so too speak?

Would the use of a horse hinder or help the effectiveness of the javelin thrower?

Would it increase the likelihood of penetrating the shield? Or did the horse only add mobility to the warrior while decreasing the effectiveness of his weapon?

It all depends, many cases, many scenarios...

Generally speaking and for most cases and periods, missile weapons (javelins, slings, bows) were not especially deadly. No matter how some descriptions read (Parthian/Carduchian etc arrows piercing shield and armor... ), the way the battles themselves developed prove that normally, any missile normally found on the battlefield was effectively stopped by shield and armor. Plus, the real fear was that cavalry, ANY cavalry (unarmored skirmishers included), might find an infantry unit scattered in open terrain. This was so, because a single man would not effectively defend against multiple missiles coming from different directions (or melee attacks, should the horsemen deem themselves adequately equipped to engage hand to hand) and cavalry had the advantage of superior mobility. Thus, when encountering cavalry, the reaction of foot soldiers would depend on their current formation.

A. if they were light infantry without adequately sized shields, they would quickly retreat into terrain that was unfavorable to cavalry, if such was available or, should heavy contingents be near them, they would seek their protection by retreating behind or inside the latter's array. They would only engage cavalry with their own missiles, if near to safety.

B. if they were infantry, armored or/and with large shields (which was considered the most important equipment against cavalry), they would form in close or compact order and would try to shape some type of shield-wall. Against such a formation, missiles were very ineffective, as long as the men kept their order and morale.

C. if the infantry was equipped with missiles, either because of light infantry present or because the infantry of the line was thus equipped, there were two main methods of using them. One, mostly used by the light infantry was to pass through specially prepared intervals and attack the horsemen in dispersed formation, most effectively once the horsemen were withdrawing (to get resupplied as other squadrons were attacking to take their place - trying to exploit these seconds of weakness as one squadron was galloping to the rear past another one charging) then run back behind the line or try to hit the cavalry from behind the 3rd rank or even more to the rear. This was not particularly effective, since it was very difficult to aim at the opponent or avoid a curved (and thus IIRC weaker) trajectory, but it made sense when the enemy horsemen and horses were not particularly well armored.

The infantry of the line itself, or at least the first ranks, would not break their tight ranks or leave down their shields to use their missiles, should they be equipped with some, once they were about within cavalry missile range. They would not make a run to add to the force of the javelin discharge, there would be no space to whirl a sling and they would not leave their shields or have line of sight to use their bows. Anything else than a shield-wall would be targeted by the cavalry who would try to hit any openings the infantry were not aware of -imagine most soldiers tucking behind shields and their frontrankers, not even daring taking a glimpse, lest they get hit on the face- points where the courage of the infantry would falter and then such irregularities in the shield wall would form as men would flee, turn their backs, backstep, leaving the sides of their parastatae unprotected, get injured or killed and maybe there was an effort to bring them to the rear or hesitation to instantly cover their place.

Thus, it does not really matter whether the infantry were actually armed with equally or even more effective ranged weapons, normally, they would anyways not use them to their full effect.

Now, the above was standard tactics for battles where considerable numbers of footmen were attacked by considerable numbers of horsemen. All writers agree that the most compact formations were those employed in exactly such circumstances (apart from and comparable to the famous synaspismos of the phalanx armed in the Macedonian way, which was used against infantry).

The usual tactic to relieve the infantry was to attack those horsemen with a mixed force of cavalry and light infantry. As long as no long pursuit was conducted that would often lead to a specially prepared ambush, it most always drove the enemy skirmishers off. Later, a way to counter such attacks was by employing similar troops yourself.

However, usually, there was no real problem, because the missiles of the attackers would soon exhaust and they were forced to permanently retreat to resupply. So, it was more common to just let the storm fade out in some minutes or maybe an hour and continue with whatever plans there were at hand than risk any kind of attack against them.

Of course there is much more to tactics pertaining such action, but it has little to do with the actual use of missiles.

A detail that many do not know is that tightening up one's formation and forming a kind of shield-wall was not only a tactical choice of the infantry but also one employed by cavalry. In such occasions, there was a counter-tactic which was used, that is to shoot at the horses instead of the riders. This is very often encountered in Byzantine years as a tactic of the Latins/Normans/Franks/Celts, not in earlier times, for their armor was considered impenetrable, their shields were large while their horses were not particularly well armored, sometimes quite unarmored...

As for resupply, the Byzantine manuals touch this issue and describe how it was done within the formation, it surely happened with all armies that used missiles.

Regarding the number of javelins a horseman could be equipped with when attacking, I always found it interesting that normally only 2 are mentioned but in Arrian's Tactica, a horseman was applauded for discharging 20 (!!!) javelins against the "enemy", all in one charge...

[Alanus]

What am I missing in this argument?
Would a horse decrease the effectiveness of a javelin... or an arrow?
Here's something to consider:

The steppe tribes developed javelins, first thrown from chariots, then from horses, in the 9th century BC. About that same time, the composite bow was developed through bent-wood technology. Were these missiles more effective when released from horseback or from a standing or running position? If they were less effective from an approaching mount, the steppe horseman would have disappeared like the dodo.

My summation-- If some guy were running at me with a javelin, I would be frightened. If a horseman were galloping at me with a poised javelin, I would be TERRIFIED! :whistle:

[Macedon]

Judging the effectiveness in the use of any weapon is more complex than just measuring its capability to inflict damage on its own. It has to do with the effectiveness of the actual troops using it against its enemies. In the case of horse-archers and horse-javeliners, it is not only the bow or the javelin that inflicted injury, it was the sum of the weapon, its wielder, its steed, their protective armor etc.

So, in my opinion, an arrow discharged from horseback might indeed be less dangerous than one discharged by a footman standing immobile at the same distance. Yet, the latter would be more easily dealt with on a tactical and strategical level while the horseman was not. Do you gentlemen think that the Spartans at Sphacteria felt any less powerless than the Romans at Carrhae? However, had they some psiloi themselves and adequate provisions, things would not have been that problematic.

To return to the actual OP, I personally think that javelins thrown from horseback head on were more "effective" than javelins cast by footmen FROM THE SAME DISTANCE. However, a horse-javeliner, would probably discharge his javelin at a greater distance than a foot-javeliner in order to be able to maneuver away. Against infantry, the discharge would probably (as far as I can interpret from the sources)take place at an angle, maybe even with the horse galloping parallel to the footmen, which would mean that any advantage gained by the speed of the horse would practically diminish or even evaporate. On the other hand, the horse-archers would discharge their arrows from distances much closer than that of an infantry line equipped with bows, which would make their arrows deadlier as would be the arrows directed against them of course.

Distance of missile discharge, to me, is the most important factor as to how much damage they could individually inflict but of course not the only factor. Foot missiles, in my opinion, would be more effective as long as their casters had the chance to use them against an enemy who had no countermeasures and thus could approach as near as horse-skirmishers would and there stay and shoot at the enemy. Missiles used in volleys, such as arrows and javelins from infantry lines (Persians, Romans), would be less effective as to their individual damage inflicting capability but very useful (always under circumstances) as to their overall effect (damage, morale, on the enemy order etc). A Roman pilum hurled at a distance of maybe 30 or 50 yards would certainly not be as damaging as a javelin hurled from a mere 10 or 15 yards, but its effect on the enemy just before the charge would be much mor important. And a javelin cast over one's own ranks would not be as damaging as one hurled straight to the enemy, even at a distance of just 10 yards...