Safe distance

[JaM]

Nathan: i read through that thread, but must say i find those values for javelins extremely short..  specifically considering that ankyles were commonly used in ancient times.. from what i read before, ankyle could increase the throw speed quite significantly extending the range by additional 30-50% (lower value for better thrower, higher value for worse thrower) so 60m should not be a problem using some light javelin with ankyle.


Bryan: good one.. but actually, all you need is to know the release angle and velocity.. then you can easily get the distance.. for example you can use this calculator for some base range calculations:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/trajectory.php

so for example, to throw a javelin with typical release angle of 30 degree at distance of 60m, you would need to release it at speed of 26m/s.  Modern Javelineers are commonly getting at 30m/s speed with 800g heavy javelin, but they commonly throw at distances over 80m.. so i would guess ancient thrower using ankyle and throwing some light 400g javelin could do 50-60m with some training..

now, for legionary throwing a Pilum at 25m, for the same angle of the throw (30 degrees), he would need to release the Pilum at 16-17m/s


Of course, these are theoretical values, actual throws would be influenced by other aspects as well, like cross-wind for example...

[Gunthamund Hasding]

to all thanks for the answer (s)
seems that around 300 was a good guess if tormenta are involved

lets suppose the enemies would be barbarians with no war machines should it be 200 m?

IO will let for now Pitagoras out but will involve Euclid and Thales later

[Bryan]

What do you need the info for? A book or something? If so, here's an anecdote, have one guy saying another is standing a bit too close and get warned to move further away. That guy then boasts that he is out of range, then catches an arrow or sling stone from the defenders in the face. Then everyone moves further back.

[JaM]

Bryan: thats actually a rework of the thing that happened to one American Civil War general, who told his troops to not crouch, because enemy can't shoot that far (he said they would not hit even elephant at that distance), just a second later he was shot by an sniper..

[Bryan]

Its a rework of a billion incidents in history when someone foolishly thought they were out of range of the enemy and then found out they were not. A near identical thing happened to me in Iraq, I warned someone they were in range of an enemy machine gun, the soldier said he was out of range, machine gun fired, almost hit him, and then he took cover with the rest of us.

[Fabricius Carbo]

How to derive projectile range for given conditions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_of_a_projectile

This link has formula for flat 'ideal' conditions, uneven ground and differing target heights in relation to release point.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

thanks again

[ParthianBow]

Interesting thread.
To divert it a fraction - someone made mention of heated oil.
Isn't that one of those common misconceptions? I read in a 15th C French fort that heated sand was what was used to pour on enemies. Sand is dirt cheap and easy to come by - oil is not cheap, it's also a foodstuff, which is good to keep in a siege etc. etc.
Anyone else got any info on that?

[Nathan Ross]

heated oil... Isn't that one of those common misconceptions?

Hot sand or ashes, or even boiling water, were probably far more common, and are mentioned several times in accounts of sieges from antiquity. But it seems that boiling oil was used as well, though a lot less often. Josephus describes using it at Jotapata against an advancing Roman testudo. But I think the best description is from Herodian's account of the siege of Aquileia in D238:

"...combining pitch and olive oil with asphalt and brimstone, [the defenders] ignited this mixture and poured it over their attackers from hollow vessels fitted with long handles. Bringing the flaming liquid to the walls, they scattered it over the soldiers like a heavy downpour of rain.

Carried along with the other ingredients, the pitch oozed onto the unprotected parts of the soldiers' bodies and spread everywhere. Then the soldiers ripped off their blazing corselets and the rest of their armor too, for the iron grew red hot, and the leather and wooden parts caught fire and burned. As a result, soldiers were seen everywhere stripping themselves, and the discarded armor appeared like the spoils of war... In this tragedy, most of the soldiers suffered scarred and disfigured faces and lost eyes and hands, while every unprotected part of the body was severely injured." (Herodian, 8.4)

[ParthianBow]

Excellent, thanks, Nathan.
*love the idea of pitch/olive oil mix to use!*

[Bryan]

heated oil... Isn't that one of those common misconceptions?

Hot sand or ashes, or even boiling water, were probably far more common, and are mentioned several times in accounts of sieges from antiquity. But it seems that boiling oil was used as well, though a lot less often. Josephus describes using it at Jotapata against an advancing Roman testudo. But I think the best description is from Herodian's account of the siege of Aquileia in D238:

"...combining pitch and olive oil with asphalt and brimstone, [the defenders] ignited this mixture and poured it over their attackers from hollow vessels fitted with long handles. Bringing the flaming liquid to the walls, they scattered it over the soldiers like a heavy downpour of rain.

Carried along with the other ingredients, the pitch oozed onto the unprotected parts of the soldiers' bodies and spread everywhere. Then the soldiers ripped off their blazing corselets and the rest of their armor too, for the iron grew red hot, and the leather and wooden parts caught fire and burned. As a result, soldiers were seen everywhere stripping themselves, and the discarded armor appeared like the spoils of war... In this tragedy, most of the soldiers suffered scarred and disfigured faces and lost eyes and hands, while every unprotected part of the body was severely injured." (Herodian, 8.4)

Having burned myself cooking with olive oil enough times, oil sticks to the skin pretty well, so getting covered with super heated oil means that the substance wont just bounce off like heated sand.

[Nathan Ross]

the substance wont just bounce off like heated sand.

True - and it would also make everything very slippery! But hot sand is supposed to be very nasty when it gets inside armour. Diodorus's account of Alexander's siege of Tyre in 332BC describes what happens:

"[The Tyrians] fashioned shields of bronze and iron and, filling them with sand, roasted them continuously over a strong fire and made the sand red hot. By means of a certain apparatus they then scattered this over those Macedonians who were fighting most boldly and brought those within its range into utter misery. The sand sifted down under breastplates and shirts, and scorching the skin with the intense heat inflicted upon them irremediable disaster. They shrieked supplications like those under torture and there was no one to help them, but with the excruciating agony they fell into madness and died, the victims of a pitiable and helpless lot." (Diodorus Siculus, 17.44)

[Bryan]

Sounds terrible. But it sounds like effective and simple means to defend a wall, assuming sand is on hand. Since oil is present in nearly every Mediterranean that is also a good agent to dump on those poor bastards tasked to take the wall.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

So it seems that a really safe distance to the wall would be at least one stadium 185m otherwise you either got feathered with arrows, peppered with stones or boiled with water, sand or oil or a mixture.

This became a real interesting thread with a few extremely nice citations thanks all for participating.

[MonsGraupius]

I'm surprised that Steven James hasn't commented on the answer to this issue, because it seems like his fortee. Use the Pythagorean theorem to figure it out. You'll need the max range of whatever missile weapon is being used and the height of the firing point on the wall and that will get you the distance.

I worked out the supposed range for a sling shot the other day and for a proficient slinger it was around 120-170m (but after ~10hrs practice I get around 80m).

I have a bow - which people are suggesting has around 150-250m range. But the killing range is much smaller, I'm lucky to hit the 10cm gold at about 25m. Those who are in countries that allow hunting with a bow suggest a maximum killing range of around 40m. Even with sights and a perfect place to stand, I would be lucky to hit a person at >100m - so unless they are in tight formation, they are pretty safe unless I want to waste a lot of arrows.

But, my aim with a sling is appalling (I find it difficult to hit a floating milk carton at say ~10m). So even with a lot more practice my effective range for targetting individuals would be 20-40m.

Remember these are stationary targets, I'm under no pressure, I've got all the time in the world and no one is firing stuff at me. On the other hand, real soldiers would have a lot more training.

I would therefore suggest, that in an actual battle situation, the effective killing range of a bow is ~40m and sling perhaps 30m. The maximum distance is 250m for a bow and 170m for a slingshot. But the chances of hitting the particular person aimed at is only perhaps 1 in ~36 or higher (as wind become more important). In other words at maximum range, you'd be hard pressed to hit even a formation of soldiers let alone the General on his horse.