How decisive were missile weapons in battle?

[fiatjustitia]

I infer from inscriptions and early writings that their effectiveness waxed and waned. In early antiquity they seemed to be an important arm- witness the stone carvings of the Persians, Egyptions and Hittites. Yet by the time of early and middle antiquity my sense is that they were relegated to a secondary role. However by late antiquity historians again seem to imply that they were decisive. Was this due to changes in tactics, or changes in defensive or offensive technology? I honestly cant make up my mind.

title edited by moderator due to spelling mistake

[Paullus Scipio]

It's a complex question and varies from time-to-time and place-to-place. Even within a given area at a given time, the circumstances of the battlefield could favour 'missiles', while another battlefield might favour close combat. ( think besieging a city - almost pure missile warfare, save for the final assault, where a flat open battlefield might favour charging cavalry and one broken by trees, gullies and the like favour close-combat armoured infantry). Even technology ( the type and availability of bows for example) and economics ( only Rome was ever rich enough to 'armour' almost all its Army) are factors. 'Fashions' in warfare can also have an effect too - Greeks of the Classical era despised archers as 'cowards', preferring the' gentlemanly' warfare of armoured men in close combat - which had a social skew, because only the wealthy could afford the gear ( as did Western European knights for much the same reasons) ......until the Persian invasion reminded them that the bow was a powerful weapon in the right hands. (BTW; those same Hoplites saw nothing cowardly in butchering 'naked' defenceless opponents without armour, decent shield or weapons.... and luckily for them the technology of their defensive shields and armour was better than the offensive technology of Persian bows).

Any American football fan too, knows that 'offence' sometimes dominates 'defence' and vice versa.........

And I haven't but touched on cultural and social differences, to say nothing of 'morale'.........I'm sure others will post plenty of other factors!! D

As you can see, even if you restrict the question to just one time and place the answer is STILL complex..... :?

[Robert Vermaat]

I'd say that, although we aren't given enough details for every battle, the fact that Roman battlefield strategy saw a continuous use of many missiles (slings, spears, javelins, arrows, plumbatae, not to mention artillery) from the times long before Ceasar to well into the Middle Ages, they must have thought of it as quite useful. Not to say essential.

[Aulus Perrinius]

It can also depend on the soldiers (Your side and the enemy) if they're heavily armoured missile weapons would be relegated to S&A (Support and Annoyance). If your enemy isn't armoured then a few razor sharp broadheads in their exposed flesh will teach them that maybe revolting against the empire wasn't such a good idea after all.

I'd say that, although we aren't given enough details for every battle, the fact that Roman battlefield strategy saw a continuous use of many missiles (slings, spears, javelins, arrows, plumbatae, not to mention artillery) from the times long before Ceasar to well into the Middle Ages, they must have thought of it as quite useful. Not to say essential.

Artillery? I was under the impression that until the 1700's Artillery was for the most part heavy cumbersome and a pain to lug around for a battle. Can you elaborate?

'Fashions' in warfare can also have an effect too - Greeks of the Classical era despised archers as 'cowards', preferring the' gentlemanly' warfare of armoured men in close combat - which had a social skew, because only the wealthy could afford the gear ( as did Western European knights for much the same reasons) ......until the Persian invasion reminded them that the bow was a powerful weapon in the right hands. (BTW; those same Hoplites saw nothing cowardly in butchering 'naked' defenceless opponents without armour, decent shield or weapons.... and luckily for them the technology of their defensive shields and armour was better than the offensive technology of Persian bows).

Indeed. (Although Knights in certain units and countries used bows and later, pistols)

Fiatjustica, another factor in using missile weapons is your tactical mindset/paradigm. 'Knights' were heavily armed and armoured shock cavalry, so they don't have much use for bows, they've got crossbowmen to do that for them. The Hoplites had Psiloi and Peltastoi to support them and their shields which was large factor in making the phalanx viable precluded the use of a bow. And like Paullus said the offensive technology of the persian bows couldn't defeat the defensive technology of their armour. So their thinking was.

[M. Demetrius]

Roman artillery consisted of ballista bolts and stones, some weighing as much as a hundred pounds. Armor isn't much defense against those, odds are. Even a five pound stone impacting a body at a hundred miles an hour is devastating to bones and soft tissue, and I suspect metal armor would cave in.

[PMBardunias]

When considering hoplites, missiles have "effectivenss" that may not be immediately apparent. While the hoplite panoply appears to have been very good protection against missiles when the men are in a dense phalanx, this is not the case when moving in marching columns, when they are dispersed, or if their flank is exposed. Thus, a strong missile arm allowed you to dictate to some extent the foes ability to maneuver during a battle, and protect your own flank from attack.

The ability to harrass a foe with showers of missiles, particulary sling bullets, which are very loud and invisible in flight, should not be underestimated as well even if few are killed.

[Dan Howard]

Yep. Missiles were rarely used to reduce numbers. They were used to break up formations so other units could exploit the gaps. They limited maneuverability by creating "beaten zones" and attacking unprotected flanks. Mass volleys could force cavalry troops to dismount and advance on foot. They also gave you increased troop numbers since missiles could be wielded by those who didn't have the equipment or experience to engage in close-in fighting. Their ability to cause casualties is largely moot. They had plenty of other tactical advantages.

[Paullus Scipio]

I would agree with Dan and Paul B......the 'morale' effect of missiles should not be underestimated. Anyone who has in childhood been pelted with stones by several other children understands the fear of massed missiles - when the only option is to run! (usually to the amusement of said stonethrowers). This despite the fact that the risk of serious injury is remote......

Consider, for example, those Hoplites we mentioned earlier. At the battle of Plataea, the Spartans and Tegeans sat/squatted behind their shields while the Spartan King Pausanias sacrificed, and ostensibly waited for the omens to become favourable ( really perhaps waiting for the other Greek divisions, especially the Athenians, to come up to his aid).
Though few casualties were actually incurred, the stinging archery fire from the Persians, inflicting a few wounds and occasional deaths* was sufficient to cause the 3,000 Tegeans to spontaneously charge the Persians. In fact only 16 Tegean Hoplites were killed in the actual battle, plus those who "died outside the battle" i.e. the few killed by archery.

Contrast this victory where missile fire proved indecisive ( though effective - what if the Tegeans had run the other way?) with the last few hundred Hoplites at Thermopylae, all killed by massed missile fire (though arrows had proved indecisive in previous days fighting); or the undoubtedly courageous 420 Spartans on the island of Sphacteria, 292 of whom were forced into an unheard of surrender by missile fire alone; or the understrength (some 600 or so) Spartan 'Mora'/regiment, some 35 years after Sphacteria, who broke and ran from Iphikrates' peltasts at Lechaion - losing 250 of their number, mostly killed afterward in the rout brought on by javelin fire ..........all examples of missile fire breaking an opponents morale, without necessarily inflicting many casualties, and proving decisive..........

And all those examples occurred in a single 100 year period in one place - Greece. There are countless examples from every other era of warfare...


*one such was the Spartan Kallikrates, by common consent the handsomest man in the army. He was hit in the side by an arrow as he sat in his place in the ranks, and was carried away, mortally wounded, lamenting that he died without striking a blow

[Aulus Perrinius]

Roman artillery consisted of ballista bolts and stones, some weighing as much as a hundred pounds. Armor isn't much defense against those, odds are. Even a five pound stone impacting a body at a hundred miles an hour is devastating to bones and soft tissue, and I suspect metal armor would cave in.

Agreed. But my point was that I thought the launching platform would such a pain to lug around for a battle that it would limit the numbers and thus the impact. Don't get me wrong, I would like to know if that's a myth.

[Paullus Scipio]

Aulinus Perrinius wrote:

Agreed. But my point was that I thought the launching platform would such a pain to lug around for a battle that it would limit the numbers and thus the impact. Don't get me wrong, I would like to know if that's a myth.

Yes and no !! :wink: Generally speaking, artillery was too 'static' for use on a mobile battlefield, but could be useful in certain tactical situations. Certainly mobile artillery was in use in the Roman Army by 100 AD.

We first hear of large 'stonethrowers' being used in an open field battle ( as opposed to sieges) in 353/2 BC, when the later 2nd C AD Macedonian writer Polyaenas tells how Philip of Macedon was defeated by Onomarchus the Phocian. His troops carried out a feigned retreat, leading the Macedonians into a valley surrounded by heights from which 'stonethrowers'/petrobalai bombarded the Macedonians over the Phocian troops heads, causing them to panic and flee, pursued by the Phocian troops in the valley.
(Noteuncan Campbell has argued that this was not the first use of stonethrowing artillery recorded, but that the 'stonethrowers' were men lobbing pebbles by hand over the Phocian troops heads from the hillsides. This seems unlikely because hand-throwers would not have had the necessary range, nor would shielded and helmeted heavy infantry have been too perturbed by showers of pebbles. This defeat evidently led to Philip taking an interest in catapult artillery, for a few years later in 345 BC, his pre-occupation with 'katapeltaioi' was the subject of Athenian comedy. Duncan and I debated this subject elsewhere on RAT)

Alexander too is reported to have used his 'artillery' in the field if a suitable tactical situation arose, such as a river crossing. Thereafter 'artillery', though normally only used in 'static' situations such as sieges, proliferated throughout the Mediterranean world. Both Philip V of Macedon and his son Perseus used artillery to defend a riverbank against the Romans in the Pydna campaign.In Roman times, Sulla and Caesar both used catapults in field battles, and appreciated that, being essentially 'static' they needed to be behind the line or protected by fieldworks. Machanidas of Sparta failed to appreciate this and stationed light catapults brought to the field in carts "at intervals in a line along the whole front of his army",as recorded by Polybius. Predictably, they were overun by Philopoemen's Achaeans.Like Alexander, the Romans used artillery whenever the tactical situation was favourable - e.g. Germanicus clearing an opposite riverbank of Chatti tribesmen so his troops could cross in AD 14, and again at the battle of Angrivarii in AD 16, to dislodge Cherusci tribesmen from an earthen bank. Tacitus and Josephus speak of stonethrowers as well as boltshooters being used in field battles, (e.g. Cremona, 69 AD) and of Legions possessing their own organic artillery, as does Vegetius, on a scale of roughly one stonethrower per cohort, and one bolt-shooter per century. Arrian describes stonethrowers and boltshoters deployed in his 'order of battle against the Alans'.

On Trajan's column ( recording the Dacian Wars c. 100 AD) we first see mobile artillery, in the form of 'carroballistae' - boltshooters being used mounted and firing from carts, as opposed to merely being transported in them and set up statically.

By the 4 C AD, artillery was concentrated in special Legions of 'ballistarii', perhaps having around 50 pieces of various types. The 'Notitia Dignitatum' records one or two of such Legions in each half of the Empire's mobile field army.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Ah, okay. Thanks

[M. Demetrius]

And of course, if one were to hit you, you'd think them pretty darned decisive.

[PMBardunias]

Duncan Campbell has argued that this was not the first use of stonethrowing artillery recorded, but that the 'stonethrowers' were men lobbing pebbles by hand over the Phocian troops heads from the hillsides. This seems unlikely because hand-throwers would not have had the necessary range, nor would shielded and helmeted heavy infantry have been too perturbed by showers of pebbles.

The role of lithoboloi should not be underplayed. Xenophon refers to rock throwing repeatedly, and off the top of my head, Thucydides wrote of them on both sides in battles between the Athenians and Syracusans. Hoplites too were known to throw rocks as improptu missile weapons. You don't even need to carry them in a place as rocky as Greece. If we can judge from vase depictions, even allowing exagerration, they were not "pebbles", but substantial rocks.

On a collecting trip up in Darwin, I was once knocked flat by a chunk of dead branch not much heavier than the rocks they threw falling and caving in my pith helmet. It did not come close to killing me, but I certainly felt "harassed".

[Sean Manning]

Also, many ancient helmets were light and thinly padded, so not the best defense against concussion.

Homer talks a lot about heroes throwing boulders when they had no spear to hand, so rock-throwing had good epic precedents. And of course throwing and dropping rocks (and timbers and pots and tiles and ...) was important in sieges; another situation when the throwers had an advantage of height.

In general, low-tech missile weapons could not prevent a determined enemy from closing, and rarely killed large numbers of armed men. But they could do lots of other things.

[PMBardunias]

of course throwing and dropping rocks (and timbers and pots and tiles ...

The roof tile/old matron weapon system proved to be the most important of the Pyrrhic wars, though I have never seen in included in a wargame.