How decisive were missile weapons in battle?

[Aulus Perrinius]

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.

The tile may not kill you but it will certainly screw your neck up and distract you long enough for the enemy hoplite to shove something pointy into the gap of your helm.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

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.

Oh, indeed, in general the rocks thrown by hand were 'fist-sized' if possible, weighing up to 1lb/0.6 kg - these were considered suitable for warfare, because they were heavy enough to break unarmoured limbs, or concuss a man through armour. Slingstones of this size too were not unusual.

Consider this illuminating passage for the uses and limitations of 'lithoboloi', referring to the battle of Baecula in Spain :-

"...The attack was commenced by the light-armed troops(velites) who had repulsed the outposts the day before, and who were led by Scipio in person. At first their only difficulty was the rough ground over which they were marching, but soon they came within range of the infantry stationed on the lower plateau, and all kinds of missiles were showered upon them, to which they replied with a hail of stones, picked up from the ground, where they lay in abundance, and nearly all of convenient size, and which not only the soldiers but the camp followers who were with them flung at the enemy. Difficult as the climb was, and almost buried as they were beneath stones and javelins and darts, they went steadily on, thanks to their training in escalade and their grim determination. As soon as they reached level ground and could plant their feet firmly, their superior mode of fighting told. The light and active enemy, accustomed to fighting and skirmishing at a distance, when he could evade the missiles, was quite incapable of holding his own in a hand-to-hand fight, and he was hurled back with heavy loss on to the main body posted on the higher ground." Livy XXVII.18
When visiting the battlefield, the slopes now largely covered in olive trees, it was quite a thrill to look down and see these fist-sized stones still thickly carpeting the ground.....the very stones that Scipio's troops hurled..... hock:

But I digress; points of interest to note are:-
* the servants and camp-followers play a part, as they so often did, as skirmishers probably armed with javelins only - while the 'velites' had fuller equipment of javelins, shields, helmets, and swords.
* The carthaginian skirmishers, probably most if not all of whom were shieldless, while able to hold their own in the 'missile' war, are quickly defeated by sword-and-shield armed troops at close quarters, despite the volume of missiles they produce ( and in this instance, unlike most where missile ammunition supply is a critical factor, there was an infinite supply). Their nimbleness normally allows them to 'dodge' most incoming missiles.
* The velites, probably thanks to their shields and helmets, are able to climb the steep slope in the face of the non-stop barrage, and close to hand-to-hand combat.

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".

You wore a pith helmet in the Northern territory ? hock: hock: hock: :lol: :lol:

Wow! You are a much braver man than I had realised.......... D

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

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.

The reason I referred to 'pebbles' was because men on a horseshoe shaped hillside would have extreme difficulty throwing fist-sized 'rocks' over troops massed in the valley below, to reach Macedonian troops on the valley floor some distance away from the Phocians (not in close contact). Furthermore, there is no instance I know of in warfare in the Mediterranean world where an Army, or a heavy infantry force, panicked and ran from showers of hand-thrown stones......as we have seen, it was a common prelude to most battles.......

The morale effect of the noise of the machines and the rocks creating dozens of casualties (among thousands) was sufficient to panic even Philip's hard-bitten veterans.

In Greek, the word LITHOS, means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) - see LSJ, while PETROS generally refers to a larger 'rock', and PETRA is bigger still - a 'boulder' or larger.

In this instance, one should note the word Polyaenas uses is 'petroboloi', more accurately translated as 'rock thrower', rather than 'stone thrower'. As in English 'stone' and 'rock' overlap to a degree, so the use of the Greek word for the larger, heavier item is indicative ( rather than conclusive) that 'rock throwing' machines are being referred to.

[D B Campbell]

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.

Hmm, not quite how I remember my explanation. No mention of "pebbles" in this thread.

[some comments removed by moderator]

[Paullus Scipio]

Simply to point out that in all fairness there was another point of view.....I did not bother to re-visit the thread, and the use of the word 'pebble' was my own, as I already explained in posts above. No-one would think you used the term.

[some comments removed by moderator]

[Sean Manning]

Paul B. wrote:

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.

The reason I referred to 'pebbles' was because men on a horseshoe shaped hillside would have extreme difficulty throwing fist-sized 'rocks' over troops massed in the valley below, to reach Macedonian troops on the valley floor some distance away from the Phocians (not in close contact). Furthermore, there is no instance I know of in warfare in the Mediterranean world where an Army, or a heavy infantry force, panicked and ran from showers of hand-thrown stones......as we have seen, it was a common prelude to most battles.......

The morale effect of the noise of the machines and the rocks creating dozens of casualties (among thousands) was sufficient to panic even Philip's hard-bitten veterans.

But since this is an ambush, and the rock throwers are on hills, isn't that all speculative? Its not shocking that an army flees when its suddenly attacked from all sides by an enemy which it thought was beaten, whether the attackers have the latest high-tech equipment or stones and pointy sticks. Thrown stones would have plenty of range to outreach pikes. And for all we know (a few dozen words in a text centuries after the event it describes) the men at the sides of the valley could have been throwing 10 lb rocks by hand which bounced down the slopes into the Macedonian ranks. And there isn't much point in throwing 'pebbles' at armed men by hand. I don't have a horse in this race, but lets be clear what is speculation and what is a fact ...

[M. Demetrius]

To some people, "pebbles" are 2cm gravel, but to others a kilogram is still called a "pebble". The argument here hinges on that definition, doesn't it?

[Sean Manning]

Thanks for pointing that out. In my dialect of English, a pebble isn't more than 4 cm or so across; but I can vaguely recall usages where its larger, like any stone in a riverbed or on a beach. I don't know what Paul meant by the word.

[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.

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?

Most of the question seems to have been answered. But apart from the cumbersome heavy pieces that you seem to have in mind, battlefield artillery also included the smaller torsion pieces (manuballistae, carroballistae) which I was thinking of. :wink:

[Felix]

To return to the original question, I would like to suggest other issues: how much of the emphasis on missile weapons was related to social considerations and the way authors' present combat (see the current thread on Lendon's article). In the earlier era of chariot warfare, archery was the weapon of the charioteer, which was the most prestigious warrior type - recall how Egyptian and Assyrian monarchs are shown as charioteers; so perhaps it was natural to focus on the exploits of these warriors.

As for the second issue, the problem of literary convention in describing combat comes to mind. Certainly, in later warfare writings, cliches are used which imply actions in combat which didn't really fit the cliches. For example, in the American Civil War, bayonet wounds were extremely rare, but bayonet charges were frequent - and actually seemed to be effective in many cases in breaking up the enemy line - but few of the routed soldiers waited long enough to actually be wounded with a bayonet.

In addition, the actual effects of missile weapons is remarkably hard to establish. There is a huge controversy in mediveal military history about the longbow and its effects - and in that case, we have actual weapons and a living tradtion in their use, actual armour, and a number of eyewitness accounts to argue about.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I know somewhere hidden away in my vast collection of papers there is one about this very subject. The author, whose name I have sadly forgotten, looked at battle accounts that only gave specific casualty figures, and where missile fire was also mentioned.

I believe the conclusion was that missile fire had more of a psychological impact most of the time, rather than a physical one. Certainly, authors such as Ammianus tell of battles where only several hundred Romans were killed, and they slaughtered thousands in return, and these battles always mentioned intense missile barrages by both sides before hand to hand fighting broke out. Most casualties appear to be caused when one side breaks and attempts to run for safety, the pursuers then killing them in disproportionate numbers.

[D B Campbell]

The author, whose name I have sadly forgotten, looked at battle accounts that only gave specific casualty figures, and where missile fire was also mentioned.

Sounds like Everett Wheeler's "Firepower: Missile weapons and the 'Face of Battle'", in E. Dabrowa (ed.), Roman Military Studies (Electrum, vol. 5), Krakow 2001, pp. 169-184.