Plate is an old invention. But apart from the ancient world, the Ottoman turks used javelins and polish Hussitecavalry did well into the 17th century, for instance.
But I agree that a high quality steel armour should be difficult even for a heavy steel javelin. But impossible?
Actually basic question is, could javelins break heavy steel plate?
Humans don't generate enough force when throwing though maybe a good steel tip and exceptional circumstances could do the trick. I think they're mostly for disruption/horses/lighter troops though in which scenarios they are very useful.
I think an interesting point to make is that gunpowder weapons were in a lot of way the bane of nomadic armies. Without them, I wonder who the next batch of Mongols, Huns, Avars, or Sarmatians will arise from the steppes?
Not to derail the conversation, but methinks it is somewhat pertinent.
Originally Posted by Errnge
I think an interesting point to make is that gunpowder weapons were in a lot of way the bane of nomadic armies. Without them, I wonder who the next batch of Mongols, Huns, Avars, or Sarmatians will arise from the steppes?
Not to derail the conversation, but methinks it is somewhat pertinent.
Would a mixed pike-and-crossbow formation be enough? Infantry archers can generally outshoot horse archers, and the pikemen would keep the enemy from charging home.
Samrobo :That form of warfare was obsolete by the end of the roman empire
Just to argue a bit Beacause it took a long time for the roman empire to die, and since javelins survived it, why not. Consider the hispanic Almughavar whom were paid mercenaries armed with heavy javelins, and quite able to take down knights with a throw at point blank range. Also the romans had they not stagnated, might have developed more armoured and better cavalry as in knights, but still used javelins.
Samrobo: As skirmisher's they're outranged by archers and crossbowmen, their lack of a spear and loose-order formation make them vulnerable to cavalry, and their weapons are less effective against armour than either bowshots or crossbow bolts.
The crossbow and longbow are all old weapons as is the javelin, but give the Almughavar a complimantary spear and a steelshield then, and suppose they fight like heavy infantry like the romans. They (the romans) had crossbows, and these were not effective against shields. But the javelins would be effective if heavy enough and outrange the pikes (when thrown). Also, the javelin are more weather-proof than crossbows, easier to learn than the longbow, and cheaper than the knights for purpose of mass-production.
Also the crossbowman is not an infantryman as a javelinman could be
Javelins survived in a few, rare cases, into the early middle ages - we have accounts of thrown spear skirmishes between shield walls in germanic infantry combat for instance - and early knights would use thrown javelins.
In the high middle ages though, the javelin wasn't used in western europe. Technology and military tactics had moved on.
The success of the almughavar has more to do with their knowledge of the terrain and assymmetric warefare than their weaponry
The gastrophetes was known in the roman empire - but that's completely different in terms of efficacy when compared to lever-drawn crossbows, which have a much higher rate of fire and store more energy. By the high middle ages, we're looking at, at the top end, steel-pronged windlass-drawn arbalests. Besides which, the romans never had to contend with the crossbow as a mass-weapon.
The Longbow is a neolithic weapon, but not all advances are technological. The military-cultural complex in medieval England allowed the recruitment of thousands of longbowmen - when previously the weapon had been used by only a highly skilled minority. We have the example of the battle of Najera to see what happens when javelin-armed skirmishers have to contend with massed longbow fire.
Rubbish. Take two infantrymen with identical equipment, save that one has javelins and the other a high-middle ages appropriate crossbow - the latter is vastly more effective.
In fact javelins are surprisingly expensive equipment
Hmmm....no, I think that since the early middleages was a low armor period, it would be more effective to use bows than javelins. But in the high middlages, primitive guns and firearms had already changed the nature of the battlefield. Almughavars were in fact mercenaries abroad and highly successfull albeit used as skirmishers.
That is true but what if they had the same quality in their shields and armor as in the middleages crossbows? They would be updated as well...and just as you say perhaps used not as skirmishers, but as pro-soldiers.
And, the Jinetes at Najera were light cavalry right? Provided armour or steelshields could stop an arrow or a bolt at least at some distance and I kind of think they could, the advantage of a heavy javelin is also that they would break armour, and stay in the armour.
Identical equipment...that is a huge thick shield heavy armor and an infantry weapon, as in a sword or a anticavspear... a) plus a huge arbalest and ammunition on your back or... b) two javelins, that carry no weigth after they were thrown. Obviously, the archer is at disadvantage or would have to toss away his expensive crossbow.
Javelins are less effective against heavily-armoured opponents than bows are.
In any case, we see the javelin dying out in western europe before the introduction of firearms. The onus is on you to provide a reason for it to reemerge.
The way I see it the javelin was never dead and re-emerging before firearms. The reason is provided (I don´t really know)..that if it is heavy enough and could penetrate the armor of the time, it would be kind of an anti-tank weapon more primitive than the firearms but with the same function. And firearms outmatched bows and crossbows and mounted archers. But it all depends upon if you can penetrate the armour with a thrown weapon.
Theres no much you can do to advance a full-body shield further than the scutum, weight gets in the way.
My guess is that you could make a better shield with better materials available in the middleages. Perhaps a hoplite like shield but with steelplate insted of bronze.
The Jinetes were cavalry armed with javelins, equivalent to mounted almughavars. Longbow arrows penetrated the knightly armour of the period - to survive to get into range your javelin-armed skirmishers would have to be armoured at the same level as contemporary elite knights.
Well, yes I realize that skirmishers especially mounted ones would be vulnerable but not infantry when raising their shields as umbrellas.
Steel shields? You mean a buckler? No, those are completely ineffective against missile fire, they're too small.
Not really, because the arrows would rain down from above in great clouds. Steel umbrellas?
Once again, Javelins do not pierce armour well, they are too slow moving, too affected by air resistance, and aren't moving fast enough.
Fair enough...if that is true then I surrender,
A lever-ratchet crossbow and a quiver of 12 bolts (the historical genoese loadout) weighs less than 3 javelins, and takes up less space.
For this we get 6-7 times the effective range, better ability to pierce armour, and greater accuracy, with no downside whatsoever.
There is a reason javelin-armed skirmishers weren't used in western europe at the time, and removing gunpowder won't change that.
If a javelin could penetrate maile, it should penetrate plate just as easy?
Ah, heres your problem. That's not true.
Contemporary firearms couldn't even penetrate a plate harness - a javelin has less armour piercing capability than either arrows or crossbow bolts.
All you need is someone to re-develop the Atlatl. With a long enough lever, generating the necessary amount of force to pierce armor from the High Middle Ages is fairly easy. Especially if they've got a tip like a Pilum, which will maximise the effective sectional density of the javelin, increasing the chance of armor penetration on a hit.
Identical equipment...that is a huge thick shield heavy armor and an infantry weapon, as in a sword or a anticavspear... a) plus a huge arbalest and ammunition on your back or... b) two javelins, that carry no weight after they were thrown. Obviously, the archer is at disadvantage or would have to toss away his expensive crossbow.
Steel shields? You mean a buckler? No, those are completely ineffective against missile fire, they're too small.
That was a surprise. Would one count as in materials and workhours compared to producing one longbowman, or one crossbowman?
A quiver of how many arrows or bolts to one javelin?
Also, Arbalests kind of look advanced costly things to me, and a longbowman took a long time to train.
As everybody concentrated on the Western Europe Mostly I have to look at how "no guns" would have changed some other regions.What would you learned men and women think would be the effect, if guns and explosives never be introduced to the battlefield.
I am thinking shields and heavy javelins, like peltasts or romans. ?