If the horse archers attacked the pike/bow combo head on, yeah. However, the problem with horse archers is that they are mobile to the max. They'd probably decline to attack the pike/archers head on, ride around them, and go pillage someplace that isn't protected. And is it a given that foot archers can outshoot horse archers? Longbows and heavy crossbows might have the range, but the ordinary bows used widely across Europe would not. A better tactic for Europe might be to deny whatever grazing they can for the nomad's horses...
High middleages without gunpowder.
- Thread starter LXEagle
- Start date
If the horse archers attacked the pike/bow combo head on, yeah. However, the problem with horse archers is that they are mobile to the max. They'd probably decline to attack the pike/archers head on, ride around them, and go pillage someplace that isn't protected. And is it a given that foot archers can outshoot horse archers? Longbows and heavy crossbows might have the range, but the ordinary bows used widely across Europe would not. A better tactic for Europe might be to deny whatever grazing they can for the nomad's horses...
I've never heard of the Mongol horse archers defeated by the foot archers.
The point is that the Mongols had excellent crack heavily armed horse troops armed with pikes and sabers which were used to assault the enemies' foot archers who were a 'sitting duck' for them.
First the Mongol horse archers concentrated their fire against the foot troops (pikemen) which protected the enemy's foot archers.
When these pikemen were dispersed or/and disorganized by the volley of arrows, the Mongol heavy horse assault troops attacked the exposed foot archers and the scattered remains of the pikemen with deadly result.
Supposedly they were held off by alllied crossbowmen at Mohi, before the pontoneers bridged the river allowing a flank attack.
Generally though the Mongols themselves often dismounted and took loose formations to fight at extreme range (vs. the Mamluks for example) - presenting smaller targets.
Bows meant for footsoldiers are also typically about 20 lbs of draw heavier if we look at say, Manchu military examination standards. It's not a decisive difference but indicative that a foot archer can be more specialised.
On the other hand acess to explosives was one major factor to the success of the mongols in the west. Maybe the europeans like the romans would simply fortify?
But yeah, on the field a mounted archer could move in close fire and gallop away, and if the infantry would do a "turtle" with the shields the heavy cavs would just topple them.
But yeah, on the field a mounted archer could move in close fire and gallop away, and if the infantry would do a "turtle" with the shields the heavy cavs would just topple them.
Gunpowder was only ever invented once in human history, largely as a fluke, by Chinese apothecaries attempting to mix various 'pseudo-medicinal' ingredients on a quest for gunpowder, circa 800.
Even then, it took a few hundred years for the optimum formula to be achieved and practical applications found.
So it's fairly easy to butterfly.
mhmm?...but then you would need a squire for every archer then, bad logistics. And whats to say that javelins could not be massproduced in a similar manner if needed?
Consider the arbalestier, coming into pointblank range at 50metres, if he shoots through the steel armor and shield, good for him...but if he doesn´t the javelinguy is in his face 20 seconds later and throws his javelins, in a rapid pace.
Well, that's how they fought. I'm just sharing ideas for your consideration. Servants and arms and baggage trains full of semi- or non-combatants were a big feature of all armies and late medieval ones especially.
For professional mercenaries, whether they are pikemen or crossbowmen or lancers, the "train" was often family or close people. Your sons, brothers, wives, whores, boys, whatever. They depended on you for money so they came anyway.
Mass-producing javelins: as long as the workshop is consistent in what it does there's nothing stopping mass production, but that's the whole issue. Arrows don't need to be nearly as consistent in execution to work AND they are actually easier to make consistent.
Javelin-makers would basically be specialist tradesmen if they were to mass-produce the kind of javelin that could challenge late medieval armour.
I mean, it's a possibility, but there probably are better choices.
A javelin man carries 2 or 3 shots, maybe 6 at most, plus armour, plus has to be in great physical shape.
I can see them as expensive specialists that could join other forlorn hope teams in disrupting advancing pikes and archer lines. I mean...you can think of a niche where javelinemen can fit for sure but you have to consider, would they given that Europe had little javelin tradition for a long time and good alternatives were widely available?
That's all.
Uh.
Nothing weighs 5 kg and is a viable war weapon except maybe really long pikes and lances and maybe the pilum which was basically a full-length iron spear.
Most period javelins would have probably been about 4 pounds at most. They just take up a lot of space compared to arrows.
Fair enough, I am just argueing peacefully
Same as you. Ok, good point. Although I still don´t see how a javelin would be more difficult to produce than an arrow. Maybe the lighter ones, but the heavy 5 kg one would not need much aerodynamics as long as it outranges the pikemen. But if you say so...
hey, then that is how it is. But also, a javelin could easier be retrieved after battle. The pilum for instance could be disassembled and one could change the spearhead for a new one.
Of course they are, just as fit as the arbalestier. And after they have thrown spears they would move in for close combat, not talking about skirmishers. But can the crossbowman reload in between? I think not..
Well, the pilum was a javelin? You are saying that the Pilum, used by the roman legions, was not a viable war weapon?..uh..
And this is an alternate history...they have heavy javelins, says I.
The pilum was over 6 feet long.
And it probably was on average well under 5 kg.
And nobody used that approach to throwing weapons since the Germanic peoples settled into new kindgoms in the 7th c. latest and stopped using their equivalents of it.
It's a big departure from the trends that historically existed and that's my point.
The pilum was indeed a (short but heavy) thrown spear, but was used differently from javelins: basically it was a mêlée rather than a shooting weapon. The idea being 'Instead of trying to fence with his spear the hoplite throws it just before impact to provide the initial shock, then follows with his sword'.
While javeliners carried at least a handful of missiles, because of its weight the legionary carried a single pilum (1). To have a minimum of missile capacity, at various periods they carried a single javelin or several darts in addition (and later had archers in their rear ranks).
The thrown axes if the Germans, the hangon of the Franks -and far later the pistol of the Highlanders- fall in the same category. Weapons of 'infantry-heavy' armies.
--
1: Sometimes they are mentioned to carry two, but is has be argued that the 'pila muralia' were actually palisade elements or stakes to fortify the camp.
Without gunpowder could Greek fire find field use in Europe (naphatuns were not unknown in the Middle-East)? Probably not as much thrown fire fire siphons (very short range) but as sling- or staffsling-hurled incendiary grenades? They would probably be quite efficient to disrupt close order formations (and slingers can shot overhead the hand-to-hand specialists in the front rank of their own unit).
While javeliners carried at least a handful of missiles, because of its weight the legionary carried a single pilum (1). To have a minimum of missile capacity, at various periods they carried a single javelin or several darts in addition (and later had archers in their rear ranks).
The thrown axes if the Germans, the hangon of the Franks -and far later the pistol of the Highlanders- fall in the same category. Weapons of 'infantry-heavy' armies.
--
1: Sometimes they are mentioned to carry two, but is has be argued that the 'pila muralia' were actually palisade elements or stakes to fortify the camp.
Without gunpowder could Greek fire find field use in Europe (naphatuns were not unknown in the Middle-East)? Probably not as much thrown fire fire siphons (very short range) but as sling- or staffsling-hurled incendiary grenades? They would probably be quite efficient to disrupt close order formations (and slingers can shot overhead the hand-to-hand specialists in the front rank of their own unit).
Hmmm... maybe they learn from the Japanese and use a bladed polearm - a no-gun-ata
Last edited:
As for the bows, footsoldiers can ceteris paribus generally handle stronger bows than horse archers and fire more accurately (as the ground provides a firmer footing than a galloping horse) and with greater density of arrows (since you can fit more infantrymen into a space than you can cavalry). They can also carry pavises to protect themselves from their enemies' bows. As for the rest of your points, they're true, but would apply equally well to gunpowder armies.
Your comparison is based upon the common sense, which is a good thing, but the facts tell us the opposite.
Generally nomad horse archers of the Eurasian steppe handle stronger bows than foot soldiers with a few notable exceptions like British longbow and the like.
The reason of nomad superiority in archery was their thousand-years uninterrupted experience in mastering complex composite bow which was the peak of technology of the time.
Also the common sense tells you that it is difficult to shoot accurately from a galloping horse, which is wrong when we speak about nomads trained to do that since boyhood.
As for the "density of arrows" this speculation is from some computer game like "Total war" or something.
And the main point is that nomads are not usually engaged in archery duels with foot bowmen. If the foot archers are not covered by the foot soldiers (pikemen for example) then the nomads assault these foot archers with their crack mounted troops. If the foot archers are protected by the pikemen - the archers concentrate fire on them and after that there goes the horse attack again.
Actually at least the Pilumstyle javelins were designed to pierce the armor of that day. But if you have tested it, I humbly admit defeat.
I made this estimation of the power using wikipedia...
Weight Range Energy = Weight * Speed
Pilum 5kg 30m 150(?)
Crossbowbolt
Longbowbodkin 0,1kg 250m 25
I couldn´t find stats for the bolt, but my guess is that it would be slightly more armor piercing than the bodkin.
The thing is for this you'd want to calculate the weapon's kinetic energy not it's power. Energy is how much force the projectile hits with times the distance it penetrates, which correlates pretty well with "damage done". Power is energy divided by time or essentially the amount of "damage done" per second, which is less useful.
Now kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared which, with your numbers, gives:
3125 J for the longbow bodkin and 2250 J for the javelin. Doing some quick and dirty calculations (assuming a flat trajectory and no air resistance i.e. a situation as charitable for the javelineer as possible) the longbow fired on foot has a range 5x as long as the javelin thrown on horseback.
So this is why the javelin won't make a comeback except in certain very specific situations, the longbow (and presumably crossbow as well, assuming similar numbers) has half again the hitting power at five times the distance and each individual projectile is much easier to manufacture and carry for the bowman.
The Crusaders used to use mixed crossbow-spearman formations to (successfully) counter Turkish horse-archers.