Plumbata/Javelin feasability in Napoleonic Warfare.

Would it be an effective counter to an infantry charge?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • No

    Votes: 16 80.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Line infantry in the Napoleonic wars and the regular German infantry held some things in common, even if Napoleonic infantry was more disciplined. For example, both were unarmored, thus exposing themselves to things such as a spears and darts. So any way, the question is

Would the Plumbata/Javelin be an effective counter to a charge of line infantry
In the era of Napoleon? And if so, why was it not used on the battle field?
 
Absolutely not.
Guns existed. If your enemies show up with darts, you'd just shoot them from a safe distance, until they're all gone, because darts are not great on range.
 
I think your misunderstanding my question. I was imagining regular line infantry having supplemental javelins/plumbata for when the opposing infantry charged and you didn't have enough time to reload your main weapon. This would simply be a last resort weapon.
 
They could be I suppose, but I don't think it would be good enough to justify the expense of training the soldiers how and when to use them, buying them all or having them produced in state armories, having to transport them and keep them stocked at the front lines and so on. Hell finding enough people with the skill to teach everyone else how would be difficult enough. All that for a weapon with a fairly limited use on the battlefield.

It would be a neat experiment though.
 
They could be I suppose, but I don't think it would be good enough to justify the expense of training the soldiers how and when to use them, buying them all or having them produced in state armories, having to transport them and keep them stocked at the front lines and so on. Hell finding enough people with the skill to teach everyone else how would be difficult enough. All that for a weapon with a fairly limited use on the battlefield.

It would be a neat experiment though.

It reminds me of the Ga-Pa of the Caroleans, for some reason.

In fact, on the offence with the Ga-Pa, this could be amusing - you'd already demoralised them, killed a huge number of their line, and then suddenly you're throwing a dart and charging at them? It'd be terrifying.
 

ASUKIRIK

Banned
there's already more explosive version of thrown hand weapons. Those are called Grenades.

Now imagine if Romans used Grenades instead of Javelin
 
I was imagining regular line infantry having supplemental javelins/plumbata for when the opposing infantry charged and you didn't have enough time to reload your main weapon. This would simply be a last resort weapon.
The last resort was tap-loading: drop your powder and ball down the muzzle, hammer the butt on the ground, and hope the gun fires when you pull the trigger. It wasn't ideal, of course, but it was far easier than carrying several two-metre spears weighing six pounds each (about ten per cent of the infantryman's existing load).
 
I think your misunderstanding my question. I was imagining regular line infantry having supplemental javelins/plumbata for when the opposing infantry charged and you didn't have enough time to reload your main weapon. This would simply be a last resort weapon.
That would be your bayonet.

Seriously - many conflicts didn't even reach had to hand. Studies during the Napoleonic wars suggested that bayonet wounds only formed about 4% of casualties in a close assault and overall it was close to 2%
 
Perhaps not. You could easily counter it by cannoning an enemy infantry line (as it usually was done). Or having the hussars skirmish with their fire weapons and them retreat.
 
Top