Missile range comparison

[Paul Elliott]

I've done alot of slinging, and your accurate range is spot on, 40m. But for distance I can get out to 100m with a stone and maybe twice that with lead shot (its hard for me to judge those longer distances).

From my postings on other sling forums, my ranges seem reasonable.

We've found that a light javelin can be thrown 20m, and a heavy pilum 10m-15m.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

do you mean this one?
http://alexisphoenix.org/ballista.php

Picked up from Robert Matthew in the "Roman Ballistae in Modern Popular Culture" thread a month or so ago

Yes that's the guy, it's modelled after a Late Roman Ballista I believe. That would scare off anyone who thought about crossing the danube in my opinion.

"Can't touch me Romans!"

*Bolt pins his foot to the ground

*Goth Rages

[Nathan Ross]

Zhmodikov... argued that Roman battles (at least in the republican era) were much more missile contests, rather than clashes of infantrymen at close quarters... missile combat was much more important, much more frequent and much longer than previously assumed.

Particularly in contests of troops with similar armament, perhaps. Illerda was laregly a missile duel, I believe.

(700-800 metres): Unlikely, in my opinion. These would be wasted shots... Dietwulf Baatz's more mathematical estimates are preferable to Marsden's conjectures.

Yes, I took my original estimates from your Greek and Roman Artillery, which I believe draws on Baatz :wink:

While occasional very long-range shots might have a demoralising effect on the enemy (the 'shock and awe' application of ancient artillery, perhaps!), much shorter range would be more effective.

I've done alot of slinging, and your accurate range is spot on, 40m. But for distance I can get out to 100m with a stone and maybe twice that with lead shot

Yes, again, I drew on some of your comments, Paul, from another forum, on sling ranges!

I think this comes down to the difference between the actual effective range of a bow, sling or ballista - at which, given a limitless supply of ammunition, an enemy might be hit - and the sort of range that would prove most useful on the battlefield, with maximum chance of hitting something with sufficient force.

Bearing this in mind, it would appear that 100-180 metres would be the longest practical range for ballistae, bows and slings. More accurate shooting, together with plumbatae if available, could commence at 30-40 metres and pila and javelins at 10-20 metres.

[Vindex]

Bearing this in mind, it would appear that 100-180 metres would be the longest practical range for ballistae, bows and slings. More accurate shooting, together with plumbatae if available, could commence at 30-40 metres and pila and javelins at 10-20 metres.

So having disrupted the enemy ranks at 180m and then followed up by closer range missile attack at 40m, what do you think is used between 40m and 180m to prevent the advancing enemy from regrouping and thereby potentially wasting the disruption effect of the longer range attack?

(Artillery in modern warfare is used for demoralising and disrupting; it's not a battle winner on it's own and must always be supported.)

Cavalry, perhaps?

[Nathan Ross]

what do you think is used between 40m and 180m to prevent the advancing enemy from regrouping and thereby potentially wasting the disruption effect of the longer range attack?

Ah well, surely archers and slingers could continue shooting as the enemy approach?

Unless the enemy is mounted on something speedier than a horse (!) I would think there would be time for quite a few shots before they'd closed to 40m.

[M. Val. Naso]

Also, a quickly advancing enemy line (with the exception of horse archers) won't really fire back, so basically you could even run in front of them and throw rocks or something But who cares if they regroup while they get here. I don't need them panicking and scattering hundred meters away, I need them to do this right in front of me

[Nathan Ross]

Might there be a possible use in relatively long-distance missile attack as a way of driving an enemy forward towards the Roman line, so the rear ranks of the enemy press those in front of them to advance and engage, perhaps breaking their formation in the process? I don't know how effective this would be, or whether there is evidence (perhaps from other eras) of it happening...?

[Vindex]

Ah well, surely archers and slingers could continue shooting as the enemy approach?

Unless the enemy is mounted on something speedier than a horse (!) I would think there would be time for quite a few shots before they'd closed to 40m.

But I thought we were discussing missile range comparison? You've said the effective ranges, I am merely asking about the obvious gap.

"I don't need them panicking and scattering hundred meters away, I need them to do this right in front of me"

That's precisely my point! If you've disrupted them once at a distance, why give them time to regroup?

[Kegluneq]

Ah well, surely archers and slingers could continue shooting as the enemy approach?

And would be considerably more deadly, I would imagine. I'm totally flaking out over actual sources here, but I have seen experts distinguish between direct, aimed fire, and the 'arrow storm' (high trajectory, not necessarily iron tipped) which was less accurate and less powerful but could break up advances and formations. I'm sure there are people better qualified to comment but I think it would be worth considering differences in the type of projectile used within each category as well.

[Nathan Ross]

You've said the effective ranges, I am merely asking about the obvious gap.

I'm assuming that once an enemy approaches with c.180m of the Roman line they would be under continuous missile fire, of increasing force. An archer or slinger would presumably be able to adjust aim to hit a target at incrementally shorter range. The enemy would therefore have no respite to regroup. Once (or perhaps if!) they reached 10-20m they would be hit by one or more volleys of pila against their already disrupted front ranks - followed (if necessary) by a counter-charge by cuneus or similar...

I'm totally flaking out over actual sources here

Yes, it does seem strange that no source appears to give accurate details of range beyond the bare fact that it existed! Surely there must be something about it in literature...

[Vindex]

[quote="Nathan Ross" post=320095] I'm assuming that once an enemy approaches with c.180m of the Roman line they would be under continuous missile fire, of increasing force. An archer or slinger would presumably be able to adjust aim to hit a target at incrementally shorter range. The enemy would therefore have no respite to regroup. Once (or perhaps if!) they reached 10-20m they would be hit by one or more volleys of pila against their already disrupted front ranks - followed (if necessary) by a counter-charge by cuneus or similar...


...then it doesn't really matter what the missile ranges are then?

[Nathan Ross]

...then it doesn't really matter what the missile ranges are then?

Aha, I think we're at cross purposes here!

My original question was less about comparing the maximum ranges of various weapons, than trying to work out the comparative ranges at which these weapons might best be used against an advancing enemy.

So, while the distance given as 'a bowshot' in various sources might be around 300 paces (or metres, approximately), missile use on the battlefield might begin much closer - at 180m, perhaps, and less. I was really wondering at what range a soldier might throw a pilum, javelin or plumbata, or begin shooting a bow, sling or ballista. Not, I would guess, extreme range but something rather less. This seems important in building a picture of the dimensions of the battle area and how the kind of mixed defensive line described by Arrian might have worked in practice.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer!

[Macedon]

And do not forget that you do not include skirmishing action between the battle-lines in this line of thinking. Some thousands of men dispersed, on foot or horseback, showering the enemy with their missiles hundreds of meters before they enter missile range of the actual phalanx...

[ValentinianVictrix]

Ammianus accounts of the battles he describes where the Late Romans face off against the 'barbarian' tribes such as the Allemanni and Goth's has the infantry marching up to the enemy and then halting at a distance where both sides trade insults, boasts etc. There is a point where an exchange of missiles then takes place (with presumably very few casualties on either side if some of the Roman casualty figures given are accurate) then one or the either side charges in whilst the other side braces itself for the impact.

What we need to do is to ask reenactors at what distance can you clearly hear what people are shouting at you and that may be an indication of what was considered effective range for at least hand-hurled weapons.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

That still allows for a lot of variation - you can hear my voice for up to a kilometer if I shoult loud enough