Missile Thrown from Foot vs. Horseback

[Bryan]

In reference to javelin throwing distance, I found this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG0hLNXr9M

And this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ejtMIwAL4

Just some visuals for those that are curious about weapon effectiveness.

[Macedon]

Impressive! But for some reason, I am very reluctant to accept that a regular missile (most kinds of arrows and javelins) would be able to cut through shields, like Roman scuta, like butter. Can it be that the scuta used in these videos were very weakly made, maybe from lighter and cheaper materials in order to reduce weight and, of course, cost? I have a Greek shield myself and have played around with a number that were made from a variety of modern, flexible materials for such reasons. Maybe members who have actually made trustworthy experiments with properly made weapons and shields/armor could enlighten us here?

What I am sure of, is that should it have been so easy to pierce a well-made shield, there would be no reason whatsoever to use shields as cover since they would only hinder perception and of course the ratio of casualties by missile weapons would be much much higher and their tactical use much more important.

[Bryan]

I recommend watching the other videos the poster has, it appears that they are a group of Spanish reenactors. To my largely untrained eyes, the group seems pretty squared away.

As far as the construction of the shield, I cannot honestly comment. You could speculate and say that it was weak where was I to speculate I might say that the video's maker also posted two other videos of failed attempts to either hit the scutum or pierce it. My mind would guess how many other attempts were tried before the pilum finally pierced the properly made scutum? (or why else waste the time to perform such experiments and possibly damage your "expensive" pilum)

I know some would call it chronocentrism to even mention it but at one time I served in the military, specifically the US Marine Corps and US Army, in the infantry. I spent two years in Iraq as a grunt. I only mentioned this because I wore what we called ESAPI plates, that is ceramic/kevlar ballistic plates, front and back were 11x12", 6 pounds apiece and side plates were 4x6", 2ish lbs apiece. Couple this with the kevlar vest that held them, I was rated to what modern body armor people calls Level III. Which means my armor could generally stop shrapnel, multiple hits of AK rounds or one or two sniper/machine gun rounds (7.62x54R). What the vest couldn't stop were rocket propelled grenades, multiple (as in a lot) of 7.62x54R or the rounds from a Dsnk heavy gun. While the inability to stop the rare type of hit, I still wore it. And I did for two reasons:

1. They made me. Sometimes I would have liked to drop kit and take the chances in lieu of mobility. The command saw different. Whatever.

2. A lot of times I thanked God I wore that stuff. Every once in a blue moon one of the people you knows gets hit in the plate or kevlar and the bullet or shrapnel is stopped. This ends up with some great war stories and lots of the "shakes". Stories like that make it easier for me (and others) to move forward when any "same" person would run away. Even though we end up humping extra weight.

Long story short, armor is as much about the mental aspect as it is the physical.

How much protection did the Roman's Heart Protector plates of bronze or iron protect, covering only 12" of their chest and back? Not much, yet it seems that it was pretty popular.

Why wear heavy lorica hamata if it is possible to be pierced? (ALL armor can be pierced if your try hard enough)

Why carry a shield if it cant stop a well aimed, well placed and possibly lucky javelin throw from a weapon every source tells us was designed to pierce shields?

This is all rhetorical of course.

[Macedon]

As I actually wrote someplace, it was the shield that was mainly thought of as the most important of defensive equipment, more important than even armor. And it is generally accepted that shields were usually extremely effective against missiles of their own time. I of course accept the fact that sometimes, for various reasons -material failure, very good quality, caster's personal strength, especially in the cases of spears rather than javelins, perfect angles, luck, even weather conditions- a shield would indeed be totally pierced as is shown on this video. I thought the point of your comment was that this should be understood as the norm, which I am very reluctant to accept. I have handled maybe 10-15 shields of re-enactors to know that only few were actually what we could call "fit for battle", without this meaning that the specific shield on the vid was not. And, of course, this is why I am sure that other members, much more experienced in re-enactment than me, some even craftsmen of their own gear, might give us better insight on the approximate chances of something like that happening on the field and the possible conditions that would make it more probable.

Of course armor was important and part of the job of a good general was to force his men to respect and use it correctly and you are right in stating that it adds to the mentality of its wearer and, I would add, caused fear to the enemy. But I fail to see your point, maybe we are eventually saying the same thing. What I am saying is that missiles were not particularly effective if viewed individually or only in relation with the actual casualties they caused. They could be extremely effective in the broader sense of a tactical battle and often were the main factor for victory. Do you propose that missiles, pila among them, would have a high ratio/probability of fully piercing through enemy shields, armor and eventually wound and kill shielded and armored soldiers?

[Bryan]

What I am saying:

A weapon is only as good as the user. Whether it be a sword, javelin, rifle or fighter jet, the weapon is just a tool. The person controlling it is what makes it effective. No matter how well the tool is made, no matter how well it can work when used properly, it all depends on the end user. And sometimes luck plays a part. And it helps when the shield is braced against a tree (allows shield to take all the force whereby a person would probably recoil back a bit from the impact)

I can agree that a shield is designed to defend yourself from the enemy, whether it be by sword, spear, javelin, arrows or a slinger's bullet. But lets not kid ourselves. Whether they be Roman, Gallic or Greek or whoever, the shields were generally made from wood and skins, maybe some light metal covering. They weren't made from unobtainium. Or Chobham armor, like on a modern battle tank. (which can also be pierced with modern antitank weaponry, yet we still use them)

In order to carry and maneuver with a shield, it can't be too big or too heavy. This probably was individualistic in nature, as a tall sturdy man can carry a bigger, heavier shield than a smaller man. But at the end of the day, you have to hump your own equipment or find someone or something to do it for you. That means you are by nature going to sacrifice protection for mobility when you decide that a 2 inch thick plywood shield is a little too heavy for next years campaign season.

Like I mentioned above, I don't think the pilum could puncture a shield all the time. But under the right circumstances it could, "like butter."

I believe this for some of the same reasons you do. I read the casualty reports in many ancient battles, the pilum is repeatably endowed with the power to pierce shields. However, not enough men are killed in battle, not enough formations are destroyed in place, for the weapon to be some miracle offensive weapon. Nevertheless, from what I have read, the pilum was designed to penetrate armor. Hence the long shank, the shape of the tip, the weight of the shaft.

I think we are on the same page, it's just you like debating too much.

[Bryan]

Also, to completely sidetrack this topic, I submit this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm8nzxiTI6Q

Yeah, it's not real, it's not whetted iron. They are doing for fun, taking unnecessary risks no real soldier would take. They're dancing all over the place too. I get it. But still, it does give some decent visuals to the whole "fight" aspect of warfare.

The "Just smack them in the face with your boss and stab under your shield" tactic doesn't seem to work too well when your opponent wants to win too. Too me, its like saying "If you want to win a fist fight just lead with a jab and then knock your opponent out with an overhand right." A little too simplistic.