I tend
not to chase hits, and just ramble as I like, but did notice that the
medieval taxation blog got more hits than average so thought I’d
write some more in a similar vein.
Projectile
weapons, by which I mean one- or two-handed weapons rather than siege
equipment, have been used throughout warfare. Most recently, we have
sniper rifles and the like, but the bow and arrow go all the way back
to prehistory, and the sling likewise.
But which
was more effective? And what about darts?
Slings
were used by many people, perhaps most notably the shepherds on the
Balearic Islands. Because the terrain was very rugged and it was a
pain to wander around, the shepherds would sling stones to get sheep
to move this way or that. Naturally, the ability to (fairly)
accurately hurl stones was handy in warfare too.
In war,
slingers would prefer to use the lead bullet, which would be a pellet
of lead similar in shape to a rugby ball or acorn. A big advantage
they had over archers was that if they ran out of ammunition they
could just scrabble for stones and use them instead. Armouring
oneself against a bullet or stone from a sling is difficult. Not only
are they harder to see than an arrow (which might be three feet long,
give or take), but the sheer concussive force is significant. An
arrow might be deflected by a curving piece of armour or shield, but
a lead bullet will give you a solid thwack wherever it hits. The
Romans had a specific surgical tool (fancy tongs) for removing lead
bullets because, hitting unprotected flesh, they would get deeply
embedded.
That all
sounds impressive, but there are two major drawbacks with slingers.
Firstly, the range is much less than that of an archer. Secondly, the
accuracy is much lower. There are some other pros and cons. You can
sling in the rain, whereas bowstrings go a bit iffy, and I’m not
sure there’s any record of riding slingers (unlike mounted archers
or mounted darters). Another pro is that a sling can just be tied
around the waist, so you could have a few shots at the enemy, then
pick up your ‘proper’ weapons to meet their charge. (A bow and
quiver are rather more cumbersome, although you could still have a
sword or suchlike, or even just smack enemies in the face with your
bow).
The
shorter range and poorer accuracy made slingers significantly less
useful for the attacking party during sieges, because simply reaching
the defenders (assuming they’re atop a wall) and hitting them was
harder than it was for archers. Naturally, the sling was still pretty
handy in defence, with gravity helping the distance and weak accuracy
compensated for by the funnelling of attackers (who would cluster
against a gate, at scaling ladders, or the site of a breach).
Side
note: slingers were also involved the first ever literal form of
friendly ‘fire’ in history, when messages were passed between
opposing sides during a siege. On a less amicable note, lead bullets
would sometimes be engraved with offensive messages to their intended
targets, as per the modern world with bombs.
Archers
have a special place in English history, largely due to helping crush
the French at Agincourt. And they’re pretty damned impressive bits
of kit. They can shoot at a faster rate than a Napoleonic-era musket,
with better range and accuracy. Not only that, they’re pretty good
at getting through most armour (eventually armour caught up and the
curving plates became very successful at deflecting arrows). There
were, in Parthia, famous horse-archers who could shoot from the
saddle (including backwards, the famous Parthian Shot). These
Parthian chaps were amongst those who cut Crassus to pieces at
Carrhae. At one time, it was illegal in England and Wales not to
perform archery practice, so useful were the peasant archers to the
army.
However,
this indicates the single biggest drawback of the bow. Teaching
someone to use a war bow takes a long time because immense strength
is required. Give an average man one, and his skeleton would bend
before the bow was pulled all the way back. Unlike slingers, arrows
have to be used, and you don’t just find ammunition scattered about
on the floor. Mentioned above, but the strings also went a bit wonky
in the rain.
During a
siege, arrows were a very good means of ensuring the besiegers didn’t
wander too near. Whilst archers could also be used offensively,
battlements and arrow slits offered good protection for defending
archers, and gravity made their job rather easier than the men tasked
at firing upwards at tall walls.
There is,
however, a third type of projectile weapon used in the ancient world:
the thrown spear (or dart. And also throwing axe). My favourite
example of these would be the Numidian cavalry that accompanied
Hannibal in his famous invasion of Italy. These fellows rode small
horses, rampaging around battlefields and peppering the enemy with
darts (small thrown spears) before retreating. Now, those au fait
with classical history will be aware that the Roman cavalry was
rubbish but, nevertheless, the Numidian cavalry was a key strength of
Hannibal’s army. They were also highly disciplined, which enabled
them, having chased off the Roman horse at Cannae, to return to the
battle and help complete the encirclement of the Romans.
A foot
soldier equivalent, of a different nature, can be find in the Romans
themselves. The legionary would have his own throwing spear, the
heavyweight and hated pilum. The pilum was deliberately designed to
be useless for most of the things a spear is usually good for
(walking stick, three to a make a tripod, two to make a stretcher
etc). It was heavy at the sharp end with an intentionally weak
spearhead that would become hopelessly bent upon impact. This was
cunning, because if it struck a shield, the sheer weight made the
shield worthless. The pila were thrown right before the charge,
killing some enemy and rendering the rest shieldless moments before
the legion closed the distance and introduced their foes to the
business end of their swords.
A third
example would be the Frankish throwing axe. Smaller than the pilum,
and with a curving handle which, according to an impeccable source
(Lindybeige), ensured it bounced unpredictably, the throwing axe
would be the Franks’ warm welcome to their battlefield opponents.
Thrown
weapons, naturally, have much shorter range. In common with archers,
but even more so, once ammunition is spent, that’s it. Because
arrows are smaller than darts, the number of projectiles available is
correspondingly smaller. There’s also a chance that the enemy might
throw your weapon back, depending how the battle is going (although
obviously this isn’t a problem with the pilum, which is a one-throw
spear). There’s also a very clear divide, with horse rolling up,
throwing some darts and then buggering off before the enemy get
close, and foot throwing then immediately charging whilst the enemy
are in disarray (in short, Numidian horsemen want to avoid getting
close at all costs, whereas Roman legionaries want to get close as
soon as possible after throwing).
In
sieges, thrown weapons were either very handy (and could encompass
heavy rocks or boiling sand/water) or bloody useless, depending which
side you were on and the size of the walls.
NB I
decided specifically not to include crossbows because the mechanism
involved enables a shot to be held, imminently ready to be loosed,
whereas all the above examples require the exertion immediately prior
to release. That might sound like a finickity reason, but it
fundamentally alters the way that crossbows were used in sieges (you
could load then aim at a specific point waiting for a patrolling
guard, something very hard to accomplish with a bow).
Thaddeus
