"weapon ranges" Topic

I've been stumbling about the interent trying to find the rough ranges for ancient and medieval weapons
- and its a bit tedious, so I am hoping someone else has already done this.

I've got the following so far – probable maximum (effective range is bracketed)

Pila 30 (15) m
javelin 90 m
sling 400 (200) m
longbow 250 m

I can't locate something for
basic bow
composite bow
crossbow (normal foot soldier in the field type)

Can anyone oblige or update?

Let me get my disclaimer in first – I'm not an ancients gamer nor a military historian.

However consider the world record for the javelin throw in modern times is 98m and that's a trained world-class athlete throwing a modern light aerodynamically designed javelin. The next best athlete is throwing 93m.

Now I know that the javelin they currently throw was redesigned in 1986 to not fly so far as the thrwers were endangering track athletes at the other end of the stadium. But even so i find it incredulous that the AVERAGE ancient javelin armed soldier with an ancient weapon was coming anywhere close to a current world beating athlete with modern equipment.

"Can anyone oblige or update?"

Cue: Doug Larsen …

the question of what sort of weight an ancient javelin would have arrises.

90m was the gold medal throw in the 70s too.

javelins would be thrown at short range. According to Barker, psiloi rushed to close to negate range difference from their opposite numbers with bows

Here are the numbers I use for my games as maximum effective ranges. Half for optimum effective range. They get fudged as needed since "effective range" depends on the in game effect of a "hit". YMMV.

Javelin 50m
Pila 25m
Poor Bow 150m
Good Bow 200m
Long Bow 250m
Crossbow 200m
Sling 150m
Staff Sling 200m

I think thrown pointy sticks come in a continuous range from light javelins to heavy throwing spears to pilum so dividing it between javelins and pila is a bit arbitary.

Similarly with bows and maybe slings.

Just fudge as needed to get a good game.

Some discussions of ancient/medieval weapons ranges:

Pila: larp.com/legioxx/pilum.html
Plumbatae: link
Javelins: link
Slings: link
Slings vs. Bows: link
Bows: link
Crossbows: link
Longbows: link link
Crossbows vs. Longbows: link

However, BooneC's suggestion about 'fudging' a bit here and there to achieve the right effect within the rules is a very good one.

Cheers,
Scott

The problem I have is not so much with the ranges of the various weapons, but with the relationship between weapon range and troop movement. For example, in Arty Conliffe's "Tactica", infantry move 8", while most missiles have a 15" range (for 25mm figs). This means that in many circumstances, a unit of, say, massed infantry archers will only get off one good volley before the opposition crashes into it – I'm thinking of Indians against Macedonians here. Now maybe that's a good thing, since the implication is that missile fire will degrade/damage a unit, or maybe finish off a severely weakened one, but won't badly hurt or destroy a fresh unit from scratch in a short period of time. It would take a very unilkely combination of circumstances to achieve that: huge numbers of missile troops firing at a single small target with incredible luck, which is not going to happen very often at all on the tabletop. Or else all that archery over a long time.

But maybe it's too limited in effect; should the Indians (or whoever) get more than one shot? Of course, the example above may be the outcome intended by the rules designer, but that may not be to everyone's taste…

A 40m shot with a composite recurve bow is a pretty trying distance for specific accuracy. However if all I needed to do was drop an arrow point first into a mass body of men it would be a cake shot at 40m.

The pilum was generally employed at close range, but that does not neccesarily mean it could not be thrown further.

A modern .22 long rifle cartridge will propell a bullet well beyond a mile. I don't know of anyone who shoots at that range with a .22, expecting to hit what they are aiming at or not.

I would guess that most missile fire in Ancient battles took place at close range. This has been the case for almost every period since.

The FBI reports that most shootings take place at a range of 8 feet or less, and that most of those shots miss…

I'm with Boone, fudge as needed to get a good game. Most wargames scales are horribly off anyway. Mark out the area that "should" be occupied by a body of men in accordance with the stated groundscale of your rules, now make the bases for your units that size and start measuring manuver and shooting… Suddenly those rules which subsume javeling hurling etc into combat in base to base contact start to make more sense.

A 40m shot with a composite recurve bow is a pretty trying distance for specific accuracy. However if all I needed to do was drop an arrow point first into a mass body of men it would be a cake shot at 40m

Most of the 'barebow' [ie shooting without sights, stabilisers etc] archers at my archery club can hit a target and score well at up to 70 yards. Obviously that's using modern bows but even the longbow archers can score pretty consistently at that distance.
[personally I need all the modern assistance I can get ]

As Dave points out, firing into a group of massed men should be a lot easier so presumably the effective distance would be a bit further.

I believe that javelin range for skirmish types in wargames is the range of the javelin, say 50m, plus the run up. Skirmishishers do not stand still like our lead ones do. They dart forward (perhaps another 30m – 50m), chuck their weapon, then beat a hastey retreat out of the range of the enemy javelin chuckers, then repeat.

A 40m shot with a composite recurve bow is a pretty trying distance for specific accuracy. However if all I needed to do was drop an arrow point first into a mass body of men it would be a cake shot at 40m.

yea I can only hit a 8" bulls eye at 100yards with my long bow 7 out of 10 ( at 40 I can call left or right human eye) :) and hit a running rabbit some of the time at 20 to 40.
and there are lots of people a lot better then me. because Im getting old and loosing my eye.

Hi

I used to, about 25 years ago in south texas, take D&Ders and teach them to shoot. The short version is that some weapons are more equal than others. Real bows are heroic war bows and can range from short self 30# small game bows to heavy short bows for big game and so on.

However, I thought crossbows were magic. I could take pretty much any one with a 175# cross bow and have anyone putting the all in the chest at 75m and with some experience 200(I personally have demonstrated 330 with the weapon).

I threw jav in highschool some 45 years ago, and won several meets with 75yds.

rocky

"Effective" range in any game should be from the point where the missile type can effectively threaten damage to the target type. The factor altering this of course is armor.

So, shortbow (peasant hunting weapon) max range c. 137 meters (since that is how you framed the question)

shortbow (warbow draw weight) and longbow (hunting draw weight) max range c. 183 m

longbow (warbow draw weight) and composite recurve (hunting draw weight) c. 229 m

composite recurve (warbow draw weight) c. 274 m

crossbow w/single wood prod c. 183 to 229 m

crossbow w/composite prod c. 274 m

crossbow w/steel prod c. 320 m

sling c. 183 m

javelin c. 45 m

pila c. 27 m

francesca c. 64

martiobarbuli c. 91 m

-------------

Now, armor should take those ranges to hit down.

Maybe I should have just done this in the first place: here's our gaming combat sheet, with the ranges along the top of each table in 5" increments (at 1" equals 10 yards): PDF link The armor classes are on the left ("unarmored" "light" "medium" "heavy" and "plate/cataphract") and the corresponding number is 2d6 or higher to "hit", i.e. take out an equivalent number of targets as shooters.

1066.us

Thanks All,

Doug in aprticular, that is fantastic.

Would you happen to know now far a flat trajectory for the longer range weapons would be?

I'm guessing not much past 100 m

It would help if you gave a context for the question, but:

Less than 100m, much less. I used to have a hunting bow, with an 80lbs canterlevered draw strength, and some elevation was required at as little as 30m to hit a small mark. It managed a relatively flat trajectory up to about 60m (aim at head height hit the foot). Its maximum range with a light (aluminium) 26" arrow was probably about 300m with 45 degrees elevation, though you tend to lose arrows at that range so you do not do it too often for fun.

P.S. the canerlever (spelling) gives a higher power than its draw weight in comparison to an equivilent 'normal' bow as the string speeds up at the end of its motion due to the offset pulley system. It also makes the draw weight less when fully pulled allowing a steadier, longer, aim.

I would guess the trajectory is going to be affected by the draw weight of the bow.

I use a 34lb recurve bow and have to set my sight marks to as low as possible at 70 yards..I haven't tried this without sights but I'd guess the equivalent would be aiming well above the target. Certainly the trajectory of the arrow is clearly visible as it flys towards the target [or not if I'm having an off day!].

At shorter distances [eg 30-40 yards] the flight is much flatter.

Roughly, if you launch an arrow horizontally on horizontal ground it's only a function of velocity, because gravity will pull the arrow down at the same rate as an arrow dropped by hand (there might be a slight benefit from an arrow "in flight", but I don't know how to figure for that: whereas a bullet dropped by hand and shot from the muzzle DO hit the ground on the flat at the same instant). I don't do the math, but I can give you rough figures (feet per second): for a "warbow" draw weight, the longbow shoots c. 200 fps; a compbow c. 220 fps. If it takes half a second for the arrow to hit the ground, that would be 100 and 110 feet respectively. (odd question, btw: what are you leading up to?…)

thanks, I was just wondering about firing over a skirmish line.

the point at which a flat trajectory would run out seemed relevant to the minimum distance away which you could fire over an intervening body, just as much as the maximum effective range (at a massed target) would be.

Items fall to the earth at a rate of 32 fps.

Air resistance will also affect the rate of drop to one degree or another.

Keraunos, that's "screened fire" you're talking about. When the target is too close to hit directly, the shooters would have to "lob" their shots high, with a plunging impact angle: the closer to the screen the target is, the higher the screened shooters have to elevate their bows/crossbows (talk about "indirect" shooting!)….

Hi

Actually, absent drag, the formula for distance of fall due to gravity is 1/2 AxT squared.

rocky

link

australian aboriginals could apparently throw a hardwood spear 110 m – see link

Of course it also says that Legions did 1 1/2 marathons a day……so you may or may not like to accept that…:)

As for comparitive ranges – Xenophon's anabasis has some very good accounts of them – Cretan archers are outranged by Persian archers….but learn to use the longer Persian arrows and shoot in hte upper register to a longer range.

rhodian slingers outrange the Persian archers by virtue of using lead shot.

Javelinmen are of course outranged by all – but htey do not run in to chase the arhcers away – in Demosthene's disastrous Aetolian expedition the Aetolian javelinmen kept out of range of the Athenian archers until those had run out of ammo – PB is wrong about their behaviour there…

Hi

Al, the problem with the "current guys are wimps" is that it isn't supported on the ground.

Pretty much in the last 400 years, civilization running into whole earth and natural primitives don't seem to bump into these primitive supermen.

R

"Al, the problem with the "current guys are wimps" is that it isn't supported on the ground."

If you read Aloysius' post, that isn't what he said.

Aloysius- I think Barker's reasoning was that ancient writers on tactics described the range of weapons used by psiloi without making any differention in their function

Hi

Mike, Al is referring to an article that I HAVE read.

Rocky

"Mike, Al is referring to an article that I HAVE read."

Oh, you're referring to the article at the link, not the post.
Interesting. Of course, the problem with the view that "ancient peoples were no better/stronger/fitter than modern man" is that you have as much evidence to support that view as the anthropologists do for their "modern man is a wimp" theory.

Hi

Not really, Mike. The bones tell you what the muscles were like. And in historical times, when modern man runs into primitives, if there were some "live off the land" advantage, there would be observed events.

Rocky

"The bones tell you what the muscles were like."

Not always. Don't forget the effects of disease and the possible causes of death.

"And in historical times, when modern man runs into primitives, if there were some "live off the land" advantage, there would be observed events."

Um … Indians – sorry – native Americans? The Vietnamese? Native tribes in the Amazon basin? (I could go on)

What advantages do those primitive examples offer? They were physically superior to "civilized" (Western European types), how, exactly?…

Rocky mentioned "live off the land" advantage. I would suggest all the examples I gave (and probably several others) exhibited significant "live off the land" advantages compared to white Europeans ("modern man").

"Live off the land" was a euphemism for "noble savage", or "the superior barbarian", as I took his meaning….

""Live off the land" was a euphemism for "noble savage", or "the superior barbarian", as I took his meaning…."

No wonder I misunderstood then … never come across THAT euphemism before …

Hi

it is difficult to discuss the "noble savage" without getting into a politically correct discussion.

An example? My family is from sicily, but I was born and raised in the US, to ME, I am a "native american". Though as a sicilian, I have been thought by "indians" to be american indian!

Anyway, you are corrct, disease and the like are limits and actually support my point. the bones show the disease as well, and the way it is structured show what the maximum muscle mass looked like and, this is simple, there is no evidence for a "superman" primitive.

It is only in the last 50,000 years or so that people have been living long enough to know their grandchildren! That doesn't suggest any supermen here!

This guy is just indulging in the old hobby of romanticizing the "noble savage", not science.

Rocky

"Anyway, you are corrct, disease and the like are limits and actually support my point. the bones show the disease as well, and the way it is structured show what the maximum muscle mass looked like and, this is simple, there is no evidence for a "superman" primitive."

Except that you haven't got anything like enough skeletons to form a statistical relevant sample.

Looking at recent history, no savage cultures anywhere on the planet are superior physically to civilized, well-fed people. It's a total no-brainer as far as I can tell….

If you read the article then it gives at least one example where we HAVE run into these "ancient supermen" – those chaps with the high jump were here recently enough to have photographs made of them.

Hi

Al, the cited Tutsis…..so where is the recruitment for your average college? Sorry, some guys have been recruited as marathon runners but hardly outside the range of normal.

R

Al, I had a friend in high school, c. 5' 6", and he could stand under a basketball standard and leap straight up past the rim with his wrist and grab the rim and hang there. Dangedest thing I ever saw. (He fell hiking Mount Timpanogos and broke his neck at the age of 17….)