"Darts vs. Javelins?" Topic

Long story short, I'm currently brainstorming on a rules writing project, and I'm wanting to get some opinions.

Do you feel that in a tactical level game, that is to say roughly the same scale as Field of Glory or Warrior, there is enough difference in the range and performance of darts such as Roman plumbata as opposed to traditional javelins and other thrown spears to justify a separate "dart" weapon category? Or do you feel that javelins and darts should be classified together?

I'm torn and would love to hear what others think.

At the same level as FoG? Definitely not enough difference to matter.

-Will

It seems that the plumbata had greater penetrating power than the javelin and since the soldier carried 4-6 of them. I would say they provided more firepower. Several articles mention them as being a replacement for archers. I was surprised to read that they could be thrown with accuracy and penetrating power out to 80 meters. All things considered I would give an edge to the plumbata. Another factor to consider would be that they are carried by your heavy infantry giving them the same ability to strike as separate javalinmen.

Thrown missile weaponry shouldn't need differentiation in a mass unit scale system unless your rules are very granular or trying to assert some very specific advantage. Since the pilum is a type of javelin, I think that would support such a view.

As to the range, pila seem to have a range of about 30 meters but are only really effective in about the 15-20 meter band. The plumbata was lighter and had a greater effective range, but do not seem to have the same penetration power.

Of course Roman accounts tend to sing the praises of Roman weaponry and assert how they were extremely accurate, penetrated all armor, etc. (and probably could pierce through multiple combatants ;-)).

This is hearsay, but talking to re-enactors they say its a whole lot less pleasant closing with people who throw things at you while you/they are charging as it disruots you at just teh point you don't want to be.

So IMO plumbata, javelins, axes, pila, etc etc are probably "things that reduce the affectivenes of the target unit" in the contact move.

Nice, JJ, I fell for it hook, line and sinker :-)

It rather depends on what level game you are writing rules for and how much you like looking at 'difference'. I like big battles with lots of units and figures, so distinguishing would seem rather silly to me.

If I were doing a skirmish game I might feel differently.

The old WRG rules would have you believe that certain special Troops could throw darts and javelins both, while charging.

Terrement-you should be tied to a tree and used as a target to solve this debate.:)

I think of it as the M14/M16 debate. A Miles can easily carry more plumbata (clipped to the inside of his shield)than javelins. Range could be argued as shorter but tactics/deployment negates that argument.
Besides, all those lawn dart accidents validate this…..

If you go by looks, then there is a lot more diffeences between javlins vs darts then m4 vs m16.

Javlins are long stick likes things, brown with some metal colord stuff at the end.

A dart is a short stick like thing, with feathers and lots of metal colord bits at the end.

M16 and m4 are both black plastic aluminium things, no fathers to differentiate them.

@Gunfreak: M14 looks like a long rifle, wooden stock and all, while M16 is a blackbplastic and aluminum thingamajob.

I first became aware of darts beyond the realm of small needles thrown at a corkboard by way of D&D back in the late 70s. Darts were listed as a weapon allowed to Magic-Users, but I never saw any pictures. I have been looking for the proper name of these things to find out what they looked like for literally 35 years.

Thank you, Martin, for posting this topic. With the name "plumbata" I have solved a mystery that has been bothering me since childhood.

The word "plumbata" certainly implies some lead weighting.

The pictures I found show lead weighting a lttle forward of center… it all begins to make sense…

The pictures I found show lead weighting a little forward of center… it all begins to make sense…

They look for all the world like ancient Lawn Darts…and from what I recall they were used in a similar manner: flung by the end up in the air to plunge at a steep angle into the enemy formation.

A very similar weapon was used by the Byzantines under the name "martiobarbuli" or some variation.

I cut my teeth in the Ancients genre on WRG 6th and 7th editions. So I am used to seeing them treated as a separate class of weapons. But I'm not so sure these days. I'm still torn….

FRom the Roman Army Talk forum, some 7 years ago by John Conyard who dod quite a lot of experiments on various missile weapobs

link

"Later infantry were literally carrying a range of javelins to the battlefield. Using Vegetius for terminology and size, the spiculum is now the "heavy" javelin, weighing around 665g. The verutum is a lighter cheaper javelin of around 350g. They both have a range of around 20m, but the spicula hits with the greatest penetrative power. A glass from Germany shows infantry carrying two spicula, but for the same weight a quiver of veruta could be carried, perhaps better for use against "light" infantry. The spiculum will probably bend on impact. But untempered bent spicula and damaged veruta can be easily re-shaped and sharpened.

Before or even during action veruta could be passed to the front ranks to throw. But buckets of plumbata could also be passed forward or issued. At around 200g for an individual dart, they are light and small enough to make transport relatively easy. I disagree that they were strapped to the internal right hand side of the shield. Over 1kg of lead and iron pulls the shield out of alignment. But buckets of darts as mentioned by Maurice, can be tied to the shield handle keeping the weight centralised and the shield in a vertical alignment. The darts can be retrieved and thrown quickly, without the bucket getting in the way. It certainly allows the darts to be carried inside the shield without trying to carry them in your in your hand.

Underarm plumbata out-range other javelins, with 80m being easily achieved. They land near to vertical over the shields of your enemy, making a hazard for horses as well. Thrown overarm plumbata have a greater velocity than a javelin, which compensates for their relatively light weight. The join between the metal and wooden components generally break on impact. The darts can be put back in commission in the field but it takes relatively longer to effect repairs.

When deciding what to carry choices have to be made. I suspect veruta and plumbata could be issued before any general action. So two spicula seem a good general combination for a pede to carry for most occasions. They can also serve as a primary hand to hand weapon, but spears have twice the weight and seem to have been longer. "Light" infantry would perhaps favour carrying veruta, and more of them. A bucket of plumbata could be useful at anytime."

If only Rocky Russo were still here.

Martiobarbuli/plumbata weigh a lot less than a javelin. The javelin requires actual form to release it into the target point first. The "dart" is simply gripped by the flights and thrown like an ax. The difference is that an ax twirls around the head. The dart straightens out in the first five yards or so, iirc. Rocky built several and tried them out, both for range and impact. He was more impressed by the effectiveness of darts than any other missile weapon that he tested. It surprised him. If he were still here, he would no doubt rehearse the effect of a dart, into a metal garbage can, out the other side and into the pine board fence behind, which shattered upon impact. I was skeptical every time I heard him retell the stories to someone new, or someone who "needed reminding" (like yours truly).

Suffice to say that "dart" has double the range of javelin in our game and does the same amount of damage. Plus, dart is always allowed two rounds per turn, javelin not always, in fact not usually. Added to this the fact that Roman infantry always get "Double Pre-Contact" missile fire, and approaching a line of scutati with any medieval troops whatsoever always feels like trying to run down automatic weapons!…

Some pictures for the google challenged:
link

When I was a youth, we made things we called French arrows.
Googling, I was surpised to find a how to:
link
I wrapped an Elastoplast round the shaft rather than cut a groove.
I would have been about 11 I think.

Anyhow, the roman light javelins used this technique with the string giving greater leverage like an atlatl.
With no weight attached and rather indifferent designs we kids could throw one of those things a surprisingly long distance.
I find 80 metres entirely believable.

It's also worth considering the fact that the Romans made these things after trying them out and comparing them. They are a bit harder to make than javelins since you have to mess about with feathers and lead.
They must have felt the extra effort was worthwhile.

The thing I always wonder abourt darts is just how rare they are historically, if they were so good why is that?

Picking up the 'extra effort was worthwhile' thought we might ask whynplumbata do not continue to be made and are not apparently candidates for continual use in the Roman Empire. Perhaps they are too expensive and complex, but perhaps they do not weigh down a shield sufficiently? Agathias has the Franks in 554 AD throwing angons which stick in the shield and then stepping on the shaft to pull the shield down so the oppinent can be despatched with a hand axe. I find this much more convincing than that a charging man can throw an axe with any great hope that it will hit blade first. Teias, the last Ostrogothic king is killed when changing shields because his is weighed down with missile weapons. Javelins would be more awkward to receive than a dart .
For game purposes I'd just assume that dart or verrutum equipped heavy infantry are preceded by a missile throw that might incapacitate and disorder an opponent. I would hesitate to advantage the Romans in respect of this as opponents could have multiple javelins. . Where the Romans would be better off would be in later rounds of fighting because they could still have darts to throw when both sides broke for a breather

Thanks for the input on this, especially the link and quoted material from freecloud.

At this point, I'm going to experiment with a separate classifications for darts as a long range missile weapon type.

As some of the initial responders commented, a lot has to do with the level of the conflict in order to evaluate the effectiveness. At a moderate to high troop ratio level the difference does not matter.

At the small troop ratio and even skirmish level, a lot has to do with terms. We get too caught up in the smallest differences in studying both recent and ancient combat. One persons javelin may be another persons dart. They could have the same dimensions and construction.

It is better to focus on significant differences when designing rules rather than minor one. Minor focus tends to result in too many categories which in play-testing gets combined anyway.

For rules I can see the following may be taken into account:

- anything chucked gives benefits to the chucker in a charge/receive a charge case. (-1 facing missile weapons)

- darts give non skirmishers some shooting capability, I can see them preventing missile troops closing to a nice close range. (All front rank can shoot at close range – take that, silly psiloi )

Not sure I'd differentiate between different weapons much more than dart range, I think you could aggregate no. of things thrown x weight of things = some constant. Maybe the real heavy stuff (pila, axes) hurts as much mo matter how "heavy troops" the target is

But as noted above, depends on game scale – you don't really want to get faffing around with this level of workflow in agame wher major forces are represented, would take ages.