Javelins in ancient battles

[Big Insect]

I certainly expect a ruleset to make pila  one-shot weapons. They were designed to be impossible to reuse on the same day.

I totally agree - but I think we also need to look at how Roman formations worked (or we think they worked).
It seems highly unlikely that all the legionaries all threw their pila at once. In fact it is probably impossible for more than a couple of ranks to throw pila in a single round of combat. e.g. the front rank advances (probably at the run or at least a trot) & throws pila at the enemy, continuing to advance to contact drawing their gladicus on the way in. Whilst they are advancing to contact, the second rank also throws their pila (over the heads of their front rank - one would hope this was done with skill and accuracy!) and then advances and draws their own gladicus and enters the melee to support the front rank. I'd suggest that ranks 3+ remained at a reasonable distance but not engaged directly, as Roman tactics appear to have been based on line relief. So that if ranks 1 & 2 needed to be relieved they would break off from the enemy and retire through 3 & 4 (etc) - and so 3 & 4 could repeat the whole process.
So the idea that the pila is a 'one-shot' weapon is debatable.
Most sets of rules cannot cope with this sort of granular activity - so they tend to give the pila a significant 1st contact + factor. But it appears (from what little we know about Roman tactical structures) that they were really good at grinding an enemy down in combat. Throwing the pila gave them a means of overcoming the advantages of a long spear or a pike against them - but once they were in, under the points (so to speak) of their enemy, they were primarily very well trained swordsmen.

Javelins are very different as they are a distance/missile weapon & I'd suggest that whilst each man may have only carried 2 or 3 of them - it was all about a constant barrage of missiles - wearing down the enemy.

Cheers
Mark

[flamingpig0]

I certainly expect a ruleset to make pila  one-shot weapons. They were designed to be impossible to reuse on the same day.

True, however I would guess  the back ranks who hadn't had a chance to use them at the initial clash would either come forward or pass their Pila forward.

[Raider4]

. . . than evaluating the many one-in-a-thousand shots that wargamers insist on taking. "Ahh, but the attached general has a horse-bow, one archer shooting at heavy infantry .....".

Well, they're daft then, aren't they.

Everyone knows you have to wait for the million-to-one shot. Good news is they crop up nine times out of ten.*




* With apologies to Mr. T. Pratchett.

[steve_holmes_11]

I think  the one-shot weapons: Pila, and to some extent Javelins (how many can you practically carry) run into some classic Catch 22 game situations.

As Big Insect says, only a couple of ranks can throw, but we tend to weight effect as through every soldier has thrown their weapon.
This is a hold-over form the numbered WRG sets, where precise weapons and ranks able to fight were considered important.
Many rules have moved away form this unit organisation, but unwittingly preserved the dynamic.

The good news is that there are simple alternatives.
DBA's "Nobody shoots unless they're dedicated ranged shooters", simply factors close shooting into combat.
Some like the simplicity, others are bewildered that their chariots, or light horse can't shoot down an opponent from range.


I play very little ancients, but accounts of battles provide some interesting, and perhaps surprising insights.

Generals are frequently surprised when their missile troops run out of ammunition.
I observe that missile troops were rarely the decisive arm of the army.
This may also reflect that ancient shooters lacked the detailed fire discipline of modern infantry.

Some javelinmen (I'm thinking here of Greek Psiloi, but also Numidian foot and Roman Velites) were able to contest whole phases of battle without running out of ammunition.
Here I speculate form ignorance...
Lacking timestamps, it may be that the opening "battle of the Javelins" was actually far shorter than we imagine.
Alternatively, when Javelinman meets Javelinman, perhaps they're picking up the enemy weapons and throwing them back for an extended exchange.
Neither case really explains Greek javelin Psiloi successfully driving off enemy archers or slingers.
Maybe they simply closed at a run, and didn't get into an exchange of missiles.

Finally: How to represent smaller volumes of shooting in "one base per unit" games.
We generally don't want a coupe of rank's worth of Pila to destroy a deep opposing formation.
I certainly don't want to spend half the game evaluating combat phases with very limited outcomes.
One answer is to impose a temporary "condition" on the shot formation, one that causes a melee penalty during the rest of the turn.
This is very similar to disorder in older rulesets, but very quick to operate.
We can also adjust the severity of that condition for different targets: Pikes and shielded warband are liable to suffer disorder, spears also, loose order skirmishers far less and are probably already evading as a line of heavies approaches. *

 * Barkerese for the ancients grognards here.

[mmcv]

There is little evidence that the Romans threw the pilum as a volley in a single use, I'm sure at times it was used as part of the charge but others as an attrition weapon to break apart enemy formations. It was also used as a melee weapon at times too. I think some rules tend to over emphasise them. They were not vastly different from javelins and spears of others. There's still a lot of debate on the bend vs break thing and whether that was even a design feature or a happy accident. They probably had a little better piercing power than other designs and a bit harder to reuse, but if you're modelling fairly abstract combat then don't need to get too into the nuances beyond either giving them some short range ability or abstracting it into the melee itself.

[bobm]

Wargame rules have been responsible for conflating spears with javelins for approximately 40 years.  They are not the same.  A spear is heavier and you only have one and often have a counterweight at the rear so they can be carried with more of the sharp end forward of the hand grip position.  javelins are light with a small head and need good ballistic properties to keep the pointy end on target.  Norman Milites are spear armed cavalry on the Bayeaux Tapestry.
Wargamers love shooting phases so will choose to shoot entirely based on "within range" rather than on "will this be a waste of ammunition".  There are instances in history where troops had a similar attitude to wargamers (Russsians in the Netherlands in 1799 shot until out of ammo more than once) but it wasn't common.  Long range volleys were generally seen as the domain of raw troops.