I would point out that war darts and javelins only require one hand, thus enabling the use of a shield. That might make it a better choice for certain kinds of soldiers (hold your spear in your shield hand, throw the javelin as you move in, switch to the spear).
If you look at the images from the battle of Agincourt, you'll see that the skirmishing soldiers basically didn't use shields at all. So, that might be true for the dedicated melee fighters / heavy infantry?
@@kalebgates7711 It's written that the French had Pavisiers though, shield bearers. These images you mention do show shields too, but it's just a painted image after all and you can't really tell from these images what was on the field and what not. I imagine shields on both sides being used though, maybe more by the French than by the Englishmen, but I still think both.
@@kalebgates7711 baby, are you so naive that you believe the pictures? And where are the javelin throwers in your picture? Also, how can an archer use a shield?
I think that was a very important aspect especially for the Romans. The roman legionairre was kitted with larger shield and only a short sword relative to their predecessors of the phalanx. This gives them a disadvantage in straight up combat but a huge advantage in reforming, unexpected terrain, not dying to ranged fire and becoming able to use one-handed missile weapons because your hand is not occupied with a very long pike. Relative to archers the legionairre was much more able to resist attack (no weaknesses across the line) as well as being able to shoot while advancing on a position(a hill, a leader, baggage trains, brought along families).
I'd like to point out that many of these throwing dart concepts would work better if you were simply a skeleton. Skeletons abide by a different criteria of "biomechanics" and would plainly hurl the dart at ranges exceeding 1km.
A curious point, made me smile, but are you or anyone else ever going to out it to the test? And how? Apart from fantasy magic, skeltetons alone have zero biomechanical force, lacking muscle & sinew. "Ere you lot! I want you to step into this big pot of boiling water to see if you throw darts better once all the flesh is boiled off your bomes. Try to not let any of your joints come unstuck without all the ligaments etc or you'll be on a charge!".
Hi Tod, It would have been very hard to shoot long bows straight down off the battlements of castles, and cross bows were quite expensive to manufacture: so perhaps the untrained troops threw the hand held war arrows directly down on the enemy as they were trying to scale the walls with ladders. Effective at short range, cheap to manufacture and zero skill. :)
Rocks were probably more effective in that niche. Even cheaper to manufacture and use, and a 5 kg rock dropped from a wall will injure or kill someone whether or not they wear a helmet, if it hits.
@@sealpiercing8476 Yes, but in a siege you would have people dedicated to carry those 5kg rocks up and down battlements, and they could carry 2-3 in one trip at most. These? You could feasibly carry 20-30 of them in a single trip, making quantity over quality that much better (and cheaper, wood was cheap but good stones were not)
Perhaps one advantage of war darts over arrows is that they can double as a short spear. They look very similar to the throwing spears used by indigenous Australians, propelled via the use of a wommera throwing aid. To the best of my knowledge they would often use these throwing spears in close quarters, due to the fact that 'pointy stick' turns out to be a very versatile weapon.
It's probably a discussion of unit tactics and unit types on the field. Archers are a specific weapon troop that takes some level of skill. So are 'professional' infantry. Adding a couple disposable thrown items, like Plubata creates a force multiplier without a major training hurtle. Likewise, giving lightly armored troops a handful of spears to move and harass enemy flanks while archers and infantry keep the focus forward. All sorts of possibilities once you starting putting units on the table.
Thanks for those sophisticated answers and strangely I have been thinking of them as skirmishers or troops on their own, but of course integrate them with others and things look better, but again pretty much everyone could use a bow to some level, but there have been some good thoughts on just pure cost and simplicity.
Was looking at the hook attachment on the larger darts. Was wondering if that is optimal for a clean release of the string loop. I remember the ‘At-latle’ thrower that they still use in South America.. The Atlattle has a small projection like a peg that just sits behind the butt of the spear or arrow. I believe it promotes a clean release whilst still transferring enough propelling energy into the projectile.
@@tods_workshop if the concete is, "heavy infantry want a projectile weapon before closing in melee," i can't imagine they'd want to keep useless, fragile, and expensive equipment on their body while fighting with swords. thrown projectiles have the advantage of not needing to be "looked after" in the middle of battle.
Yeah. If the choice is between an archer & a guy with a bunch of darts, you choose the archer. If the choice is between a dude with a spear or a dude with a spear plus a couple of darts... well, why not?
There are several reasons why i would prefere a javelin over a bow: 1) Infantry: A javelin is an infantry weapon, you can keep your shield in one hand and trow the javelin with another. and then go to your melee weapon (most likely a spear) it takes a lot shorter time to trow one of these and then switch to your melee weapon, then dropping an expensive bow wich most likely in the incomming battle will get destroyed, and switching to shield and melee weapon. 2) Obstruction regardless if the javelins hit or not, there big, they obstruct, and when they do hit they are not easily broken so you can continue the fight if its not a deadly impact. They will obstruct the battlefield, they will obstruct your movement more then arrows will. 3) Terror. Much of warfare is not about killing, is about terrorizing the other party to not attack and surrender without a fight. If you have to run a few hundred meters into a group of infantry backed by archers where you are shot by archers for the first few hundred meters, and then the air blackens with javelins once you get close, the mere sight of hundreds of the big javelins will break many less disciplined groups.
I would be very interested in seeing what a professional or good amateur javelin thrower makes of these. Perhaps their knowledge of throwing pointy sticks for sports would give them an insight into the design and effectiveness of the variations. I'm sure there must be some sportsperson who is going to be into a bit of historical experimental archeology.
Im a bit of a javelin thrower and fast bowler.. The side on action like Jeff Thomson is the best way and thats what javelin throwers use ..(Oh and dont forget the run up you need that) .Did this guy do a run up ? .They stopped that in cricket cos it caused back injuries ..and also being naturally flexible will help it go further its called the whip lash effect your arm flexes backward at the joint ..I think its something to do with gravity and the tip moving faster i dont know
@@braddbradd5671 the efect you are referring to is not gravity but inertia. The javelin doesn't want to accelerate and to do this requires a force. The force comes from your arm rotating around your shoulder joint (and body motion and run-up but I have simplified here). The large force required at the hand on the javelin is magnified by the lever that is your arm (due to the law of moments) So there is a HUGE force going through yor arm which bends it backwards. Roughly speaking: Since your elbow is about half way up the arm, if you applied a force of X on the javelin the force on your elbow would be 2X, and at your shoulder about 12X... But the flimsy elbow hinge joint is the weak link.
@@jackpowell9276 As with most sports, it is 10% strength and 90% technique. If you have the same muscles as someone else, you win on technique. A long time utilised applying the force to the projectile is key, this is why follow through is important when striking objects in sports. For example: By quadrupling the time you apply the force on the object for, you quadruple the velocity change of the object and thus multiply the kinetic energy of the projectile by x16. Impulse = force x time = change of momentum of the object
Mate, great video. I have a challenge for you. I'm from Australia. (That's not the challenge.) Here, the traditional power assist devised by the Aborigines, was the Woomera. It knocks into the back end of a spear. No fletchings. You hold the spear and the Woomera up at the front end, with one hand, with the spear held like a pencil (roughly) and the majority of the Woomera in the palm of your hand. The Aborigines using these things were super accurate, and the Woomera made for withering power. I have had many tries at this system, and nearly caused asthma attacks from laughter in the people who were trying to show me how to do it. Ya have to try and source the equipment to give this a shot. Used right, they are beyond belief. You'd love these.
That sounds like the spear thrower found at stone age sites all over the world. Basically, it provides a longer moment arm to increase power and distance.
I grew up using these. The long 'spear' (technically a dart) bows on the forward motion due to the inertia of the head, storing energy just like a bow, and then springs off from the launcher. The velocity is phenomenal. They must have been good. They seem to have taken out a lot of the world's megafauna!
This sounds very much like an atlatl style spear thrower that indeed appears to predate bows and arrows throught the stone-age. The channel HuntPrimative has a number of videos discussing them and their performance at length, including hunts. They certainly appear to launch faster and penetrate better than a bow shot arrow, but they appear to have been largely discarded in later history in favour of bows or hand-launched spears. My favourite theory for this is that constructing and maintaining a set of darts is harder than arrowsmithing, or perhaps that this really was tailored to megafauna and fell by the wayside as those animals vanished.
These kinds of war darts, javelins, plumbata, whatever you may call them seem like more of a Close In Weapon rather than a dedicated ranged weapon. Used by large masses of infantry right before they charge in with their swords and shields etc. Or maybe as an harassment type weapon for quick hit and run attacks on enemy formations, camps, ambushes, etc. Or perhaps we're just missing a vital thing in their effectiveness, either way I'm interested to see future videos on them, perhaps people in the comments have the missing ingredient.
My bet is the economics of them, wood, head, flights and just chuck a couple on the way in. Maybe it'll work or disrupt a charge, probably do stuff all against anything even in relatively light armours but against enemies like the celts, germans and some of the others of the era they'd probably do just fine as not a lot of them wore or used much. It does add a bit of shock element to front line, heavy infantry types that they can stand-off at someone teasing them from 20-25m a way and having a plumbata hangng out of your head is bound to be fairly unfunny for one side of the battle. So my bet is in the cheapness, its not as good as a bow, but if you can chuck a rock, you can chuck a dart and its probably a fairly shallow learning curve compared to a bow, which in some cases can be very expensive and take a while to use.
Nice thoughts there Kris and I particularly like "and having a plumbata hangng out of your head is bound to be fairly unfunny for one side of the battle."
@@krissteel4074 There must be something else in play. Everything you've described slingshots can do better. They do well even against early armor and shields (at least they could stagger the opponent)
@@tods_workshop I would maybe check how well this can be used with a shield. If you are an infantryman you may want to rather have a shield than futz around with a bow and arrow while you get skewered with javelins or pelted with stones. Greek peltasts were often equipped with multiple javelins and a lighter shield and a helmet. Which might not be much against heavy infantry but together with a dagger or shortsword would be lethal to any other kind of skirmisher and against heavy infantry you throw your javelins and bravely run away. So I would guess it is a support weapon for soldiers supposed to enter melee or cover the melee fighters. You can have one or two for the beginning of the fight or when skirmishing ahead, but you do not have to drop your shield to do anything with it. You do not need a quiver, you do not need a place to put a strung bow when you have to put it aside. You are mobile and flexible and supposed to be close to the enemy. Archers would rather stay back and not be inside those ranges. There could also be this psychological effect. With a javelin you need to be inside 30 metres and close and after one or two shots you have to do something else. With a bow you may just be primed to rather stand back and not get aggressive until you run out of arrows. You want heavy infantry to charge, not stay back and be timid about it. Having a weapon that puts you closer to the enemy may help with that while you are given a bonus on your charge to disrupt and break through an enemy line. In other cases there also may be socioeconomic reasons, but later Peltasts as well as Roman legionaires and others still had javelins rather than slings or bows. At least in antiquity these types of soldiers were the more professional soldiers, often mercenaries, expected to fight in melee. In the Middle Ages/later this may be different though.
@@lazyman7505 I think that its way these can be used by closer order troops on the move an they drop down so you don't need a line of sight, that gives them an advantage over slings an bows. You can get 2 or 3 ranks thowing them as they come in break up the lines just be for you hit.
And now the question I ask myself all the time since you started with those arrows and your trebuchet videos: can you shoot a basket full of plumbatae with you trebuchet, for turning your wooden target knights into hedgehogs? 🤔
@@carlc.4714 Maybe use a big bundle of those giant wardarts? I'd also say modifying the trebuchet to use sand or water for the counterweight would give Todd a huge amount of fine control over what he can throw with it. =^x^=
You could probably get better mileage out of a large bunch of sling bullets. Darts will have longer range, obviously, but if you're wanting to pepper the target area, lead sling bullets would probably be the best for your money.
Time and portability. Given that the majority of an army are of the spear and shield variety, it stands to reason holding an extra dart or two would be far easier than a bow and quiver. It would also take less time to throw it, with the added benefit of not having to discard or stow a bow and switch back to the standard spear and shield.
I see a few options for the big ones: a) Can be thrown like a spear so requires less training than with a bow. Yes there were a lot of people hunting but a hunting bow is easier to use than a war bow. b) Requires only one hand so you can use a shield c) Can be used by charging melee troops while bow and arrow troops need to stay in the back. d) Can be easier thrown from horse than using a bow, which requires special training and a good horse to pull off. e) Would be could for hit and run attacks on unarmored archer formations f) If these big ones get stuck in a shield nice and proper you can forget using that shield with such a big mass sticking out from it, an arrow or two you can just break off, no way you're easily breaking these off g) Maybe thrown from battlements these really develop some mass impact and can cause massive Issues. People storming a wall wouldprobably have the shields over their heads. Normal arrows will probably no penetrate shields TOO much, but if these hit them you have again a giant mass sticking out from your shield. That large broad head might even be able to split the wood planks in the shield, acting like a splitting axe? Just my guesses
I think you got something with the weight, it would make it very hard to handle a shield with one of those stuck in it. It make sense to give that kind of weapon to melee troops to trow before a charge, probably in a similar way to how roman legionaries used their pilum.
Why would hunting bow and war bow be different, archery wise? There would be a different doctrine... but skilled archery is like skilled marksmanship. It can take a lifetime to develop. A good hunter is always a better marksman.
@@Svensk7119 a war bow has a considerably higher poundage than a hunting bow, and a military archer would have to be strong enough to shoot maybe hundreds of arrows rapidly. For sure being a skilled hunter would help you massively but you'd still have to train for a long time with the war bow, the ones found on the Mary Rose were between 150 to a 185 pound draw which is insane, i can imagine some welsh longbows at Agincourt would have been even heavier
Looking at the head of these things I’d assume they‘d be pretty much impossible to remove from the body or fabric armor and I imagine it would be very difficult to keep fighting with one of them stuck in you even if it’s not lethal. So it could be that these fulfilled quite a different purpose from the bow and arrow, instead of aiming to be lethal they could have been thrown right before engaging the enemy to encumber them and very little training would be needed to do so
ok, here is some theories of why you'd rather use wardarts than bows. 1: you need time to string a bow, you can't travel long periods of time with a stringed bow since it will gradually lose power. so let's say you have mercenaries guarding a caravan, they're not gonna keep their bows strung for a 3 day journey in case of an ambush by bandits, but they can easily have wardarts at the ready within seconds. 2: Wardarts are essentially just big arrows, and are easier to mass-produce than making bows, so if you have a day to prepare a militia for defending a siege, you can either try to make bows and some arrows for maybe 20% of them, or you can churn out a bunch of oversized arrows that anyone can chuck over a wall or from battlements and go for quantity over quality. 3: easier to use in confined spaces with short ranges, scenario: enemy troops have breached the walls and are trying to capture one of the guard towers, guards can throw them at the attackers indoors, so you can have a few guards holding a line, and behind them are other guards chucking these darts over their allies and towards the enemy. 4: bit of a wild guess, but they might be easier to use in thick forest where a longbow would get tangled and caught on branches and shrubbery. 5: easier to carry around, it would be easier for normal footsoldiers to bring a handfull of these darts onto the battlefield in a quiver without needing to bring a bow. having a bow with you just to shoot 2 shots before engaging in close combat is just going to be troublesome. summary: Reason 1: less or no setup time required. Reason 2: easier to mass-produce within limited time. Reason 3: easier to use in confined spaces Reason 4: better to use in difficult terrain (wild guess) Reason 5: more versatile and easier for normal soldiers to bring along.
@@tods_workshop I just realized that the reason why these were used so much might have been much more simple - the wood. You know far better than me that you can't make arrows out of just any kind of wood, but these? Pick whatever stick you have lying around, add arrowhead and you have a fully functional (deadly) dart.
@@lazyman7505 you could be on to something. I read once that a likely reason the native Australians never adopted the bow was that Australia didn't have any suitable wood to make bows. Thus they stuck with the woomera.
Thanks for this Tod! I agree with many of the comments suggesting a simple, relatively inexpensive force multiplier, but I would add that the longer length of the larger darts would also get in the way much more than a little arrow - possibly tripping up those around the person hit with it, even if it only stuck in a shield.
A long time ago I participated in sca and at one "battle" I had a few sca safe versions of war darts along with the rest of my kit and they were perfect for taking out people holding 2 handed weapons from a flank while they were focused on the fight in front of them. They just didn't see it coming and would look so confused about what just hit them. So maybe they were popular as a dirty trick type weapon. The enemy is expected a hand to hand engagement with the opposing shield wall when suddenly having flanking shots from javelin guys they didn't think had range or lines of attack on them
You’ve touched on this before, but I think they would be most effective when you have the high ground. Be it a from the top of a wall or even a mildly steep hill. My thought is that not only would the ranged be increased, but it would be much harder for the enemy to throw them back at you. Another thing I’m curious about is exactly how straight the shaft of a war dart has to be. I use to throw random sticks around the woods as a kid and, despite them being crooked/not having fletching, I actually got semi decent at throwing them straight-ish. Would love to how a crooked branch with fletching would preform. If they still preformed adequately then that might mean they would be easier to produce, since you don’t have to have a “perfectly” straight piece of wood.
I just got one of your bollocks daggers and let me say that it is beautiful. I have several historical replica pieces, but this is by far the best and my favorite. You do good work Todd. Keep it up
@@zackalexander9418 Crossbow bolts easily break dinner plates. Next question? ....😊 Others have done such tests, just try a few searches. Skallagrim or Thegn Thrand I think covered that. Though most modern "armour" is untempered mild steel & much thinner than armour would've been. So fair comparison to actual armour of the day is harder to acheive. If you've gone to the eye-watering expense of making or buying modern forged, tempered armour, penetrating it with a test if an incredible waste.
In addition to what others have said about perhaps them not being a primary weapon (throw your darts, then draw your sword), I would think that training is probably a large component here. Sure, you can probably guess that learning to shoot a bow was pretty common among people of the era for hunting and whatnot, but a war bow is a different beast. Even a crossbow, while much simpler than a vertical bow, takes time and training to get your soldiers proficient. A war dart, on the other hand, you can practically just hand out and say "throw it!"
From the images I've seen the large darts are used for hunting game, such as boar or deer, which makes me wonder about it's efficacy at maiming charging cavalry. You don't need to throw it far or particularly accurately if the goal is just to dissuade horseman from attacking you. It would also explain why the common soldier might carry one or two, but dedicated skirmishers wouldn't bother.
A long haft with a broad head stuck in a target would make it harder for that target to move around; a deer or boar with a javelin sticking out of it wont be able to run far. I imagine the same would be true of cavalry; if a horse has an arrow in it then it may still be able to run at you (I've never shot at a horse so idk) but a bigger stick would catch on the ground / other stuff in the environment that would make the injury worse so chaging is out of the question.
@@jamesdixon5714 It would be good if there was some sort of penetration testing to go along with his tests. People who owned horses generally didn't want to own dead horses, and had the money to at least cover them in cloth/padded armor.
@@jamesdixon5714 good mass, require little training, effective at close range, mostly used for hunting.. Seems like a good bandit weapon of use for close ambush.
I had items described as "darts" is video games before and always imagined them like modern sports darts and thought that was a pretty ridiculous weapon. Now I finally understand what it was supposed to mean!
Seeing Darts listed in a game and not having the context is super common. In the Iliad half the time the epic refereed to the Greek's Javelins they were called Darts. There were passages where a Javelin was thrown then it described where the Dart hit. The Plumbata is the only one that resembles a modern sports dart. The sport dart's "barrel" is the equivalent to the Plumbata's lead weight. and the "flight" is the equivalent to the fetching.
As to their possible use vs a bow: -Easy & cheap to make -regular infantry can quite easily carry one without compromising their usual kit (which can't really be said of a bow or crossbow), especially shields -Don't require any special training or strength
Easy to use, cheap to make apart from the big iron head which costs to forge. Apart from the bow, how many arrows could you get for the price/materials of a dart?
@@2bingtim A war dart can be made to much looser tolerances than an arrow, making arrows was a skilled profession, & they were made in ways that relied on scale. A wonky arrowhead, fit of the arrowhead, badly aligned fletchings, straightness, a poorly fitting nock, etc. will all quite drastically effect how well an arrow works, but a war dart not intended to be thrown at extreme ranges can be pretty slapdash & work as intended just fine. (I quite often make atlatl darts, which are quite a bit more complex & involved than a war dart, but are still much less so than an arrow) An arrow may have worked out cheaper, but that would only be due to an economy of scale (& again would require more specialised troops)
Im not sure witch timeperiode my design is from. But if you have a nail/screw screwed almost all the way down in the back end of a stick. You can put the back end of the dart on that nail/screw, and throw the dart at a really good distance and accuracy.
my first guess would be that the darts would be sort of effective when being thrown of a wall. like in a siege situation. the gravity would let it accelerate, and you would be able to throw a bunch of them very fast and without much training
Additionally, I think weather resistance plays a role here. With bows and crossbows, you worry about rain, seawater, and the water of the Irish fens rendering your weapon inoperable. That failure point does not exist for thrown missile weapons.
And you don't have to string your bow before going into battle. The loopy thingy is made fast enough so even in an ambush the ranks not directely engaged could throw some into the enemies.
Brilliant video. This reminds me about the Naukia, archers in the middle ages that shot the very long arrows laying their back on the ground and holding the arch by the legs.
From what I've seen, the troops who were famous for using these were either the armies scouts or specialized troops for skirmishing in unconventional terrain like thick forests or swampy marshlands so perhaps they fall short in battlefield situations but shine in unconventional warfare that requires quick movement and throwing. The ability to hold a shield while throwing these one handed can also not be overstated in skirmish scenarios. Imagine two scouting parties, one armed with bows and arrows and one armed with hand javelins and small shields. As they both come upon each other, the scouts with bows raise their bows and start to nock their arrows right as the opposing scouts javelins sink into their bodies. Plus the guys with javelins have small round shields to block any arrows fired at them while the archers have nothing.
Despite the popular narrative, medieval archers often wore armour (sometimes even full plate armour, it seems), so they wouldn't necessarily be defenceless. They would also surely have arrows nocked if they were a scouting party, expecting trouble. The broad idea remains the same though, that the guys with darts would still have a big advantage at close range (unless these enemy scouts were indeed very heavily armoured).
I'm curious about the possibility of a atlatle type device. Maybe the long stick In the image may be closer to an atlatle? It would most definitely increase range throwing speed and power. Just a thought
I agree, coming from Australia, the First Nations people used a similar device called a Woomera. Mentioned this before on one of Todd’s other vids. Wikipedia quotes that “The kinetic energy of a spear launched from a woomera has been calculated as four times that of an arrow launched from a compound bow.[6]” the other interesting note is that spears don’t have fletching but we’re accurate enough to hunt kangaroos etc. Wonder too if the more rigid nature compared to string or leather thong would aid accuracy and transmission of power/energy
I throw atlatls. And I've been wondering why they weren't more more represented here. I will say it takes a lot more practice to be accurate then with even archery. But amazing penetrating power.
I think a big part of it simply boils down to more or less everybody (especially those who'd be fighting) can throw something with reasonable effectiveness. The training required to use a bow effectively especially heavy war bows takes time and is a valuable skill. The plumbata being the pinnacle of "Hey all our troops can throw why not give them all a bunch of nasty things to throw our enemy's way?". My biggest question is still yours why the heck would they stop using them? Even today we have airpower and artillery yet almost all our troops carry grenades. I can only imagine less shields and advancements in armor just made them not worth the trouble,
I think there might be a question of practicalities. To be a good archer is a lot of work, but to be somewhat decent at chucking stuff less so. Seems like a much less specialised and demanding skill, which is a decent option for a non-archer. And with the little ones, well like you said that's a fun toy. Could be a good option for a town militia that's grown up using a smaller version. Further if you're carrying around a few of those types of thing they can't be ruined by being rained on like a bow. Even if you're using a string then you can just pop that into a pouch as the clouds come in and then when it's time to lob pointy bits you don't have to restring a bow. Also they're a fair bit more disposable than a bow, you're not going to worry if one cracks the same way you would if it happened to your bow. They would also be easier to chuck at people who've gotten up to a fortification/are climbing ladders. No need to lean your whole self over, just lob one of the big boys. And think of the storage too. You could pack loads and loads of them into a room, have your lads tossing them over the walls day and night.
I'd think the biggest reason for using darts is to allow a warrior to act as both ranged and melee fighters. Bowmen are specialists, needing years of practice, and are not well equiped for hand to hand fighting. The dart on the other hand is usable by just about anybody. A front line fighter can chuck some darts then still be able to fight hand to hand. Even in an army large and rich enough to contain archer units, having some auxillary missle fire when receiving a charge could be very handy. tl;dr Darts are good for an army without specialists as any warrior would be at least moderately effective with them, while retaining the abjility to fight as infantry.
If I went into a melee skirmish, then I would rather have a set of javelin-like arrows to throw than carrying around a bow. The various darts would be easier to carry, more flexible in use (especially in combination with shields). After you've thrown them (as opposed to running out of arrows), you don't have to carry/dispose of the bow + quiver. Also, a bow would probably be more expensive and require more training.
I think they were popular for the same reason swords were. You can easily transport them and draw them. If you have a shield (same for a polearm), putting that shield somewhere while you are using your bow is a bother, and if you are using said shield, putting the bow somewhere is the same problem. If you have a shield, using a different weapon you can draw and use with one hand is very useful, especially weapons that hurt cavalry (which you generally do not want on top of you).
I wondered why you haven't tried the darts with an Atlatl it works for short spears it should work for the larger darts . I know not a lot of people know what a Atlatl is but just think of it as a handle made to throw javelins and spears and you get the general idea plus there freaking amazing when used right.
Yeah exactly. When I saw Tod struggling to throw them using sling/slingstaff with any consistency/accuracy, my first thought was 'man, these would work wonders with atlatl'
My heartland is really past European history and so although atlatls are interesting and probably would be good for these it his not appropriate for my interests
@@tods_workshop No worries, we love everything you do! It could be interesting research topic for someone - it's obvious that spear throwers of some kind were used by pretty much every civilization at some point. The force multiplication you can achieve from just simple stick with a knot/hook on the end is incredible. But in Western Europe they seemed to be completely replaced/overshadowed by slings or variants that combined both (sling staffs, etc.)
@@tods_workshop Not to be a contrarian since I know you mean Middle Age Europe, but stone age Europe would have had atlatls. It's also not too much of a stretch to think that Europeans would have experimented with them in the middle ages because it's really a pretty simple concept that popped up in many different areas during different time periods independently of each other, and maybe there's a very clear reason why it wouldn't have worked out in medieval Europe. So basically, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at me trying to get you to make a video on atlatls.
The Atlatle iuses a much less pronounced unison between throwing device and projectile, allowing a smooth release. It’s like playing pub darts , it’s all about the release….
You mentioned the light weights of the things several times. Given that there are none in museums it would seem that they were not made of iron or bronze, but have you tried denser / heavier woods?
Please do more on war darts! I love it. If you get bored with that I'd enjoy watching you explore the atlatl. They were used all over the world. I'd be very interested to see how effective they would be against armor with bodkin points
Nice new videos from the workshop, mate. Guess you're still continuing on with these "war darts". Can't wait to see what more strange weapons and gizmos from the old age that we have yet to discover. As well as the many possibilities for use and how to use them.
Try throwing from a moving horse at a target 5-10m away. Then you will see why it was a loved weapon in times gone past😊👍👍 Then try from a defensive position such as a hill top and note the range. The dart can not be thrown back at you from the bottom of the hill 😊
A video i was waiting for really long, thanks Tod. Btw, your videos are an inspiration for my next builds, my neighbors have been annoyed with the sling lol
Have you seen the Australian Aboriginal woomera Todd? Considered one of the earliest forms of 'artillery'. Basically a club with a groove in the end where the spear base sits. Very effective. They hunted with woomera,spear & boomerang, no bow & arrow. Keep up the great work. 👍🇦🇺
@@tatumergo3931 Spears were common but the bow & arrow wasn't part of indigenous hunting here as far as I'm aware. The only other tool name I can convey (I'm not aboriginal) is that for the didgeridoo which is the yidaki. I'm glad you like the Aussie culture but it's become a lot more vanilla/beige/PC diluted, since it's cultural pinnacle of The Paul Hogan Show.
It's simplicity, and force multiplier. To have good archers you need people that regularly train with their weapon. Often that is all they are expected to do on the field as well. And you might not always want so many archers. What you will always have is melee infantry. So if you can give a simple missile weapon that is easy to use to all your melee troops, you will have an advantage over an enemy that doesn't have that. And unlike a bow and arrows, the equipment won't compromise their role on the field. However I believe added to this is a psychological aspect that might not be focused on so much. We tend to look at the black an white of effectiveness, but one of the difficult aspects at least in early warfare was actually starting the battle. As no one wants to just charge to their possible deaths, and so that is why skirmishers come into play for example. BUT also think of how it would feel to advance on your enemy as an infantry man, and then have you and all your mates chuck javelins at them as you close in or they closing in on you. It would probably make you feel a lot more confident to see that scary enemy cower. So in the end I think it was a way to give melee infantry tactical flexibility to handle different situations without affecting their performance in their original role, and also perhaps a morale boost.
I was posting that maybe they are "Threat" weapons, give it to a handful of men on the flanks and they can resist enemy skirmishers or light cavalry from flanking as they have a ranged weapon that can hurt them, but they don't have many of them. If the cavalry charges, they throw (time to loop one dart anyways), cavalry charge disintegrates, your horses ride in and scatter them more. Suddenly you have saved a flank and blunted an enemy move with a few sticks and string, and next time, if they see the darts in the unit, they will be less eager to charge up in the first place (despite it not being super effective).
The knight and two men at arms were like .. why the hell did we bother putting on armour and stand around for hours in this field while this guy misses us with every shot???? .. and then holly crap Plumbata! ... NOW HE'S GOT A BOW RUN BOYS! nice one Tod love your stuff
Hello Todd, just watched your wardart video.Very informative, i had 2 thoughts to your video and question as to what was missing in the War Darts discussion. Firstly, your throws may improve if you move left of center, allowing your throwing arm to release center mass. Secondly, i believe the trainig with the war dart could be done quickly and by most able bodied persons. A bow and arrow system requires much more training. It would be useful to have warriors of both systems assisting onanother. This is only my opinion. I am a martial arts teacher with a little over 50 years of training. So i have lots to learn thats why i enjoyed your video. Thank you for sharing.
Great demo! I think the Maori method of sticking the tails in the ground makes sense of the mid arrow fletchings and it also explains why the drawing includes a lever as long as the arrow. When skeletons are drawn using the longest arrows does that literally mean the ancient and deceased people used them?
Could also be playing on how fictional skeleton warriors were portrayed. I don't know how it was back then, but nowadays skeletons are basically the grunt level enemies. The kind that would be least likely to know how to use a bow.
Skeletons symbolize death, I think that this depiction was first a blind woman : it symbolized the black plague, who trick blindly its death arrows at anyone. It was represented with bundle of arrows in each hand. Since then memento mori often include death shown as skeleton ready to aim their giant death arrow at anyone, at any time, because we can die at any given moment.
@@DinoSuperCool Or perhaps it is closer to the grim reaper and his scythe, the weapon is associated with death in a way that isn't outwardly intuitive?
@@DinoSuperCool I'd say the opposite. One of the meanings of skeletons in medieval art was as Death or his minions coming for the unwilling or unaware victim. I think the representation as skeletons of what would be considered low-value troops by knights or the landed aristocracy is to remind them that the peasant levy still represents a danger to the armoured warrior on the battlefield. It could be interpreted both in the literal sense of never turning your back on any enemy and the metaphorical sense of the ability of the unruly masses to overthrow the feudal order if their needs were ignored or they were abused. Remember that, except for in churches, no poor person would ever get to see medieval art of any kind; only the wealthy could afford to commission art for their homes or to buy books.
I can't help with your question @Tod's Workshop, but I wonder if the distinctive, stylised head shape could provide a clue to those who know more than I do? Might they have been effective against a mounted enemy (were horses were less armoured in period, would a big barbed thing make a horse unmanagable on the battlefield)? ...I'd really like to know if plumbata could be launched en-masse from catapults and what the effect would be.
So, my take on all of this: Firstly, if Tod's testing something, safest place to be is his target, and absolutely not around his GoPro. Jokes aside, clear advantage of all of this lot is that they were ranged weapons for melee warriors. They are quite simple to carry around (especially plumbata), and you throw them before melee combat, meaning they won't restrict your combat abilities. They also give melee units some ranged capacity, makes them a bit more versatile. Of course, they were inferior weapons for dedicated ranged troops: bows, crossbows, even slings destroy them. But soldiers who carry all those ammunition and extra weapon have to lose that weight somewhere: either lighter armor or shorter/lighter melee weapons, or both. As shown on your plumbata charge, you can use (at least some of those) while on the move, which is almost impossible to do with alternatives i mentioned above.
The only issue i see with throwing them while charging is that being in a group running towards an identical target would make throwing things sketchy for the people around you. I could see them being thrown before actual charges, and possibly after clashes if one side is falling back, rather than chase them to your death toss a few darts in hopes of taking a few out of the game.
Range and reaction time decreases as a line of enemies advances. For an archer, I would think that these tools served the same utility as the bayonet. Also, I would point out that the extra size of these might have granted the same kind advantage as afforded by the Roman Pilum. An arrow could be dealt with rather quickly in the heat of battle, but having one of those, big boys, sticking out of you, made you a noncombatant. Note: The fact that they are often depicted as being used by skeletons, says a lot about what odds you could expect when having to resort to their use.
I can only think of two possibilities: 1- you can throw most of those projectiles with a single hand, allowing for the use of a shield on another. As you said, there are records of them being used right before shield walls collide, and if you are in a shield wall, chances are you would prefer to throw on of those over your shield and immediately go for your gladis, spear or whatever, while keeping the shield infront of you 2- you don't (or at least shouldn't) carry your bow knotched, as it will damage the bow's structure over time. If you get ambushed, the time to knotch a bow under stress might see you killed, but any dart you could throw single handely could be deployed speedly, while you go for your main weaponary all in all, I think they make a great choice for skirmishers, such as the roman velites, or as thirdary weapons for heavy infantary to throw at the enemy line just before the shield walls collide, thogh in that case I believe it would see more sucesses being employed from a stationary position than from a charging one. Hm, now that I think about it, perhaps in a shield wall a few lines deep, the third or fourth row could thrown it over the front line's head to fall over the enemy's 1st and 2nd lines... probably not much effective by itself, buut it might distract them enough that your front line take them down while they protect their heads against your darts, in which case they are probably better suited for the job than a bow
It's probably something to do with the other weapons the troops are carrying. A bow is usually the main weapon of troops equipped with them. Where as these can be used by melee infantry to give them some ranged options.
How about use with a shield? Can't use a bow with a shield. And once you're done throwing your javelins, you can switch to a sword, axe, spear etc, whereas an archer would have to drop his fancy bow first before going into melee.
Plus an archer is going to have a tough time if he has to use his projectiles as a melee weapon. War darts are thicker and could probably pull off decent blocks. Not to mention the larger ones are basically just spears with fletching.
Whoa! The Plumbata actually looks like a real weapon! A bit less sexy and romantic than a throwing knife, maybe, but _much_ more practical, and looks like it could actually cause some damage and/or distraction during the close, like you said, just before the shield walls clash. The smaller head with the weight well _behind_ it means it could actually penetrate, rather than just giving really nasty paper-cuts, and you threw them _significantly_ farther and more accurately even without any gizmos or gimmicks.
can they be made by less skilled craftsmen/women than arrows? Maybe, for flinging mass numbers of pointy objects into masses of troops it is better to have lots of simple-to-make heavy throwing stick than crafted arrows?
@@cp1cupcake They certainly pre date the bow. "spear-throwers" like the ones demonstrated at the start of the video go back at lest 17,000 years There is evidence to suggest they might date back as far as 30,000 years, and throwing spears pre date Homo sapiens by like 500,000 years.
Good bows also require special woods and take a good amount of skill to carve the wood without compromising strength. The fibers necessary to make high drawpoundage bows suitable for war were a conflict resource and required careful harvesting. The arrows had to be carefully made to withstand the launch stresses of a powerful bow as well, and required good wood. This is a fletched straight stick with a pointy bit.
@@pyramear5414 Mostly this is a *short* *thick* fletched straight stick with a pointy bit. You can make a 18" long octagonal short thick straight stick out of a suitably-sized bit of firewood in just a couple of minutes with a shavehorse and a drawknife. The last time I tried making a 3ft arrow shaft it took me more than an hour, fiddling around to make it dead straight and the right thickness, and it needed a good-quality piece of wood to start with, plus a variety of tools. Even with practice I don't think I could ever get that down to less than twenty minutes.
Be interested to see how far a professional thrower could send one of these ... I mean if people depended on these for hunting as well they would be extremely skilled ... Olympic javelins are actually designed to not fly as far so you can imagine how far one made for distance could go.
As someone with an interest in Maori weapons, It's nice hearing others mention the Kopere. Speaking of, you got an impressive distance on that one throw! Might have to make my own version at some point.
On the darts with the leather tong I think that the loop shud be moved in front as close as posible to the tip and the lenghshuld be ajusted aordingly. Nice video!!!
Watching the successful crew served throws of that first dart tells me two things: 1) you could probably throw it two-handed if you threw it overhand as you did while it was crew served, and 2) you can probably stick the tail in the ground and throw it overhand with one person. When you tried to throw that first dart two-handed, and again when you tried the whip "bow" (I'd call it a springy throwing stick) you were pulling across your chest and got lousy results. Try holding the arrow with your hand behind and over your shoulder, and you will probably get better results. Almost all of the rubbish throws, if you watch the first half of the trajectory, you will see the arrow is moving sideways, with the point high by about 40 degrees from the trajectory. Obviously the air resistance is higher if you throw the dart sideways. Either some practice, or more likely a change in the holding and throwing stance will likely produce significantly better results. Not necessarily brilliant, but I don't see why you shouldn't be in the 25-30 meter range. You also got this trajectory with the arrows that you tried to throw from the hook at the tip.
When I was a child we had a lawn dart game called 'Jarts'. The darts had weighted metal tips with wide plastic fins and were about twelve inches in length. They were marketed to older children and only stayed on the market a few years because they were deadly. You threw them underhand in a high arc at a ring target on the ground and they could bury themselves in the dirt; or a skull.
I wonder if the images of some of these darts being wielded by skeletons was due to their being used by inexperienced expendable peasants who would usually be "cannon fodder." I know the term does not date to the period.
It might be as simple as war darts being regarded as an oldfashioned, primitive weapon, something that warriors of old would use. We aren't often drawing skeletons with assault rifles either, it's usually with swords and shields.
I’ve had a thought-which, by the way, was a particularly unique experience and one I won’t try to repeat-is that there’s an analogy to be made with modern grenades. Modern militaries have automatic belt-fed grenade launchers, multi-shot shoulder fired grenade launchers, single-shot under-barrel grenade launchers-all of which vastly out strip in range, payload, and speed, a hand-thrown grenade. So why keep all of many weapons in play? Because sometimes what you need is that little ‘personal touch’. That’s my guess, anyways.
Actually the grenade analogy may have a bit more merit than just that; the M67 grenade used by the US military is specifically designed to closely mimic the size and shape of a baseball. That was done deliberately since the prevailing thought of the day was that every red blooded American boy grew up throwing baseballs around and so it would be relatively intuitive on how to grab and hurl that grenade, thus lowering the learning curve on grenade training. If throwing darts and throwing strings were a common children's toy or hunting tool then training line troops or harassers to chuck them at enemies would be quite a bit easier, I also doubt that these were used much beyond 20-30 yards or so anyways, and besides that their one handed nature means that they could theoretically be hurled up and over the frontlines from men three or four rows back, so they'd be viable even after the front line has entered the melee.
Off the top of my head I have a few suggestions as to why they were used either instead or in addition to the bow. 1. Using and perfecting your skill with throwing darts may have been less time consuming than archery. 2. They could be used by infantrymen, who after throwing their darts would then fight in hand to hand combat. Whilst if everyone were archers it would be more cumbersome. 3. Protection, they could be used whilst also wielding a shield. 4. Cost effectiveness? 5. In some cultures close combat prowess was rated higher than archery, who by some were deemed as a cowardly weapon. Anyway, great video as always.
Some of the methods you tried look like a corded version of an atlatl. Wonder if they were designed as an upgrade to the atlatl? It would explain why almost everyone had a version of them.
Enables shield usage and allows the user to turn it into a makeshift spear if need be. Also, any shield that gets hit with one is unusable - much like the pila.
I would think war dart are about resources mainly time and skilled labor required to make a war bow is far longer than the time to make a War dart. a lord could start a war with a lot of war bows but as the war rages equipment get lots and damaged less war bows but still need some range to keep fighting.
those long javelins are about 1" diameter and 5' long, what would is made from that it's like only .75lb? I think it should be made of ash which would be at least 500-550g (1.1-1.2lbs) and I think it would be more effective.
A little idea for more Audience Participation would be if you'd show the comments of the people who come up with those nice ideas. I think It would further grow the connection with your audience and give motivation to all those creative folks out there. :D Nice Video, I allways like this war dart Experiments, for these things are less common in movies and pub culture. I also didn't know them to be that common before you made these Videos. 👍
Other commenters covered the main thoughts that came to mind (shields, battlements), but here's some more: - Bows get affected by weather, particularly rain; these have more flexibility in case of bad weather (also at sea) - If they're for flesh, perhaps horses were a main target; skirmishers/flankers would be vulnerable to light cavalry, so these may have been a counter I'm also curious about planted in the ground - which seemed like a great range option - what contexts would make that setup strategic? (I can see the two person option working for skirmishers against horses, if only some carried the large darts and others mainly used slings and such)
Plumbata with the weight at the tip as well as the long throwing stick reminded me of something I used to do as a kid. We had apple trees with small, somewhat hard apples, maybe the size of a tennis ball. I would take a meter long stick, stab it into an apple, and then launch them towards a forest around 40-50 meters away. They would often explode on the tree trunks well above the halfway mark still going up, whistling as they flew. I would not want to get hit by those and they were just small apples. Assisted throwing weapons are terrifying!
When did the lathe get invented? How hard is it to make shafts for arrows and darts to within their respective standards/requirements? How hard is it to make and maintain a bow?
As far as their coexistence with bows, I do have one source. In the Strategikon of Maurice, it lays out an organization for small units of light infantry to use when moving through broken/dense terrain like a forest, presumably when skirmishing or potentially skirmishing. It contained 4 javelinmen with shields and 1 archer. The archer was specifically called out as essentially providing covering fire for the javelineers. These small groups could either work alone or in concert with one another, and a stated goal in skirmishes was to try and get the high ground.
Have you tried a standard cord sling on back end of dart with pouch just large enough to cover the nock area? To push dart from back instead of dragging it from the middle
I think it's due to the fact that you had a missile weapon that could be used once youve closed to a range where Archers can no longer safely fire without hitting your own men in the back. A volley of fire of heavy arrows/spears right before the shield clash might do some damage, tangle up shields or demoralize the enemy right before the poop hits the fan.
It seems to me that, at least for the plumbata, throwing them doesn't require waving your shield around as much as a javelin would require. So you could still harrass the enemy while remaining fairly protected.
Throwing arrows. We used to make them when schoolboys back in the 1970's. We used bamboo canes, football cards cut to shape as flights and the points out of dartboard darts whipped into the ends. Occasionally a twist of copper wire to get the weighting correct or balanced. A piece of waxed twine with the knot on the end and a groove cut into the shaft as here. We could get well-made examples to fly from goalmouth to goalmouth on a soccer pitch, and we were only aged about ten. That's just throwing by hand - no atlatl or similar device. Boys with particularly whippy arms (who were the top stone throwers) could get the arrows to fly corner to corner on a soccer pitch. We had endless competitions throwing them.
One of the things that springs to mind is the ease of learning to use them compared to a bow, it takes a lot longer to learn to use a bow effectively. Another is that its probably easier to maintain under certain conditions. For vikings specifically, seawater/salt is pretty rough on bows from what I know. Its much easier to carry a couple darts than it is to safely protect an unstrung bow while at sea or during coastal raids. I'm also really curious about how they fare against armor, are they heavy enough that they are still effective against armor even with the broad heads?
Tod, Great video! Every effective whip bow I have seen did not use a loop. You use a knotted cord, and your projectile has a notch very similar to a crochet hook near the tip or at the center. Also, the whip needs to be longer. You use one hand to hold the end of the whip, one hand to hold your projectile, and you use your thigh or waist as a fulcrum. Very effective for small game, not sure about any other use.
Hi, for the short mid fletched darts, what if you had a notch at the back, like a normal arrow. And the string went from your bead position, down around the notch....?
I'm curious as to whether adding a carefully positioned lead weight close to but not exactly behind the head would add range and hitting power to all of the different types of war dart demonstrated in the video.
I believe there are several good reasons that "war darts" were so popular even when bows were around: 1. Bows, especially bows suitable for war, take a long time to manufacture from selecting the wood, curing it, forming it, etc. So while arrows could be churned out in great numbers, there were limited numbers of bows available. Darts were much quicker to make and get to the field. 2. Archers take a long time to train. Just about any peasant can throw a dart, and with a week or two of practice can do so fairly well. 3. In much of the artwork I've seen, (a fairly limited selection, I admit), darts were being used defensively from castle walls and other high places. Ballistics would have given them increased range while gravity would give them more velocity. Would it have been enough to inflict serious damage on a besieging army? Maybe in sufficient numbers. It could also give people on ladders or unprotected sappers a really hard time. While it could be written off as artistic constraints of the size of images or that wonderful tendency in artwork of the period to ignore perspective, if I recall in the art it looked like the darts were being hurled downward at a pretty steep angle.
I used to make these as a kid .you put a knot on the string, loop it once round the cane,and pull tight. It had a 6" nail in the end, very effective arrow, without a Bow.
7:23 Possibly the text shows Skeletons using these because they are a dead form of War fighting, artistically a great way to to show not to use anymore. Just my thoughts, what do you think?
Could the feathers be "rifled"? As I see it, you will always get a little bit of spin, when the bead comes of the string, and if the feathering were aligned with the bit of rotation it could perhaps be an asset instead of a hindrance.
I would point out that war darts and javelins only require one hand, thus enabling the use of a shield. That might make it a better choice for certain kinds of soldiers (hold your spear in your shield hand, throw the javelin as you move in, switch to the spear).
If you look at the images from the battle of Agincourt, you'll see that the skirmishing soldiers basically didn't use shields at all. So, that might be true for the dedicated melee fighters / heavy infantry?
I think if you are carrying a spear (2 handed weapon) you have little option to carry a shield and javelins too.
@@kalebgates7711 It's written that the French had Pavisiers though, shield bearers. These images you mention do show shields too, but it's just a painted image after all and you can't really tell from these images what was on the field and what not. I imagine shields on both sides being used though, maybe more by the French than by the Englishmen, but I still think both.
@@kalebgates7711 baby, are you so naive that you believe the pictures? And where are the javelin throwers in your picture? Also, how can an archer use a shield?
I think that was a very important aspect especially for the Romans. The roman legionairre was kitted with larger shield and only a short sword relative to their predecessors of the phalanx. This gives them a disadvantage in straight up combat but a huge advantage in reforming, unexpected terrain, not dying to ranged fire and becoming able to use one-handed missile weapons because your hand is not occupied with a very long pike. Relative to archers the legionairre was much more able to resist attack (no weaknesses across the line) as well as being able to shoot while advancing on a position(a hill, a leader, baggage trains, brought along families).
I'd like to point out that many of these throwing dart concepts would work better if you were simply a skeleton. Skeletons abide by a different criteria of "biomechanics" and would plainly hurl the dart at ranges exceeding 1km.
A curious point, made me smile, but are you or anyone else ever going to out it to the test? And how? Apart from fantasy magic, skeltetons alone have zero biomechanical force, lacking muscle & sinew.
"Ere you lot! I want you to step into this big pot of boiling water to see if you throw darts better once all the flesh is boiled off your bomes. Try to not let any of your joints come unstuck without all the ligaments etc or you'll be on a charge!".
@@2bingtim I can promise you nobody ever survived the contact with an arrow throwing skeleton! Or at least Ive never met one who could tell the tale
So if I ever create an army of undead skeletons I will arm them with war darts. Thank you for this.
@@2bingtim You forgot necromancy :p
I love how honest you are when you're not sure or you dont know, its so refreshing.
Me too. That shows an honest and true man 👍
Well, all these videos in the dart series have fully convinced me of one fact:
Todd won't make it as a medieval dart-throwing mercenary.
He'll have to find other work to make money using a thong!
Give him a Latchet Bow
Hi Tod,
It would have been very hard to shoot long bows straight down off the battlements of castles, and cross bows were quite expensive to manufacture: so perhaps the untrained troops threw the hand held war arrows directly down on the enemy as they were trying to scale the walls with ladders.
Effective at short range, cheap to manufacture and zero skill. :)
Last sentence agreed completely
Rocks were probably more effective in that niche. Even cheaper to manufacture and use, and a 5 kg rock dropped from a wall will injure or kill someone whether or not they wear a helmet, if it hits.
@@sealpiercing8476 Yes, but in a siege you would have people dedicated to carry those 5kg rocks up and down battlements, and they could carry 2-3 in one trip at most.
These? You could feasibly carry 20-30 of them in a single trip, making quantity over quality that much better (and cheaper, wood was cheap but good stones were not)
@@JudgeAnnibal Well, you don't exactly need precisely cut stone to smash someone brains in by throwing it off the walls :)
@@lazyman7505 Perhaps not, but you do need large ones.
Perhaps one advantage of war darts over arrows is that they can double as a short spear. They look very similar to the throwing spears used by indigenous Australians, propelled via the use of a wommera throwing aid. To the best of my knowledge they would often use these throwing spears in close quarters, due to the fact that 'pointy stick' turns out to be a very versatile weapon.
It's probably a discussion of unit tactics and unit types on the field. Archers are a specific weapon troop that takes some level of skill. So are 'professional' infantry. Adding a couple disposable thrown items, like Plubata creates a force multiplier without a major training hurtle. Likewise, giving lightly armored troops a handful of spears to move and harass enemy flanks while archers and infantry keep the focus forward. All sorts of possibilities once you starting putting units on the table.
Thanks for those sophisticated answers and strangely I have been thinking of them as skirmishers or troops on their own, but of course integrate them with others and things look better, but again pretty much everyone could use a bow to some level, but there have been some good thoughts on just pure cost and simplicity.
Was looking at the hook attachment on the larger darts.
Was wondering if that is optimal for a clean release of the string loop.
I remember the ‘At-latle’ thrower that they still use in South America.. The Atlattle has a small projection like a peg that just sits behind the butt of the spear or arrow. I believe it promotes a clean release whilst still transferring enough propelling energy into the projectile.
To clarify, you might not need a rear-curving hook , just a small peg on the dart behind the head
@@tods_workshop if the concete is, "heavy infantry want a projectile weapon before closing in melee," i can't imagine they'd want to keep useless, fragile, and expensive equipment on their body while fighting with swords. thrown projectiles have the advantage of not needing to be "looked after" in the middle of battle.
Yeah. If the choice is between an archer & a guy with a bunch of darts, you choose the archer. If the choice is between a dude with a spear or a dude with a spear plus a couple of darts... well, why not?
There are several reasons why i would prefere a javelin over a bow:
1) Infantry: A javelin is an infantry weapon, you can keep your shield in one hand and trow the javelin with another. and then go to your melee weapon (most likely a spear) it takes a lot shorter time to trow one of these and then switch to your melee weapon, then dropping an expensive bow wich most likely in the incomming battle will get destroyed, and switching to shield and melee weapon.
2) Obstruction regardless if the javelins hit or not, there big, they obstruct, and when they do hit they are not easily broken so you can continue the fight if its not a deadly impact. They will obstruct the battlefield, they will obstruct your movement more then arrows will.
3) Terror. Much of warfare is not about killing, is about terrorizing the other party to not attack and surrender without a fight. If you have to run a few hundred meters into a group of infantry backed by archers where you are shot by archers for the first few hundred meters, and then the air blackens with javelins once you get close, the mere sight of hundreds of the big javelins will break many less disciplined groups.
I would be very interested in seeing what a professional or good amateur javelin thrower makes of these. Perhaps their knowledge of throwing pointy sticks for sports would give them an insight into the design and effectiveness of the variations. I'm sure there must be some sportsperson who is going to be into a bit of historical experimental archeology.
I will talk to the grizzled warrior Bill who helped me build the trebuchet and is an amateur javelin thrower
Im a bit of a javelin thrower and fast bowler.. The side on action like Jeff Thomson is the best way and thats what javelin throwers use ..(Oh and dont forget the run up you need that) .Did this guy do a run up ? .They stopped that in cricket cos it caused back injuries ..and also being naturally flexible will help it go further its called the whip lash effect your arm flexes backward at the joint ..I think its something to do with gravity and the tip moving faster i dont know
98.48m Jav throw world record, what the feck are those guys made of?
@@braddbradd5671 the efect you are referring to is not gravity but inertia. The javelin doesn't want to accelerate and to do this requires a force. The force comes from your arm rotating around your shoulder joint (and body motion and run-up but I have simplified here). The large force required at the hand on the javelin is magnified by the lever that is your arm (due to the law of moments) So there is a HUGE force going through yor arm which bends it backwards.
Roughly speaking: Since your elbow is about half way up the arm, if you applied a force of X on the javelin the force on your elbow would be 2X, and at your shoulder about 12X... But the flimsy elbow hinge joint is the weak link.
@@jackpowell9276 As with most sports, it is 10% strength and 90% technique.
If you have the same muscles as someone else, you win on technique. A long time utilised applying the force to the projectile is key, this is why follow through is important when striking objects in sports.
For example: By quadrupling the time you apply the force on the object for, you quadruple the velocity change of the object and thus multiply the kinetic energy of the projectile by x16.
Impulse = force x time = change of momentum of the object
Mate, great video. I have a challenge for you. I'm from Australia. (That's not the challenge.) Here, the traditional power assist devised by the Aborigines, was the Woomera. It knocks into the back end of a spear. No fletchings. You hold the spear and the Woomera up at the front end, with one hand, with the spear held like a pencil (roughly) and the majority of the Woomera in the palm of your hand. The Aborigines using these things were super accurate, and the Woomera made for withering power. I have had many tries at this system, and nearly caused asthma attacks from laughter in the people who were trying to show me how to do it. Ya have to try and source the equipment to give this a shot. Used right, they are beyond belief. You'd love these.
That sounds like the spear thrower found at stone age sites all over the world. Basically, it provides a longer moment arm to increase power and distance.
I grew up using these.
The long 'spear' (technically a dart) bows on the forward motion due to the inertia of the head, storing energy just like a bow, and then springs off from the launcher. The velocity is phenomenal.
They must have been good. They seem to have taken out a lot of the world's megafauna!
This sounds very much like an atlatl style spear thrower that indeed appears to predate bows and arrows throught the stone-age. The channel HuntPrimative has a number of videos discussing them and their performance at length, including hunts. They certainly appear to launch faster and penetrate better than a bow shot arrow, but they appear to have been largely discarded in later history in favour of bows or hand-launched spears. My favourite theory for this is that constructing and maintaining a set of darts is harder than arrowsmithing, or perhaps that this really was tailored to megafauna and fell by the wayside as those animals vanished.
These kinds of war darts, javelins, plumbata, whatever you may call them seem like more of a Close In Weapon rather than a dedicated ranged weapon. Used by large masses of infantry right before they charge in with their swords and shields etc. Or maybe as an harassment type weapon for quick hit and run attacks on enemy formations, camps, ambushes, etc. Or perhaps we're just missing a vital thing in their effectiveness, either way I'm interested to see future videos on them, perhaps people in the comments have the missing ingredient.
My bet is the economics of them, wood, head, flights and just chuck a couple on the way in. Maybe it'll work or disrupt a charge, probably do stuff all against anything even in relatively light armours but against enemies like the celts, germans and some of the others of the era they'd probably do just fine as not a lot of them wore or used much.
It does add a bit of shock element to front line, heavy infantry types that they can stand-off at someone teasing them from 20-25m a way and having a plumbata hangng out of your head is bound to be fairly unfunny for one side of the battle.
So my bet is in the cheapness, its not as good as a bow, but if you can chuck a rock, you can chuck a dart and its probably a fairly shallow learning curve compared to a bow, which in some cases can be very expensive and take a while to use.
Nice thoughts there Kris and I particularly like "and having a plumbata hangng out of your head is bound to be fairly unfunny for one side of the battle."
@@krissteel4074 There must be something else in play. Everything you've described slingshots can do better. They do well even against early armor and shields (at least they could stagger the opponent)
@@tods_workshop I would maybe check how well this can be used with a shield. If you are an infantryman you may want to rather have a shield than futz around with a bow and arrow while you get skewered with javelins or pelted with stones. Greek peltasts were often equipped with multiple javelins and a lighter shield and a helmet. Which might not be much against heavy infantry but together with a dagger or shortsword would be lethal to any other kind of skirmisher and against heavy infantry you throw your javelins and bravely run away.
So I would guess it is a support weapon for soldiers supposed to enter melee or cover the melee fighters. You can have one or two for the beginning of the fight or when skirmishing ahead, but you do not have to drop your shield to do anything with it. You do not need a quiver, you do not need a place to put a strung bow when you have to put it aside. You are mobile and flexible and supposed to be close to the enemy. Archers would rather stay back and not be inside those ranges.
There could also be this psychological effect. With a javelin you need to be inside 30 metres and close and after one or two shots you have to do something else. With a bow you may just be primed to rather stand back and not get aggressive until you run out of arrows. You want heavy infantry to charge, not stay back and be timid about it. Having a weapon that puts you closer to the enemy may help with that while you are given a bonus on your charge to disrupt and break through an enemy line.
In other cases there also may be socioeconomic reasons, but later Peltasts as well as Roman legionaires and others still had javelins rather than slings or bows. At least in antiquity these types of soldiers were the more professional soldiers, often mercenaries, expected to fight in melee. In the Middle Ages/later this may be different though.
@@lazyman7505 I think that its way these can be used by closer order troops on the move an they drop down so you don't need a line of sight, that gives them an advantage over slings an bows.
You can get 2 or 3 ranks thowing them as they come in break up the lines just be for you hit.
And now the question I ask myself all the time since you started with those arrows and your trebuchet videos: can you shoot a basket full of plumbatae with you trebuchet, for turning your wooden target knights into hedgehogs? 🤔
Ye olde cluster bombs?-I like it!
He'd need a lot of plumbata, or perhaps to add rocks to the lot, to have enough weight not to damage the trebuchet. But that does sound terrifying
@@ArkhBaegor or just reduce the mass of the counterweight. Or invent an extra heavy plumbata? The possibilities are endless. 😌
@@carlc.4714 Maybe use a big bundle of those giant wardarts? I'd also say modifying the trebuchet to use sand or water for the counterweight would give Todd a huge amount of fine control over what he can throw with it. =^x^=
You could probably get better mileage out of a large bunch of sling bullets. Darts will have longer range, obviously, but if you're wanting to pepper the target area, lead sling bullets would probably be the best for your money.
Time and portability. Given that the majority of an army are of the spear and shield variety, it stands to reason holding an extra dart or two would be far easier than a bow and quiver. It would also take less time to throw it, with the added benefit of not having to discard or stow a bow and switch back to the standard spear and shield.
Totally Fantastic Video Tod !!! I love these things, Well Done sir
Really nice video after you mentioned the use of war darts in one of yours.
I see a few options for the big ones:
a) Can be thrown like a spear so requires less training than with a bow. Yes there were a lot of people hunting but a hunting bow is easier to use than a war bow.
b) Requires only one hand so you can use a shield
c) Can be used by charging melee troops while bow and arrow troops need to stay in the back.
d) Can be easier thrown from horse than using a bow, which requires special training and a good horse to pull off.
e) Would be could for hit and run attacks on unarmored archer formations
f) If these big ones get stuck in a shield nice and proper you can forget using that shield with such a big mass sticking out from it, an arrow or two you can just break off, no way you're easily breaking these off
g) Maybe thrown from battlements these really develop some mass impact and can cause massive Issues. People storming a wall wouldprobably have the shields over their heads. Normal arrows will probably no penetrate shields TOO much, but if these hit them you have again a giant mass sticking out from your shield. That large broad head might even be able to split the wood planks in the shield, acting like a splitting axe?
Just my guesses
Yeah. I would wonder if they were phased out around the time that you were required to know how to shoot a bow?
I think you got something with the weight, it would make it very hard to handle a shield with one of those stuck in it. It make sense to give that kind of weapon to melee troops to trow before a charge, probably in a similar way to how roman legionaries used their pilum.
Good points, except for breaking off arrows. Tod has tried this before and it didn't work. Here's the video: th-cam.com/video/3mtDbC202dI/w-d-xo.html
Why would hunting bow and war bow be different, archery wise? There would be a different doctrine... but skilled archery is like skilled marksmanship. It can take a lifetime to develop. A good hunter is always a better marksman.
@@Svensk7119 a war bow has a considerably higher poundage than a hunting bow, and a military archer would have to be strong enough to shoot maybe hundreds of arrows rapidly. For sure being a skilled hunter would help you massively but you'd still have to train for a long time with the war bow, the ones found on the Mary Rose were between 150 to a 185 pound draw which is insane, i can imagine some welsh longbows at Agincourt would have been even heavier
Looking at the head of these things I’d assume they‘d be pretty much impossible to remove from the body or fabric armor and I imagine it would be very difficult to keep fighting with one of them stuck in you even if it’s not lethal. So it could be that these fulfilled quite a different purpose from the bow and arrow, instead of aiming to be lethal they could have been thrown right before engaging the enemy to encumber them and very little training would be needed to do so
ok, here is some theories of why you'd rather use wardarts than bows.
1: you need time to string a bow, you can't travel long periods of time with a stringed bow since it will gradually lose power. so let's say you have mercenaries guarding a caravan, they're not gonna keep their bows strung for a 3 day journey in case of an ambush by bandits, but they can easily have wardarts at the ready within seconds.
2: Wardarts are essentially just big arrows, and are easier to mass-produce than making bows, so if you have a day to prepare a militia for defending a siege, you can either try to make bows and some arrows for maybe 20% of them, or you can churn out a bunch of oversized arrows that anyone can chuck over a wall or from battlements and go for quantity over quality.
3: easier to use in confined spaces with short ranges, scenario: enemy troops have breached the walls and are trying to capture one of the guard towers, guards can throw them at the attackers indoors, so you can have a few guards holding a line, and behind them are other guards chucking these darts over their allies and towards the enemy.
4: bit of a wild guess, but they might be easier to use in thick forest where a longbow would get tangled and caught on branches and shrubbery.
5: easier to carry around, it would be easier for normal footsoldiers to bring a handfull of these darts onto the battlefield in a quiver without needing to bring a bow. having a bow with you just to shoot 2 shots before engaging in close combat is just going to be troublesome.
summary:
Reason 1: less or no setup time required.
Reason 2: easier to mass-produce within limited time.
Reason 3: easier to use in confined spaces
Reason 4: better to use in difficult terrain (wild guess)
Reason 5: more versatile and easier for normal soldiers to bring along.
Thanks and I particularly like point 2
@@tods_workshop I just realized that the reason why these were used so much might have been much more simple - the wood. You know far better than me that you can't make arrows out of just any kind of wood, but these? Pick whatever stick you have lying around, add arrowhead and you have a fully functional (deadly) dart.
@@lazyman7505 you could be on to something. I read once that a likely reason the native Australians never adopted the bow was that Australia didn't have any suitable wood to make bows. Thus they stuck with the woomera.
Thanks for this Tod! I agree with many of the comments suggesting a simple, relatively inexpensive force multiplier, but I would add that the longer length of the larger darts would also get in the way much more than a little arrow - possibly tripping up those around the person hit with it, even if it only stuck in a shield.
A long time ago I participated in sca and at one "battle" I had a few sca safe versions of war darts along with the rest of my kit and they were perfect for taking out people holding 2 handed weapons from a flank while they were focused on the fight in front of them. They just didn't see it coming and would look so confused about what just hit them. So maybe they were popular as a dirty trick type weapon. The enemy is expected a hand to hand engagement with the opposing shield wall when suddenly having flanking shots from javelin guys they didn't think had range or lines of attack on them
You’ve touched on this before, but I think they would be most effective when you have the high ground. Be it a from the top of a wall or even a mildly steep hill. My thought is that not only would the ranged be increased, but it would be much harder for the enemy to throw them back at you. Another thing I’m curious about is exactly how straight the shaft of a war dart has to be. I use to throw random sticks around the woods as a kid and, despite them being crooked/not having fletching, I actually got semi decent at throwing them straight-ish. Would love to how a crooked branch with fletching would preform. If they still preformed adequately then that might mean they would be easier to produce, since you don’t have to have a “perfectly” straight piece of wood.
I just got one of your bollocks daggers and let me say that it is beautiful. I have several historical replica pieces, but this is by far the best and my favorite. You do good work Todd. Keep it up
Thanks - appreciated
@@tods_workshop will we ever get the crossbow verses plate video?
@@zackalexander9418 Crossbow bolts easily break dinner plates. Next question? ....😊
Others have done such tests, just try a few searches. Skallagrim or Thegn Thrand I think covered that. Though most modern "armour" is untempered mild steel & much thinner than armour would've been. So fair comparison to actual armour of the day is harder to acheive. If you've gone to the eye-watering expense of making or buying modern forged, tempered armour, penetrating it with a test if an incredible waste.
In addition to what others have said about perhaps them not being a primary weapon (throw your darts, then draw your sword), I would think that training is probably a large component here. Sure, you can probably guess that learning to shoot a bow was pretty common among people of the era for hunting and whatnot, but a war bow is a different beast. Even a crossbow, while much simpler than a vertical bow, takes time and training to get your soldiers proficient.
A war dart, on the other hand, you can practically just hand out and say "throw it!"
From the images I've seen the large darts are used for hunting game, such as boar or deer, which makes me wonder about it's efficacy at maiming charging cavalry. You don't need to throw it far or particularly accurately if the goal is just to dissuade horseman from attacking you. It would also explain why the common soldier might carry one or two, but dedicated skirmishers wouldn't bother.
A long haft with a broad head stuck in a target would make it harder for that target to move around; a deer or boar with a javelin sticking out of it wont be able to run far. I imagine the same would be true of cavalry; if a horse has an arrow in it then it may still be able to run at you (I've never shot at a horse so idk) but a bigger stick would catch on the ground / other stuff in the environment that would make the injury worse so chaging is out of the question.
@@jamesdixon5714 It would be good if there was some sort of penetration testing to go along with his tests. People who owned horses generally didn't want to own dead horses, and had the money to at least cover them in cloth/padded armor.
My understanding is that hunting (even with bow) was generally at 30m or less. So, that may support them being a closer range weapon.
@@jamesdixon5714 good mass, require little training, effective at close range, mostly used for hunting.. Seems like a good bandit weapon of use for close ambush.
@@Reginaldesq the biggest thing being: at 30m can you throw the weapon accurately against a fast moving target
I had items described as "darts" is video games before and always imagined them like modern sports darts and thought that was a pretty ridiculous weapon. Now I finally understand what it was supposed to mean!
Seeing Darts listed in a game and not having the context is super common.
In the Iliad half the time the epic refereed to the Greek's Javelins they were called Darts. There were passages where a Javelin was thrown then it described where the Dart hit.
The Plumbata is the only one that resembles a modern sports dart. The sport dart's "barrel" is the equivalent to the Plumbata's lead weight. and the "flight" is the equivalent to the fetching.
Okay but giant sports darts where used in warfare, see the Plumbata
As to their possible use vs a bow:
-Easy & cheap to make
-regular infantry can quite easily carry one without compromising their usual kit (which can't really be said of a bow or crossbow), especially shields
-Don't require any special training or strength
Easy to use, cheap to make apart from the big iron head which costs to forge. Apart from the bow, how many arrows could you get for the price/materials of a dart?
@@2bingtim A war dart can be made to much looser tolerances than an arrow, making arrows was a skilled profession, & they were made in ways that relied on scale. A wonky arrowhead, fit of the arrowhead, badly aligned fletchings, straightness, a poorly fitting nock, etc. will all quite drastically effect how well an arrow works, but a war dart not intended to be thrown at extreme ranges can be pretty slapdash & work as intended just fine. (I quite often make atlatl darts, which are quite a bit more complex & involved than a war dart, but are still much less so than an arrow)
An arrow may have worked out cheaper, but that would only be due to an economy of scale (& again would require more specialised troops)
Im not sure witch timeperiode my design is from. But if you have a nail/screw screwed almost all the way down in the back end of a stick. You can put the back end of the dart on that nail/screw, and throw the dart at a really good distance and accuracy.
my first guess would be that the darts would be sort of effective when being thrown of a wall. like in a siege situation. the gravity would let it accelerate, and you would be able to throw a bunch of them very fast and without much training
And don't forget we often see them being thrown from the rigging of ships - downwards again.
Additionally, I think weather resistance plays a role here. With bows and crossbows, you worry about rain, seawater, and the water of the Irish fens rendering your weapon inoperable. That failure point does not exist for thrown missile weapons.
And you don't have to string your bow before going into battle. The loopy thingy is made fast enough so even in an ambush the ranks not directely engaged could throw some into the enemies.
@@solonwilliams1965 I see you have not thrown many things in wet conditions...
Brilliant video. This reminds me about the Naukia, archers in the middle ages that shot the very long arrows laying their back on the ground and holding the arch by the legs.
From what I've seen, the troops who were famous for using these were either the armies scouts or specialized troops for skirmishing in unconventional terrain like thick forests or swampy marshlands so perhaps they fall short in battlefield situations but shine in unconventional warfare that requires quick movement and throwing. The ability to hold a shield while throwing these one handed can also not be overstated in skirmish scenarios.
Imagine two scouting parties, one armed with bows and arrows and one armed with hand javelins and small shields. As they both come upon each other, the scouts with bows raise their bows and start to nock their arrows right as the opposing scouts javelins sink into their bodies. Plus the guys with javelins have small round shields to block any arrows fired at them while the archers have nothing.
Also if you are fighting in a forest you might only have time to get off one volley of missiles before a melee happens due to the close range.
Despite the popular narrative, medieval archers often wore armour (sometimes even full plate armour, it seems), so they wouldn't necessarily be defenceless. They would also surely have arrows nocked if they were a scouting party, expecting trouble.
The broad idea remains the same though, that the guys with darts would still have a big advantage at close range (unless these enemy scouts were indeed very heavily armoured).
All Roman legionaries & auxilliaries were trained in skirmishing as well as heavy infantry tactics.
Tod, what a guy! We need more people like you in the world!
I'm curious about the possibility of a atlatle type device. Maybe the long stick In the image may be closer to an atlatle? It would most definitely increase range throwing speed and power. Just a thought
I agree, coming from Australia, the First Nations people used a similar device called a Woomera. Mentioned this before on one of Todd’s other vids. Wikipedia quotes that “The kinetic energy of a spear launched from a woomera has been calculated as four times that of an arrow launched from a compound bow.[6]” the other interesting note is that spears don’t have fletching but we’re accurate enough to hunt kangaroos etc. Wonder too if the more rigid nature compared to string or leather thong would aid accuracy and transmission of power/energy
Especially if the throwing stick could double as a melee weapon. Combined with dart sheild and you could harry the bejesus out of an oponent
I throw atlatls. And I've been wondering why they weren't more more represented here. I will say it takes a lot more practice to be accurate then with even archery. But amazing penetrating power.
@@lancewoolen9343 the atlatl was, to my understanding, never a European invention. Based on what I know, Europe kind of just skipped it.
@@dominiccwhitaker They were used until the middle ages, but fell out of use for some reason,
I think a big part of it simply boils down to more or less everybody (especially those who'd be fighting) can throw something with reasonable effectiveness. The training required to use a bow effectively especially heavy war bows takes time and is a valuable skill. The plumbata being the pinnacle of "Hey all our troops can throw why not give them all a bunch of nasty things to throw our enemy's way?".
My biggest question is still yours why the heck would they stop using them? Even today we have airpower and artillery yet almost all our troops carry grenades. I can only imagine less shields and advancements in armor just made them not worth the trouble,
I think there might be a question of practicalities. To be a good archer is a lot of work, but to be somewhat decent at chucking stuff less so. Seems like a much less specialised and demanding skill, which is a decent option for a non-archer. And with the little ones, well like you said that's a fun toy. Could be a good option for a town militia that's grown up using a smaller version.
Further if you're carrying around a few of those types of thing they can't be ruined by being rained on like a bow. Even if you're using a string then you can just pop that into a pouch as the clouds come in and then when it's time to lob pointy bits you don't have to restring a bow. Also they're a fair bit more disposable than a bow, you're not going to worry if one cracks the same way you would if it happened to your bow.
They would also be easier to chuck at people who've gotten up to a fortification/are climbing ladders. No need to lean your whole self over, just lob one of the big boys. And think of the storage too. You could pack loads and loads of them into a room, have your lads tossing them over the walls day and night.
All good points - thanks
I'd think the biggest reason for using darts is to allow a warrior to act as both ranged and melee fighters. Bowmen are specialists, needing years of practice, and are not well equiped for hand to hand fighting. The dart on the other hand is usable by just about anybody. A front line fighter can chuck some darts then still be able to fight hand to hand. Even in an army large and rich enough to contain archer units, having some auxillary missle fire when receiving a charge could be very handy.
tl;dr Darts are good for an army without specialists as any warrior would be at least moderately effective with them, while retaining the abjility to fight as infantry.
If I went into a melee skirmish, then I would rather have a set of javelin-like arrows to throw than carrying around a bow. The various darts would be easier to carry, more flexible in use (especially in combination with shields). After you've thrown them (as opposed to running out of arrows), you don't have to carry/dispose of the bow + quiver. Also, a bow would probably be more expensive and require more training.
I think they were popular for the same reason swords were. You can easily transport them and draw them. If you have a shield (same for a polearm), putting that shield somewhere while you are using your bow is a bother, and if you are using said shield, putting the bow somewhere is the same problem. If you have a shield, using a different weapon you can draw and use with one hand is very useful, especially weapons that hurt cavalry (which you generally do not want on top of you).
I wondered why you haven't tried the darts with an Atlatl it works for short spears it should work for the larger darts . I know not a lot of people know what a Atlatl is but just think of it as a handle made to throw javelins and spears and you get the general idea plus there freaking amazing when used right.
Yeah exactly. When I saw Tod struggling to throw them using sling/slingstaff with any consistency/accuracy, my first thought was 'man, these would work wonders with atlatl'
My heartland is really past European history and so although atlatls are interesting and probably would be good for these it his not appropriate for my interests
@@tods_workshop No worries, we love everything you do!
It could be interesting research topic for someone - it's obvious that spear throwers of some kind were used by pretty much every civilization at some point. The force multiplication you can achieve from just simple stick with a knot/hook on the end is incredible. But in Western Europe they seemed to be completely replaced/overshadowed by slings or variants that combined both (sling staffs, etc.)
@@tods_workshop Not to be a contrarian since I know you mean Middle Age Europe, but stone age Europe would have had atlatls. It's also not too much of a stretch to think that Europeans would have experimented with them in the middle ages because it's really a pretty simple concept that popped up in many different areas during different time periods independently of each other, and maybe there's a very clear reason why it wouldn't have worked out in medieval Europe. So basically, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at me trying to get you to make a video on atlatls.
The Atlatle iuses a much less pronounced unison between throwing device and projectile, allowing a smooth release.
It’s like playing pub darts , it’s all about the release….
You're investigation of multiple aspects and methods is always fascinating and informative. Thank you.
You mentioned the light weights of the things several times. Given that there are none in museums it would seem that they were not made of iron or bronze, but have you tried denser / heavier woods?
Please do more on war darts! I love it. If you get bored with that I'd enjoy watching you explore the atlatl. They were used all over the world. I'd be very interested to see how effective they would be against armor with bodkin points
Nice new videos from the workshop, mate. Guess you're still continuing on with these "war darts". Can't wait to see what more strange weapons and gizmos from the old age that we have yet to discover. As well as the many possibilities for use and how to use them.
Try throwing from a moving horse at a target 5-10m away. Then you will see why it was a loved weapon in times gone past😊👍👍
Then try from a defensive position such as a hill top and note the range. The dart can not be thrown back at you from the bottom of the hill 😊
A video i was waiting for really long, thanks Tod. Btw, your videos are an inspiration for my next builds, my neighbors have been annoyed with the sling lol
Glad to be of service
Have you seen the Australian Aboriginal woomera Todd? Considered one of the earliest forms of 'artillery'. Basically a club with a groove in the end where the spear base sits. Very effective. They hunted with woomera,spear & boomerang, no bow & arrow. Keep up the great work. 👍🇦🇺
@@tatumergo3931 Cheers. Was going to reference too but couldn't remember what they were called. 👍
@@tatumergo3931 Spears were common but the bow & arrow wasn't part of indigenous hunting here as far as I'm aware. The only other tool name I can convey (I'm not aboriginal) is that for the didgeridoo which is the yidaki. I'm glad you like the Aussie culture but it's become a lot more vanilla/beige/PC diluted, since it's cultural pinnacle of The Paul Hogan Show.
It's simplicity, and force multiplier.
To have good archers you need people that regularly train with their weapon. Often that is all they are expected to do on the field as well.
And you might not always want so many archers.
What you will always have is melee infantry. So if you can give a simple missile weapon that is easy to use to all your melee troops, you will have an advantage over an enemy that doesn't have that. And unlike a bow and arrows, the equipment won't compromise their role on the field.
However I believe added to this is a psychological aspect that might not be focused on so much. We tend to look at the black an white of effectiveness, but one of the difficult aspects at least in early warfare was actually starting the battle. As no one wants to just charge to their possible deaths, and so that is why skirmishers come into play for example. BUT also think of how it would feel to advance on your enemy as an infantry man, and then have you and all your mates chuck javelins at them as you close in or they closing in on you. It would probably make you feel a lot more confident to see that scary enemy cower.
So in the end I think it was a way to give melee infantry tactical flexibility to handle different situations without affecting their performance in their original role, and also perhaps a morale boost.
I was posting that maybe they are "Threat" weapons, give it to a handful of men on the flanks and they can resist enemy skirmishers or light cavalry from flanking as they have a ranged weapon that can hurt them, but they don't have many of them. If the cavalry charges, they throw (time to loop one dart anyways), cavalry charge disintegrates, your horses ride in and scatter them more. Suddenly you have saved a flank and blunted an enemy move with a few sticks and string, and next time, if they see the darts in the unit, they will be less eager to charge up in the first place (despite it not being super effective).
The knight and two men at arms were like .. why the hell did we bother putting on armour and stand around for hours in this field while this guy misses us with every shot????
.. and then holly crap Plumbata!
... NOW HE'S GOT A BOW RUN BOYS!
nice one Tod love your stuff
Hello Todd, just watched your wardart video.Very informative, i had 2 thoughts to your video and question as to what was missing in the War Darts discussion. Firstly, your throws may improve if you move left of center, allowing your throwing arm to release center mass. Secondly, i believe the trainig with the war dart could be done quickly and by most able bodied persons. A bow and arrow system requires much more training. It would be useful to have warriors of both systems assisting onanother. This is only my opinion. I am a martial arts teacher with a little over 50 years of training. So i have lots to learn thats why i enjoyed your video. Thank you for sharing.
"I'm rubbish across ALL these throwing platforms." Hahaha I frigging love your way of putting things Todd!
Great demo! I think the Maori method of sticking the tails in the ground makes sense of the mid arrow fletchings and it also explains why the drawing includes a lever as long as the arrow.
When skeletons are drawn using the longest arrows does that literally mean the ancient and deceased people used them?
Could also be playing on how fictional skeleton warriors were portrayed.
I don't know how it was back then, but nowadays skeletons are basically the grunt level enemies. The kind that would be least likely to know how to use a bow.
skeletons using them was a nod towards their ineffectiveness, as those that used them wound up dead
Skeletons symbolize death, I think that this depiction was first a blind woman : it symbolized the black plague, who trick blindly its death arrows at anyone. It was represented with bundle of arrows in each hand. Since then memento mori often include death shown as skeleton ready to aim their giant death arrow at anyone, at any time, because we can die at any given moment.
@@DinoSuperCool Or perhaps it is closer to the grim reaper and his scythe, the weapon is associated with death in a way that isn't outwardly intuitive?
@@DinoSuperCool I'd say the opposite. One of the meanings of skeletons in medieval art was as Death or his minions coming for the unwilling or unaware victim. I think the representation as skeletons of what would be considered low-value troops by knights or the landed aristocracy is to remind them that the peasant levy still represents a danger to the armoured warrior on the battlefield. It could be interpreted both in the literal sense of never turning your back on any enemy and the metaphorical sense of the ability of the unruly masses to overthrow the feudal order if their needs were ignored or they were abused. Remember that, except for in churches, no poor person would ever get to see medieval art of any kind; only the wealthy could afford to commission art for their homes or to buy books.
I can't help with your question @Tod's Workshop, but I wonder if the distinctive, stylised head shape could provide a clue to those who know more than I do? Might they have been effective against a mounted enemy (were horses were less armoured in period, would a big barbed thing make a horse unmanagable on the battlefield)? ...I'd really like to know if plumbata could be launched en-masse from catapults and what the effect would be.
So, my take on all of this:
Firstly, if Tod's testing something, safest place to be is his target, and absolutely not around his GoPro.
Jokes aside, clear advantage of all of this lot is that they were ranged weapons for melee warriors. They are quite simple to carry around (especially plumbata), and you throw them before melee combat, meaning they won't restrict your combat abilities. They also give melee units some ranged capacity, makes them a bit more versatile.
Of course, they were inferior weapons for dedicated ranged troops: bows, crossbows, even slings destroy them. But soldiers who carry all those ammunition and extra weapon have to lose that weight somewhere: either lighter armor or shorter/lighter melee weapons, or both.
As shown on your plumbata charge, you can use (at least some of those) while on the move, which is almost impossible to do with alternatives i mentioned above.
The only issue i see with throwing them while charging is that being in a group running towards an identical target would make throwing things sketchy for the people around you. I could see them being thrown before actual charges, and possibly after clashes if one side is falling back, rather than chase them to your death toss a few darts in hopes of taking a few out of the game.
My archery was rubbish, so I often joked that the safest place for any spectators was right in front of the target!
"Except for plumbata" - I can feel in my bones that Tod's meme was born. Awaiting t-shirt!
Range and reaction time decreases as a line of enemies advances. For an archer, I would think that these tools served the same utility as the bayonet. Also, I would point out that the extra size of these might have granted the same kind advantage as afforded by the Roman Pilum. An arrow could be dealt with rather quickly in the heat of battle, but having one of those, big boys, sticking out of you, made you a noncombatant.
Note: The fact that they are often depicted as being used by skeletons, says a lot about what odds you could expect when having to resort to their use.
Or it says alot about how effective they are, their wielders are death himself.
I can only think of two possibilities:
1- you can throw most of those projectiles with a single hand, allowing for the use of a shield on another. As you said, there are records of them being used right before shield walls collide, and if you are in a shield wall, chances are you would prefer to throw on of those over your shield and immediately go for your gladis, spear or whatever, while keeping the shield infront of you
2- you don't (or at least shouldn't) carry your bow knotched, as it will damage the bow's structure over time. If you get ambushed, the time to knotch a bow under stress might see you killed, but any dart you could throw single handely could be deployed speedly, while you go for your main weaponary
all in all, I think they make a great choice for skirmishers, such as the roman velites, or as thirdary weapons for heavy infantary to throw at the enemy line just before the shield walls collide, thogh in that case I believe it would see more sucesses being employed from a stationary position than from a charging one.
Hm, now that I think about it, perhaps in a shield wall a few lines deep, the third or fourth row could thrown it over the front line's head to fall over the enemy's 1st and 2nd lines... probably not much effective by itself, buut it might distract them enough that your front line take them down while they protect their heads against your darts, in which case they are probably better suited for the job than a bow
It's probably something to do with the other weapons the troops are carrying. A bow is usually the main weapon of troops equipped with them. Where as these can be used by melee infantry to give them some ranged options.
Another fascinating video Tod, thank you! (Btw, my wife smiled every time the knots in the planks lined up to give you ears ;) )
How about use with a shield? Can't use a bow with a shield. And once you're done throwing your javelins, you can switch to a sword, axe, spear etc, whereas an archer would have to drop his fancy bow first before going into melee.
Well, you'd be limited to a buckler at your belt I imagine. But yeah, switching to melee from a bow is a pain.
Plus an archer is going to have a tough time if he has to use his projectiles as a melee weapon.
War darts are thicker and could probably pull off decent blocks.
Not to mention the larger ones are basically just spears with fletching.
Whoa! The Plumbata actually looks like a real weapon! A bit less sexy and romantic than a throwing knife, maybe, but _much_ more practical, and looks like it could actually cause some damage and/or distraction during the close, like you said, just before the shield walls clash. The smaller head with the weight well _behind_ it means it could actually penetrate, rather than just giving really nasty paper-cuts, and you threw them _significantly_ farther and more accurately even without any gizmos or gimmicks.
that's because it was a real weapon, the Romans used them.
@@punic4045 xD woooosh! Much belated. ;)
can they be made by less skilled craftsmen/women than arrows? Maybe, for flinging mass numbers of pointy objects into masses of troops it is better to have lots of simple-to-make heavy throwing stick than crafted arrows?
I'd also assume they are also significantly easier to make than bows.
@@cp1cupcake They certainly pre date the bow. "spear-throwers" like the ones demonstrated at the start of the video go back at lest 17,000 years There is evidence to suggest they might date back as far as 30,000 years, and throwing spears pre date Homo sapiens by like 500,000 years.
Good bows also require special woods and take a good amount of skill to carve the wood without compromising strength. The fibers necessary to make high drawpoundage bows suitable for war were a conflict resource and required careful harvesting. The arrows had to be carefully made to withstand the launch stresses of a powerful bow as well, and required good wood.
This is a fletched straight stick with a pointy bit.
@@pyramear5414 Mostly this is a *short* *thick* fletched straight stick with a pointy bit. You can make a 18" long octagonal short thick straight stick out of a suitably-sized bit of firewood in just a couple of minutes with a shavehorse and a drawknife. The last time I tried making a 3ft arrow shaft it took me more than an hour, fiddling around to make it dead straight and the right thickness, and it needed a good-quality piece of wood to start with, plus a variety of tools. Even with practice I don't think I could ever get that down to less than twenty minutes.
@@RichWoods23 Yep, Fletcher was a full time profession for a reason. Thanks for the first hand experience insight, always welcome.
Watching him is like watching a child happily playing & showing off his toys.
Be interested to see how far a professional thrower could send one of these ... I mean if people depended on these for hunting as well they would be extremely skilled ... Olympic javelins are actually designed to not fly as far so you can imagine how far one made for distance could go.
I never knew these were weapons. I know of javelin, slings, and arrows but these are new to me. I learned something today.
As someone with an interest in Maori weapons, It's nice hearing others mention the Kopere. Speaking of, you got an impressive distance on that one throw!
Might have to make my own version at some point.
Doesn't surprise me that you do eheh
@@theghosthero6173 You know me well! :P
On the darts with the leather tong I think that the loop shud be moved in front as close as posible to the tip and the lenghshuld be ajusted aordingly. Nice video!!!
Watching the successful crew served throws of that first dart tells me two things:
1) you could probably throw it two-handed if you threw it overhand as you did while it was crew served, and
2) you can probably stick the tail in the ground and throw it overhand with one person.
When you tried to throw that first dart two-handed, and again when you tried the whip "bow" (I'd call it a springy throwing stick) you were pulling across your chest and got lousy results. Try holding the arrow with your hand behind and over your shoulder, and you will probably get better results.
Almost all of the rubbish throws, if you watch the first half of the trajectory, you will see the arrow is moving sideways, with the point high by about 40 degrees from the trajectory. Obviously the air resistance is higher if you throw the dart sideways. Either some practice, or more likely a change in the holding and throwing stance will likely produce significantly better results. Not necessarily brilliant, but I don't see why you shouldn't be in the 25-30 meter range. You also got this trajectory with the arrows that you tried to throw from the hook at the tip.
I was thinking the same thing. An overhand wood chopping motion seems much more effective than the twisting motion. Just be sure it clears your body.
When I was a child we had a lawn dart game called 'Jarts'. The darts had weighted metal tips with wide plastic fins and were about twelve inches in length. They were marketed to older children and only stayed on the market a few years because they were deadly. You threw them underhand in a high arc at a ring target on the ground and they could bury themselves in the dirt; or a skull.
I seem to remember that Tod did a video about that game
th-cam.com/video/1EFAVGIylqE/w-d-xo.html
I wonder if the images of some of these darts being wielded by skeletons was due to their being used by inexperienced expendable peasants who would usually be "cannon fodder." I know the term does not date to the period.
It might be as simple as war darts being regarded as an oldfashioned, primitive weapon, something that warriors of old would use. We aren't often drawing skeletons with assault rifles either, it's usually with swords and shields.
The term "cannon fodder" does not date to the period.
@@milchkopf3881 The phrase "date to the period" does not date to the period.
It takes a real man to admit a rubbish throw and publish it. Good onya Tod. You're awesome
I’ve had a thought-which, by the way, was a particularly unique experience and one I won’t try to repeat-is that there’s an analogy to be made with modern grenades.
Modern militaries have automatic belt-fed grenade launchers, multi-shot shoulder fired grenade launchers, single-shot under-barrel grenade launchers-all of which vastly out strip in range, payload, and speed, a hand-thrown grenade.
So why keep all of many weapons in play? Because sometimes what you need is that little ‘personal touch’.
That’s my guess, anyways.
Actually the grenade analogy may have a bit more merit than just that; the M67 grenade used by the US military is specifically designed to closely mimic the size and shape of a baseball. That was done deliberately since the prevailing thought of the day was that every red blooded American boy grew up throwing baseballs around and so it would be relatively intuitive on how to grab and hurl that grenade, thus lowering the learning curve on grenade training.
If throwing darts and throwing strings were a common children's toy or hunting tool then training line troops or harassers to chuck them at enemies would be quite a bit easier, I also doubt that these were used much beyond 20-30 yards or so anyways, and besides that their one handed nature means that they could theoretically be hurled up and over the frontlines from men three or four rows back, so they'd be viable even after the front line has entered the melee.
Off the top of my head I have a few suggestions as to why they were used either instead or in addition to the bow. 1. Using and perfecting your skill with throwing darts may have been less time consuming than archery. 2. They could be used by infantrymen, who after throwing their darts would then fight in hand to hand combat. Whilst if everyone were archers it would be more cumbersome. 3. Protection, they could be used whilst also wielding a shield. 4. Cost effectiveness? 5. In some cultures close combat prowess was rated higher than archery, who by some were deemed as a cowardly weapon. Anyway, great video as always.
Some of the methods you tried look like a corded version of an atlatl. Wonder if they were designed as an upgrade to the atlatl? It would explain why almost everyone had a version of them.
Enables shield usage and allows the user to turn it into a makeshift spear if need be.
Also, any shield that gets hit with one is unusable - much like the pila.
I would think war dart are about resources mainly time and skilled labor required to make a war bow is far longer than the time to make a War dart. a lord could start a war with a lot of war bows but as the war rages equipment get lots and damaged less war bows but still need some range to keep fighting.
Thanks for doing the diligence. Informative and entertaining, a hallmark of this channel 👏 Looking forward to the next video!
Thank you Tod , for making this happen, and your science behind it !
I would like to to see the effect on different types of armor. that kind of mass might have a nasty effect on maille
those long javelins are about 1" diameter and 5' long, what would is made from that it's like only .75lb? I think it should be made of ash which would be at least 500-550g (1.1-1.2lbs) and I think it would be more effective.
Training and materials. Good bow staves are hard to come by in weights that wood makebgood bows of war?
A little idea for more Audience Participation would be if you'd show the comments of the people who come up with those nice ideas. I think It would further grow the connection with your audience and give motivation to all those creative folks out there. :D
Nice Video, I allways like this war dart Experiments, for these things are less common in movies and pub culture. I also didn't know them to be that common before you made these Videos. 👍
Other commenters covered the main thoughts that came to mind (shields, battlements), but here's some more:
- Bows get affected by weather, particularly rain; these have more flexibility in case of bad weather (also at sea)
- If they're for flesh, perhaps horses were a main target; skirmishers/flankers would be vulnerable to light cavalry, so these may have been a counter
I'm also curious about planted in the ground - which seemed like a great range option - what contexts would make that setup strategic? (I can see the two person option working for skirmishers against horses, if only some carried the large darts and others mainly used slings and such)
Plumbata with the weight at the tip as well as the long throwing stick reminded me of something I used to do as a kid. We had apple trees with small, somewhat hard apples, maybe the size of a tennis ball. I would take a meter long stick, stab it into an apple, and then launch them towards a forest around 40-50 meters away. They would often explode on the tree trunks well above the halfway mark still going up, whistling as they flew. I would not want to get hit by those and they were just small apples. Assisted throwing weapons are terrifying!
I have to know will you be selling these anytime soon? (Hopefully as a tod cutler I would love to have a few to mess around with)
When did the lathe get invented? How hard is it to make shafts for arrows and darts to within their respective standards/requirements? How hard is it to make and maintain a bow?
How about holding the war dart behind the fletching and whipping it like a club? Would the heavy steel in the front give it a good flight?
As far as their coexistence with bows, I do have one source. In the Strategikon of Maurice, it lays out an organization for small units of light infantry to use when moving through broken/dense terrain like a forest, presumably when skirmishing or potentially skirmishing. It contained 4 javelinmen with shields and 1 archer. The archer was specifically called out as essentially providing covering fire for the javelineers. These small groups could either work alone or in concert with one another, and a stated goal in skirmishes was to try and get the high ground.
Have you tried a standard cord sling on back end of dart with pouch just large enough to cover the nock area? To push dart from back instead of dragging it from the middle
I think it's due to the fact that you had a missile weapon that could be used once youve closed to a range where Archers can no longer safely fire without hitting your own men in the back. A volley of fire of heavy arrows/spears right before the shield clash might do some damage, tangle up shields or demoralize the enemy right before the poop hits the fan.
It seems to me that, at least for the plumbata, throwing them doesn't require waving your shield around as much as a javelin would require. So you could still harrass the enemy while remaining fairly protected.
Still fascinating keep up the good work, APPRECIATED.
Throwing arrows. We used to make them when schoolboys back in the 1970's. We used bamboo canes, football cards cut to shape as flights and the points out of dartboard darts whipped into the ends. Occasionally a twist of copper wire to get the weighting correct or balanced. A piece of waxed twine with the knot on the end and a groove cut into the shaft as here. We could get well-made examples to fly from goalmouth to goalmouth on a soccer pitch, and we were only aged about ten. That's just throwing by hand - no atlatl or similar device. Boys with particularly whippy arms (who were the top stone throwers) could get the arrows to fly corner to corner on a soccer pitch. We had endless competitions throwing them.
One of the things that springs to mind is the ease of learning to use them compared to a bow, it takes a lot longer to learn to use a bow effectively. Another is that its probably easier to maintain under certain conditions. For vikings specifically, seawater/salt is pretty rough on bows from what I know. Its much easier to carry a couple darts than it is to safely protect an unstrung bow while at sea or during coastal raids.
I'm also really curious about how they fare against armor, are they heavy enough that they are still effective against armor even with the broad heads?
Tod, Great video!
Every effective whip bow I have seen did not use a loop. You use a knotted cord, and your projectile has a notch very similar to a crochet hook near the tip or at the center. Also, the whip needs to be longer. You use one hand to hold the end of the whip, one hand to hold your projectile, and you use your thigh or waist as a fulcrum. Very effective for small game, not sure about any other use.
Hi, for the short mid fletched darts, what if you had a notch at the back, like a normal arrow.
And the string went from your bead position, down around the notch....?
I'm curious as to whether adding a carefully positioned lead weight close to but not exactly behind the head would add range and hitting power to all of the different types of war dart demonstrated in the video.
I believe there are several good reasons that "war darts" were so popular even when bows were around:
1. Bows, especially bows suitable for war, take a long time to manufacture from selecting the wood, curing it, forming it, etc. So while arrows could be churned out in great numbers, there were limited numbers of bows available. Darts were much quicker to make and get to the field.
2. Archers take a long time to train. Just about any peasant can throw a dart, and with a week or two of practice can do so fairly well.
3. In much of the artwork I've seen, (a fairly limited selection, I admit), darts were being used defensively from castle walls and other high places. Ballistics would have given them increased range while gravity would give them more velocity. Would it have been enough to inflict serious damage on a besieging army? Maybe in sufficient numbers. It could also give people on ladders or unprotected sappers a really hard time. While it could be written off as artistic constraints of the size of images or that wonderful tendency in artwork of the period to ignore perspective, if I recall in the art it looked like the darts were being hurled downward at a pretty steep angle.
reminds me of the Australian aboriginal woomera spear throwing device. a man had some at a outdoor sportsman's event. he was accurate at 50 yards.
I used to make these as a kid .you put a knot on the string, loop it once round the cane,and pull tight.
It had a 6" nail in the end, very effective arrow, without a Bow.
7:23 Possibly the text shows Skeletons using these because they are a dead form of War fighting, artistically a great way to to show not to use anymore. Just my thoughts, what do you think?
Could the feathers be "rifled"? As I see it, you will always get a little bit of spin, when the bead comes of the string, and if the feathering were aligned with the bit of rotation it could perhaps be an asset instead of a hindrance.
Just watched this Vid. Have you tried the use of a Woomera type system (Australian)? I used one about 50 yrs ago with a spear, worked brilliantly.