Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kurikin 06-24-07, 01:09 PM	The other day while doing some archery at Ponca state park (was on a canoing trip down the Missouri, the park is in Nebraska) this guy showed our group this atlatl he had and explained how it works and a little bit on the history of it. Its basically a small flexible stick you use to throw a spear (or dart) to get A LOT of extra leverage and thus more power and distance. Also its surprisingly accurate. The guy told us that people hit pie pans at 300 yd with them. The Aztecs threw 9ft long spears and could go through 2 men in breastplate with ease. The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl) on them does a good job on explaining how they work and such. So D&D wise what would the stats be on this thing. Its nothing more than a small stick that could use darts, javelins and/or spears as ammunition. What I'm thinking is that it could do something like multiplying the bonus on damage you get from your strength score and tripling or even quadrupling the range increment on what you throw.
NeueRegel 06-24-07, 01:13 PM	They statted the atlatl in Advanced D&D 2nd, I think in the Unearthed Arcana. I don't own the books anymore, but I think they pretty much statted it as the same as a javelin. Don't hold me to it. Neue
NeueRegel 06-24-07, 01:20 PM	You know, just to err on the side of "largess", I'd go ahead and stat it as a shortbow. A martial weapon, d6 x3. Not sure about the range, but, I don't think it would be unbalancing to just leave it at 60'. I don't know. Maybe 50', since the atlatl is most comparable to a sling in terms of physics/momentum/leverage. Neue
Crimson_Concerto 06-24-07, 01:27 PM	It's in the Sandstorm book: Martial Ranged Weapon (10 gp) (1D4 damage) (1D3 small) (x3 crit) (50 ft. range increment) (2 lb.) (Piercing) Atlatl spear (1 gp) (2 lb.)
Tiddlywinks 06-24-07, 01:28 PM	Check out the equipment section of Sandstorm. They actually statted the atlatl up in there, though its really not that great a weapon - similar to a ranged punching dagger stat-wise. Edit: It's in the Frostburn book. I actually thought it was Frosburn first too, Crimson_Concerto, but I checked and was surprised to find that it was Sandstorm.
Crimson_Concerto 06-24-07, 01:35 PM	I actually thought it was Frosburn first too, Crimson_Concerto, but I checked and was surprised to find that it was Sandstorm.Yeah, I edited shortly after posting when I realized that. :P The only thing I don't like about it is that it calls it a cross between a projectile and thrown weapon, but it doesn't say which benefits it gets of which. For example, does it add half STR to damage like a thrown weapon? Does it have a max range of 5x increment a la thrown or 10x increment a la projectile?
Kurikin 06-24-07, 01:48 PM	I'd say it has a further range than a sling due to the spear's more streamlined shape and more weight. Throwing a Dart and Javelin I think could be martial and throwing a spear because of its size be exotic. I think the best way to stat it might be just using whatever you throw (dart, javelin or spear), doubling its range increment (40ft, 60ft, 40ft), increasing its average damage by 1 (d6, d8 & d10) due to how much extra power you get through the added leverage and changing the critical to x3 for all. For spears and javelins I think a fitting extra ability would be to pass through its target (a 2 lb javelin or 6 lb spear I think would have more penetrating power than a .15 lb arrow.) So the attack would be a line attack that extends an extra range increment (maybe?) after it hits its first target it continues onto the next at -4(?) to the attack roll and stops early if it doesn't beat the opponent's AC. I'd go with full STR bonus and x5 range increment based on what I've seen. Also I don't agree with the 10gp price you said. Its just a small stick. We went out in the woods and in about 10 minutes made throwing boards out of dead fall and were able to throw makeshift spears that weren't even straight at least about 60ft.
Watchman 06-24-07, 04:43 PM	Also its surprisingly accurate. The guy told us that people hit pie pans at 300 yd with them. The Aztecs threw 9ft long spears and could go through 2 men in breastplate with ease.Total bloody nonsense. At 300 meters you can't really even see anyone anymore (nevermind now that it's a major feat to even put an arrow that far with a topnotch composite bow, and the projectile won't have the power to kill anything bigger than a sparrow), and about the exact only weapon in the native arsenal that had a prayer against Conquistador steel armour was the humble sling - blunt trauma to the head being Bad News even through a good helmet. The atl-atl had a place in the arsenal of the Native Americans. It was used to throw short, rather heavy darts, that apparently could penetrate shields at shorter ranges and were generally pretty hurty. Alas its use was difficult enough that overall only the nobility (and in some regions, warrior priests) could spare the time to train to a decent degree with it (on top of other weapon skills), so it was generally a bit of a "special prestige weapon" and a mark of an elite fighter. Sort of the tactical equivalent of the expensive heavy long-shanked throwing-spears Europeans fairly commonly liked to toss into enemy ranks around one time, just harder to use. The grandpappy of the device, the humble spear-thrower, is a Stone Age device for giving extra range and punch to javelins and spears. Been used pretty much the world over at one time or another for hunting, and why not against other humans too when necessary. It's somewhat telling that bows and slings, once introduced, tended to rapidly reduce the device into obscurity nigh everywhere. No surprise really; both have a way better combination of range and killing power combined with rather more easily transported ammunition, and where heavier punch was needed at shorter distances javelins and throwing-spears still did the job well enough without having to worry about the damn lever on the side. In other words, it was useful enough in its own time and circumstances - but so was the wheellock musket, and both were swiftly abandoned when better tools were devised.
Nilbog 06-24-07, 04:58 PM	Bernardo Diaz, at least, wrote in his eyewitness accounts that the atlatl pierced their metal armor. It sounds unbelievable today, but remember that their metal armor was very poor quality compared to modern steel, obsidian is a very hard stone (harder than even modern steel), and Spanish breastplates were designed to deflect sword cuts (along a long edge) not dart tips (a single point). The conquistadors mainly won due to disease, not superior tech. Cortez's first attack on Tenochtitlan led to the Spanish fleeing in complete rout. When he returned a year later, smallpox had destroyed everything so there were few available warriors. I'm sure technology helped, but 1520s guns weren't really all that much better than an atlatl or bow in the hands of a trained user. The big advantage of guns was how easy it was to learn their use - it wasn't till 1700s that they became superior in lethality, etc. and even then rate of fire was quite low. EDIT: The Aztecs had slings, and they never abandoned the atlatl, or even close. Back on D&D, it should be 1d6 at least (equal to shortbow), and I'd argue 1d8.
Watchman 06-24-07, 05:08 PM	I'd say it has a further range than a sling due to the spear's more streamlined shape and more weight.Hardly. In skilled hands slings easily rival many bows in effective range, and conditionally exceed them in destructive power - lead bullets were nasty, and slings have been recorded doing major damage to heavily armoured warriors caught unawares. Most RPGs totally sell the thing short though, both in terms of effectiveness and difficulty of use. But we'll leave that aside for now. Javelins and throwing-spears don't come even close, even with the extra leverage of a spear-thrower. Those things were only ever good for delivering a relatively hefty punch at a relatively short range for fairly little training invested; while adding a spear-thrower into the equation improves both of the former it also takes away much of the latter, as well as some of the convenience of carrying and employing javelins in battle. I think the best way to stat it might be just using whatever you throw (dart, javelin or spear), doubling its range increment (40ft, 60ft, 40ft), increasing its average damage by 1 (d6, d8 & d10) due to how much extra power you get through the added leverage and changing the critical to x3 for all. --- I'd go with full STR bonus and x5 range increment based on what I've seen.This actually seems more or less reasonable, based on what I've read of the things and how RPGs that actually remembered the device stat it. While I somewhat question if equaling the RI of a shortbow with a javelin were really called for I figure it'd be OK - the former still has a max range of 10 RI to the javelin's 5, which sounds tolerable enough. Reloading the thing oughta be a bit of a pain though - it's after all a bit more engaging than nocking a new arrow or simply grabbing another javelin. How about Move Action (as with Hand Crossbow), and reducing it to Free requires both Rapid Reload (to get the projectile into the groove with the alacrity needed) and Quickdraw (to produce a new normally-throwing weapon fast enough, as when you're using just those) ? For spears and javelins I think a fitting extra ability would be to pass through its target (a 2 lb javelin or 6 lb spear I think would have more penetrating power than a .15 lb arrow.) So the attack would be a line attack that extends an extra range increment (maybe?) after it hits its first target it continues onto the next at -4(?) to the attack roll and stops early if it doesn't beat the opponent's AC.No. Very no. The penetrating power of crossbows already eats throwing-spears for breakfast. This isn't Superman tossing the damn things. Also I don't agree with the 10gp price you said. Its just a small stick. We went out in the woods and in about 10 minutes made throwing boards out of dead fall and were able to throw makeshift spears that weren't even straight at least about 60ft.By what I know of the devices they're about "just small sticks" as bows - it damn better be a right kind of small stick, properly and painstakingly crafted with no mean degree of skill, if you want it to work properly. 'Sides, you'd easily be rivaling the 30-gp Shortbow in most circumstances so (not counting the little detail darts and javelins cost a fair bit more apiece than arrows - but then you can't really expect to carry many of them anyway without a Quiver of Ehlohanna or similar, at which point ammo expenses are unlikely to be an issue anymore) a 10gp price tag hardly sounds excessive. Oh, and just as an aside I'm pretty sure the kind of spear-thrower needed for javelins and larger spears differs substantially enough from one designed for darts that the two are essentially two different devices (although used the same way). Sort of like the difference between a cannon designed for stone balls and one built for the higher chamber pressures of iron balls.
Watchman 06-24-07, 05:53 PM	Bernardo Diaz, at least, wrote in his eyewitness accounts that the atlatl pierced their metal armor. It sounds unbelievable today, but remember that their metal armor was very poor quality compared to modern steel, obsidian is a very hard stone (harder than even modern steel), and Spanish breastplates were designed to deflect sword cuts (along a long edge) not dart tips (a single point).Obsidian is volcanic glass. Very hard but very brittle (steel also gets that way with high carbon content, incidentally). Hit an iron surface with it, and guess what ? It breaks. Period. Renaissance breastplates were tempered steel as standard; indeed given the degree of metallurgy required to even make them they could have been little else if they were to work. Advances in manufacturing techniques had made them cheap enough to be something of an "universal" armour even for decently equipped infantry, and as they were very light they imposed little difficulties for their users. Among avid users were for example pikemen, who most commonly were exposed specifically to pointy stuff - pike-tips, crossbow bolts, daggers and swords in close melee, that sort of thing. Anyway, solid steel plate was about the universally most effective armour around the time - almost impossible to cut through with anything short of a heavy polearm, highly resistant to points due to its smooth, hard, angled surfaces, and tending to put up a fair bit of resistance even to maces and the like even if those tended to be the weapon of choice for bashing plate-clad men senseless. The Stone Age Native American weaponry could for the most part not even bother against those things. They just broke their edges. Too bad for the Aztecs and others they weren't into heavy maces with heads made from some tough hard stone - those would actually have worked, and I understand the heavy copper axes of the Incas packed enough punch to cause some worry. Anyway, back to Diaz. I'm not intimately familiar with the specific topic, but I can make an educated guess of what was actually involved. First, the atl-atl dart may not have been obsidian-tipped anymore; Cortez's Conquistadors had their native allies make copper-tipped crossbow bolts to supply their crossbowmen with ammunition, and apparently thought those were as good as the steel-tipped ones they'd brought along (although the new copper tips didn't have to deal with any meaninfgul amount of armour...). The Aztecs weren't stupid, and for example made good use of the few steel cut-and-thrust swords that fell into their hands; it is more than likely they treated crossbow bolts similarly, as those may well have fit well enough into atl-atls - or they may just have swapped the tips onto their darts, and started making copper ones of their own. Second, the metal armour in question may well not actually have been a monolith breastplate but a "jack" - a type of "brigandine" or "studded" armour, consisting of small metal plates between two layers of cloth and fixed to the outer layer with rivets or stitching. This was a popular light, cheap (many were made by cutting damaged armour into small pieces and using them) and flexible type of armour among lighter-equipped troops around the time, and high-quality versions were at times worn into battle even by quite high and mighty personages. Poorer Conquistadors may well have used the cheaper forms of the concept, and it is conceivable those could have occasionally been penetrated by projectiles especially if they were suffering from the climate (the invaders' gear often suffered from the environment). The conquistadors mainly won due to disease, not superior tech. Cortez's first attack on Tenochtitlan led to the Spanish fleeing in complete rout. When he returned a year later, smallpox had destroyed everything so there were few available warriors. I'm sure technology helped, but 1520s guns weren't really all that much better than an atlatl or bow in the hands of a trained user. The big advantage of guns was how easy it was to learn their use - it wasn't till 1700s that they became superior in lethality, etc. and even then rate of fire was quite low.Guns - aside from cannon - played very little part in Conquistador success. They were too slow firing and too few in numbers to make any real impact on the huge armies the native empires wielded, and unsurprisingly supplying gunpowder was sort of difficult in the middle of Mesoamerica (and the cannons had the priority - they had enough firepower and psychological impact to seriously affect battles and particularly sieges). For picking off officers and such the more accurate and far less logistically problematic crossbow was by far better. Conquistador combat effectiveness came primarily from two things: steel weapons (and to lesser degree armour) and cavalry. The clumsy and not very effective obsidian-edged sword-clubs simply were no match for the highly developed nimble cut-and-thrust steel swords of the Europeans, which went throught the padded-cotton armour like it wasn't even there (such swords could usually thrust through mail without great difficulties) and to boot had far superior killing reach. While the metal armour helped, it was troublesome enough to maintain and wear that many Conquistadors actually happily adopted the native cotton cuirasses instead - those were in any case quite proof enough against most of the local Stone Age weaponry (which is obviously why they were used in the first place). The Conquistadors on the whole had rather few horses along, but valued them highly and used them to devastating effect. The beasts easily outpaced any man and were a terror to soldiers who'd never even been trained to receive a cavalry charge without breaking (a tall enough order for infantrymen back in the Old World where horses had been a fact of warfare for millenia) nor had any of the tools needed to check it. Cortez's bunch for example only had a handful of armoured lancers, whose gear would in fact have been ranked as light cavalry back in Europe - but these could penetrate the Aztec infantry lines at will, spreading fear and confusion, and were practically inviolable as long as the squadron stuck together (isolated horsemen could still be swarmed and dragged from saddle). As for Cortez's first trip, I seem to recall funny stories about the Conquistadors getting bushwhacked at night after (reasonably) peacefully entering a city and barely fleeing with their lives after a desperate, chaotic battle (and they may have had to see off little short of an entire army immediately afterwards). The next time around they appeared at the head of a huge army of the Aztecs' disgruntled now-former subjects... Disease actually didn't yet play a central role in the success of Cortez's expedition against the Aztecs IIRC, but severely if not decisively weakened both the Incas and (what was left of) the Mayas and decimated several less civilized tribes that proved quite capable of wiping out Conquistador expeditions through guerilla warfare. EDIT: The Aztecs had slings, and they never abandoned the atlatl, or even close.I said "tended to". Pay attention. In any case slings and bows played far greater role in Native American organized warfare than the somewhat élite atl-atl, so that's there. Back on D&D, it should be 1d6 at least (equal to shortbow), and I'd argue 1d8.I'd say the "projectile dice up by one step and critical to x3" sounded pretty good and sensible.
Illithid_Tentacles 06-24-07, 08:46 PM	I'd say it increases the effective range of a javelin, shortspear, dart, or whatever by 50%, and adds 2 to the damage dealt if you hit, but it would take a standard action to load. Probably make it usable by anyone with martial weapon proficiency.
Kurikin 06-24-07, 09:15 PM	Alrighty then, so heres what I got. Atatl Throwing Board Add full STR and x5 range increment. Increases damage dice by 1. Doubles range increment. Move action to draw ammo and another move to load it. Rapid reload and quick draw work to lessen it. 5g for the dart sized one. 10g for javelin and 15g for spear. Martial weapon. You can use different ammo on different sized throwing boards but you take a -4 penalty for each size difference. So using a dart with a spear throwing board or a spear on a dart is -8. I'd say it increases the effective range of a javelin, shortspear, dart, or whatever by 50%, and adds 2 to the damage dealt if you hit, but it would take a standard action to load. Probably make it usable by anyone with martial weapon proficiency. I made an Atlatl today and tested the differences in distance and using the throwing board pretty close to doubles it. The spear I used is 6ft long, has large fins (goes extremely straight) and weighs 5 lbs. For the 2 dice increases I think thats a little excessive balance wise.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 09:48 PM	(nevermind now that it's a major feat to even put an arrow that far with a topnotch composite bow, and the projectile won't have the power to kill anything bigger than a sparrow) Well, according to The Great Warbow, a good 150-pound longbow can send a 2-ounce arrow 300 meters. It'll only hit with 67.4 J, but that should enough wound or perhaps even kill an unarmored man. Anyway, back to Diaz. I'm not intimately familiar with the specific topic, but I can make an educated guess of what was actually involved. He really did write that their darts could pierce any armor. (In Spanish: "Pues flechas, todo el suelo hecho parva de varas, todas de a dos gajos, que pasan cualquiera arma y las entrañas, adonde no hay defensa...") Of course, though he certainly knew about plate armor, he might not have been thinking about it when he wrote that passage. The common Spanish soldiers wore mainly cotton armor. There's no question, however, that atlatls were powerful. Really powerful. Garcilaso de la Vega wrote that atlatl darts could go all the way through man in a coat of mail. Modern measurements suggest this might have been possible. According to tests published in Antiquity 71(274): 890-897, the kinetic energy of thrown darts is truly extreme. The average KE in a thrown 273 g dart is 247 J (42.5 m/s). It goes up to as high as 559 J (64 m/s). The heaviest dart tested, 545 g, averaged 353 J (36 m/s) and peaked at 771 J (53.2 m/s). That last number exceeds the KE from a .357 mangum round. Guns - aside from cannon - played very little part in Conquistador success. I don't quite agree with that. As I recall, Cortez asked for more guns and crossbows, because the swordsmen were simply too outnumbered. Guns and crossbows, few though they were, helped the Spanish break Amerindian formations. The clumsy and not very effective obsidian-edged sword-clubs simply were no match for the highly developed nimble cut-and-thrust steel swords of the Europeans, which went throught the padded-cotton armour like it wasn't even there (such swords could usually thrust through mail without great difficulties) and to boot had far superior killing reach. Uh, where are you getting the idea that single-handed swords could pierce mail and easily cut through cotton armor? I do doubt cotton armor was proof against Spanish swords, but I also suspect it offered at least some protection against them. Of course, many the Amerindians didn't where much armor of any kind. As for weapons, if you read Diaz, you'll see he has nothing but respect for Amerindian swords. The Spanish accounts make it clear that they cut quite well. I'm sure steel swords were somewhat superior, but it's a fairly marginal advantage (and noted as such in modern scholarship on the subject). The Conquistadors on the whole had rather few horses along, but valued them highly and used them to devastating effect. Here I agree with you completely. As Cortez supposed said, "Next to God, we owe our victory to our horses." Personally, though, I don't think the Spanish victory over the Aztecs can explained based only on technology. To some extent, I think they did so well because they were simply badasses. The weapons helped, but they just fought really well and had effective leadership. The specific weaknesses of the Aztecs are another factor. Other Amerindian groups with same technology did much better against the Spanish. Despite even fewer technological advantages, the Franks beat the Byzantines in somewhat similar fashion back at the start of the 13th century. War is all about leadership, morale, and experience.
Kurikin 06-24-07, 10:59 PM	According to tests published in Antiquity 71(274): 890-897, the kinetic energy of thrown darts is truly extreme. The average KE in a thrown 273 g dart is 247 J (42.5 m/s). It goes up to as high as 559 J (64 m/s). The heaviest dart tested, 545 g, averaged 353 J (36 m/s) and peaked at 771 J (53.2 m/s). That last number exceeds the KE from a .357 mangum round. Looking at those numbers... I can only say one word... AWESOMESAUCE! Really, that is an extreme amount of energy and I would never have expected it to be that high. My 2.27 kg (converted from the about 5lb I got from the scale I used) spear has a 5.5 cm diameter sphere as a tip and was making dents about 4 cm in the ground. It was so quickly phased out by slings and bows around the world because of its bulkiness. It would be near impossible to even throw the thing (let along accurately) while on horse back and bows and slings were not. So people thought it was a fair enough trade to give up the power of the Ataltl for the speed and mobility of mounts. In the Americas mounts weren't there until other people started coming.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 11:56 PM	Note that it takes a great deal of skill to get numbers like that with atlatl darts. Olympic-level javelin throwers couldn't match the performance of the experienced user, even after a fair bit of practice with the weapon. And another modern test got absolutely pathetic energy figures with their darts. Something like 30 J. So it really depends, I guess.
Tommyboy 06-25-07, 12:09 AM	Severely off topic, but on a similar vein, it is interesting to think about what would be different if the native people of the Americas and Africa had been as successful at domesticating animals as the Europeans/Asians were. Rhinoceros cavalry maybe?
Watchman 06-25-07, 06:28 AM	Their main problem in that regard was that AFAIK nothing they had available was domesticable. Even Zebras - the African branch of the horse - are AFAIK functionally undomesticable, and the big African bush elephant is the same. Rhinos are even worse - they're really stupid, solitary, and extremely ornery. The Americas didn't even have anything potentially useful (except as food), save for the llamas and their ilk which at least made reasonable beasts of burden. Well, according to The Great Warbow, a good 150-pound longbow can send a 2-ounce arrow 300 meters. It'll only hit with 67.4 J, but that should enough wound or perhaps even kill an unarmored man.I somehow doubt it, or in any case in practice at such ranges only harassement fire was effected. Its main usefulness would have been worrying and irritating men, and perhaps occasionally hurting a horse enough to give it a fit. The light "flight" arrows that could reach such distances were AFAIK rather severely lacking in killing power, nevermind now with the sort of energy loss involved in the distance. Effective archery ranges were well under two hundred meters, and armour reduced them further quite rapidly. There's incidentally a surviving Classical Greek tombstone from one of their Black Sea trade colonies, according to which the man interred there had once sent an arrow over some pretty prodigious distance with the Scythian composite bow then in common use around the region. And one Ottoman Sultan apparently once shot an arrow over the Straits of Bosphorus... There's no question, however, that atlatls were powerful. Really powerful. Garcilaso de la Vega wrote that atlatl darts could go all the way through man in a coat of mail. Modern measurements suggest this might have been possible.Simple hand-thrown javelins can pierce mail well enough at short distances, so that's certainly credible. I don't quite agree with that. As I recall, Cortez asked for more guns and crossbows, because the swordsmen were simply too outnumbered. Guns and crossbows, few though they were, helped the Spanish break Amerindian formations."Guns" often specifically means cannon though. Grapeshot is nasty. Uh, where are you getting the idea that single-handed swords could pierce mail and easily cut through cotton armor? I do doubt cotton armor was proof against Spanish swords, but I also suspect it offered at least some protection against them. Of course, many the Amerindians didn't where much armor of any kind. A well-tapered sword can punch through mail links fairly easily, much like any other pointy thing. That's the whole reason European swords started getting increasingly acutely pointed already around High Middle Ages after all. Quilted armour is indeed quite resistant to cuts, but whoever said anything about cutting it ? I was talking about thrusts all the time - those are in any case generally more lethal. Essentially similar stuff was invariably worn under mail, and you get three guesses on how well mere quilt stood up against a sword-thrust capable of piercing mail and its backing... Quilted cuirasses were AFAIK pretty common South and Central American war gear, at least in the organized armies. As for weapons, if you read Diaz, you'll see he has nothing but respect for Amerindian swords. The Spanish accounts make it clear that they cut quite well. I'm sure steel swords were somewhat superior, but it's a fairly marginal advantage (and noted as such in modern scholarship on the subject).AFAIK the design of the sword-club doesn't lend itself all that well to delivering deep cuts, which would be necessary to readily kill someone, and it's obviously functionally incapable of thrusting. AFAIK this suited the Aztecs right fine as their primary goal tended to be captives for sacrifice - limb hits were incapaciating enough for the purpose. I would imagine other users of the weapon with more pragmatic priorities tended to aim for the head or neck instead where mortal damage could be easily inflicted if you can land a good blow. The Incas didn't even bother, having graduated to copper weapons; I understand they had a rather pragmatic and no-nonsense approach to fighting, and consecuently their hand-to-hand combat tended to be pretty bloody. The steel cut-and-thrust sword could be used to transfix a man with a long thrust from several meters away (Eropean sowrdsmanship by and large emphasized the point by that point) and a good slash could sever an extremity without real trouble, nevermind now being a fair bit more nimbler and better balanced. The two don't really wrestle in the same weight class. It was so quickly phased out by slings and bows around the world because of its bulkiness. It would be near impossible to even throw the thing (let along accurately) while on horse back and bows and slings were not. So people thought it was a fair enough trade to give up the power of the Ataltl for the speed and mobility of mounts. In the Americas mounts weren't there until other people started coming.Nonsense. The spear-thrower disappeared in Eurasia already during the Stone Age after the introduction of the bow and the sling; horses were first domesticated around very early Bronze Age or so, much later, and the idea of actually riding them only started gaining popularity outside the steppes around the end of Bronze Age (ca. 1000 - 800 BC). Outside the horse barbarians of the plains true cavalry first starts turning up in Assyrian and their neighbours' armies - and they carried composite bows and spears. Throwing-spears were always the "second best" for mounted use, the bow being favoured everywhere the conditions the develop the necessary skills existed. Javelins were apparently regarded as useful for short-range skirmishing even by consummate horse-archers though, and the weapon-cases of Late Bronze Age Egyptian war chariots held besides spare bows and lots of arrows a number of heavy javelins. The thongs tied to the shafts of some Greek javelins, used to impart extra leverage to the throw, recall the spear-thrower in function. They seem to have been a bit of a short-lived experiment that never got popular though.
WhiteHarness 06-25-07, 09:27 AM	I've read Bernal Diaz in the original Spanish. At no point does he describe native stone weapons penetrating plate armour. He narrates accounts of mail being pierced on several occasions, but never, ever plate. Even Cabeza de Vaca, who seems to be more impressed with Indian weapons describes the armour being pierced with the vague term "armas defensivas." ] To say that obsidian-tipped atl-atl darts could go through two men and their steel breastplates is utterly ludicrous. To say that medieval and renaissance breastplates were made of low-quality steel is also disingenuous. I tend to believe the accounts which relate that the Aztec's obsidian points would shatter against plate, which the author says would reduce them to thousands of sharp little splinters that were injurious to the men around the plate-wearer. As for the kinetic energy of an atl-atl dart exceeding that of a .357--remember that the KE for a lance wielded from the back of a charging horse would often be much higher--and steel breastplates could and did often resist even that. People wore armour because it worked--even against atl-atl darts and arrows, difficult as that may be for some to grasp...
Dnarris 06-25-07, 10:57 AM	Yay, everyone's an expert! Rain on the parade!
BaltotheJunkie 06-25-07, 11:10 AM	Well, according to The Great Warbow, a good 150-pound longbow can send a 2-ounce arrow 300 meters. It'll only hit with 67.4 J, but that should enough wound or perhaps even kill an unarmored man. He really did write that their darts could pierce any armor. (In Spanish: "Pues flechas, todo el suelo hecho parva de varas, todas de a dos gajos, que pasan cualquiera arma y las entrañas, adonde no hay defensa...") Of course, though he certainly knew about plate armor, he might not have been thinking about it when he wrote that passage. The common Spanish soldiers wore mainly cotton armor. There's no question, however, that atlatls were powerful. Really powerful. Garcilaso de la Vega wrote that atlatl darts could go all the way through man in a coat of mail. Modern measurements suggest this might have been possible. According to tests published in Antiquity 71(274): 890-897, the kinetic energy of thrown darts is truly extreme. The average KE in a thrown 273 g dart is 247 J (42.5 m/s). It goes up to as high as 559 J (64 m/s). The heaviest dart tested, 545 g, averaged 353 J (36 m/s) and peaked at 771 J (53.2 m/s). That last number exceeds the KE from a .357 mangum round. I don't quite agree with that. As I recall, Cortez asked for more guns and crossbows, because the swordsmen were simply too outnumbered. Guns and crossbows, few though they were, helped the Spanish break Amerindian formations. Uh, where are you getting the idea that single-handed swords could pierce mail and easily cut through cotton armor? I do doubt cotton armor was proof against Spanish swords, but I also suspect it offered at least some protection against them. Of course, many the Amerindians didn't where much armor of any kind. As for weapons, if you read Diaz, you'll see he has nothing but respect for Amerindian swords. The Spanish accounts make it clear that they cut quite well. I'm sure steel swords were somewhat superior, but it's a fairly marginal advantage (and noted as such in modern scholarship on the subject). Here I agree with you completely. As Cortez supposed said, "Next to God, we owe our victory to our horses." Personally, though, I don't think the Spanish victory over the Aztecs can explained based only on technology. To some extent, I think they did so well because they were simply badasses. The weapons helped, but they just fought really well and had effective leadership. The specific weaknesses of the Aztecs are another factor. Other Amerindian groups with same technology did much better against the Spanish. Despite even fewer technological advantages, the Franks beat the Byzantines in somewhat similar fashion back at the start of the 13th century. War is all about leadership, morale, and experience. The following comes from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl The macahuitl was sharp enough to decapitate a man.[9] According to an account by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of Hernando Cortés’s conquistadors, it could even decapitate a horse: Pedro de Moron, was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead. [10] The macahuitl also had some drawbacks. It takes more time to lift and swing a club than it does to thrust with a sword. More space is needed as well, so warriors advanced in loose formations.[11]
Kurikin 06-25-07, 11:17 AM	Nonsense. The spear-thrower disappeared in Eurasia already during the Stone Age after the introduction of the bow and the sling; horses were first domesticated around very early Bronze Age or so, much later, and the idea of actually riding them only started gaining popularity outside the steppes around the end of Bronze Age (ca. 1000 - 800 BC). Outside the horse barbarians of the plains true cavalry first starts turning up in Assyrian and their neighbours' armies - and they carried composite bows and spears. Throwing-spears were always the "second best" for mounted use, the bow being favoured everywhere the conditions the develop the necessary skills existed. Javelins were apparently regarded as useful for short-range skirmishing even by consummate horse-archers though, and the weapon-cases of Late Bronze Age Egyptian war chariots held besides spare bows and lots of arrows a number of heavy javelins. The thongs tied to the shafts of some Greek javelins, used to impart extra leverage to the throw, recall the spear-thrower in function. They seem to have been a bit of a short-lived experiment that never got popular though. I forgot the whole "I assume..." part of that. That statement was just an assumption of mine, not fact. The only thing I really know about the Stone age is they used stone tools, bronze age they used bronze (at least just in the euroasiafrica areas.) I'm glad that there's people like all yall in this thread that know so much about this subject.
TheCobra 06-25-07, 02:25 PM	I somehow doubt it, or in any case in practice at such ranges only harassement fire was effected. Its main usefulness would have been worrying and irritating men, and perhaps occasionally hurting a horse enough to give it a fit. The light "flight" arrows that could reach such distances were AFAIK rather severely lacking in killing power, nevermind now with the sort of energy loss involved in the distance. Look, I just gave you the numbers. 67 J is more energy than most men can put into an underarm knife stab. It would certainly wound an unarmored man. It could kill if hit the right spot. Of course, very few men, if any, went to battle completely unarmored. I'm sure jacks were nearly proof against such flight arrows. I have seen flight arrows mentioned in 16th-century English texts, so I think they were used to gall the enemy. A well-tapered sword can punch through mail links fairly easily, much like any other pointy thing. That's still hotly debated. Looking at the Alan Williams tests of mail, I kind of doubt it. Even the arrow point need 120 J to pierce mail. Can a one-handed stab manage that much energy? It depends, of course. Really thin points, such as on rondel dagger could injure through mail without break a link. And you could perhaps break the link by twisting. Would a single thrust do it, though? We really more tests. I was talking about thrusts all the time - those are in any case generally more lethal. Okay. I certainly don't think cotton armor was proof against thrusting swords. From the tests I've seen, sharp blades do a lot better against textile armor than most arrows. Quilted cuirasses were AFAIK pretty common South and Central American war gear, at least in the organized armies. As I understand it, only the better troops had it. Fairly common, yes, but there were many Amerindian troops without it. In other words, the common Spanish soldier was protected as well as the best Amerindian one. AFAIK the design of the sword-club doesn't lend itself all that well to delivering deep cuts, which would be necessary to readily kill someone, Diaz describes the two-handed version of the weapon beheading a mare. At no point does he describe native stone weapons penetrating plate armour. "Pues flechas, todo el suelo hecho parva de varas, todas de a dos gajos, que pasan cualquiera arma y las entrañas, adonde no hay defensa..." What do you take that to mean? As for the kinetic energy of an atl-atl dart exceeding that of a .357--remember that the KE for a lance wielded from the back of a charging horse would often be much higher--and steel breastplates could and did often resist even that. I've never seen a good test of the kinetic energy from a lance blow. Do you know of any? I'd love to read them. According the Alan Williams tests, plate armor could be pierced by much less than 771 J. Of course, he tested metal points, not stone ones. More space is needed as well, so warriors advanced in loose formations. Perhaps, but I remember Diaz describing the close order of the Amerindians at times.
aeulous 06-25-07, 03:24 PM	As for the kinetic energy of an atl-atl dart exceeding that of a .357--remember that the KE for a lance wielded from the back of a charging horse would often be much higher--and steel breastplates could and did often resist even that. Yes the plate that was worn by heavy calvary would occassianly stop a lance however the light breast plates worn by infantry was not as thick as the plate worn by heavy calvary, particular the plate that was sometimes worn following the advent of guns. That plate was sometimes so heavy that they had to hoist the rider onto his horse, and it ussually did not cover his legs that was protected by plating that was made into the saddle. Infantry did not wear armor that heavy because it serously hindered their movement. The calvary that Cortez had was light calvary so they probally had the same type of breastplates as the infantry so that the horses could move around with easier. Also light calvary ussually attacked the flanks of an enemy force whereas Heavy calvary just charged in.
WhiteHarness 06-26-07, 11:40 AM	Whatever the results of highly flawed modern tests of atl-atls, usually by ivory-tower types much taken with the mystique of primitive cultures (and therefore given over to overestimation of said cultures' capabilities), I think it may be safely surmised that, if the Aztec's atl-atl darts truly had been able to pierce Spanish plate with any degree of consistency, the Spanish would have lost a lot more of their cavalry in their conflicts with the Aztecs. As it is, we know that they lost very few armoured riders. That plate was sometimes so heavy that they had to hoist the rider onto his horse... There exists no evidence whatsoever that any armoured man, in whatever sort of plate armour, in any period, ever had to be hoisted onto his horse. I've never seen a good test of the kinetic energy from a lance blow. Do you know of any? No, but I think a good idea of the force involved may certainly be gained by simply considering the immense weight of an armoured horse and rider concentrated behind the point of a lance. I very much doubt that the force behind an atl-atl-dart is greater than that of a lance impact. I have serious reservations about the ability of stone-tipped atl-atl darts to reliably penetrate 16th century European steel plate armour. However you choose to interpret that passage in Diaz, I strongly suspect that, had any such thing as a stone dart piercing a breastplate actually occurred, the author would have included a great deal more information about it than just a passing mention--I'd expect more of a treatment like the account of a native bow sending an arrow through two coats of mail. As plate is known to have been uncommon amongst the conquistadores, I believe Diaz was referring to native-style quilted armour, or mail or birgandines at most. The notion of an obsidian dart piercing a steel breastplate absolutely beggars belief. Kinetic energy is by no means the only factor involved in penetrating armour. Under the force of that many joules, I strongly suspect that the weapon's stone point would fail long before the substance of the armour's steel would fail. It's also worth pointing out the fact that the shape of atl-atl darts is not at all optimized for armour penetration. They'd have more of a "broadhead" profile than a "bodkin" one--certainly not ideal geometry for penetrating rigid armour.
WhiteHarness 06-26-07, 11:48 AM	...oops. double-post..
TheCobra 06-26-07, 02:50 PM	Whatever the results of highly flawed modern tests of atl-atls, usually by ivory-tower types much taken with the mystique of primitive cultures (and therefore given over to overestimation of said cultures' capabilities), Wow. You must feel deeply threatened by the idea of atlatl darts piercing plate armor, WhiteHarness, to make such accusations. Somehow, I doubt anyone who can make a dart hit harder than handgun bullet fits your stereotypical notions of ivory-tower types. I think it may be safely surmised that, if the Aztec's atl-atl darts truly had been able to pierce Spanish plate with any degree of consistency, the Spanish would have lost a lot more of their cavalry in their conflicts with the Aztecs. That's probably true. After all, Diaz doesn't explicitly say darts could pierce plate. He might well have only been talking about the armor he and the other swordsmen wore. You do have wonder how they dealt with atlatl attacks. I imagine the shields helped. Also, if I recall correctly, only the more elite Aztec troops used atlatls. And a man can only carry so many darts. The notion of an obsidian dart piercing a steel breastplate absolutely beggars belief. It does seem unlikely, though some Spanish accounts supposedly say the Aztec swords could scratch steel. I do believe, however, that atatl darts ofter pierced mail. De la Vega claims they did, and says the Spanish the weapon more than any other.
WhiteHarness 06-26-07, 03:00 PM	I don't doubt that stone-tipped projectiles pierced mail. The account of the two "highly burnished" mailcoats being pierced by a stone arrow does go on to note that the Spanish did continue to use not-so-burnished (presumably heavier?) mailcoats in conjunction with native-style quilted armour for a better defense against native archery. Clearly there was some difference in the actual substance or quality of these two styles of mailcoat than just their polish... You must feel deeply threatened by the idea of atlatl darts piercing plate armor... Well, what else would you expect from someone called "White Harness?" ;)
Watchman 06-26-07, 03:11 PM	The general protective value of decent steel plate can easily be surmised from the fact that around the time it became common, powerful two-handed weapons began to proliferate like never before and crossbows started regularly getting made with steel staves for some seriously heavy punch... and shields largely fell out of use. Even among cavalry, who on the average couldn't dodge missiles worth a jack (horses aren't very good at it) and mostly used one-handed weapons such as lances, maces and long swords. It was just that good. But really, that was a late developement all things considered. Already around 4th-3rd century BC in Central Asia heavy cavalry was heavily enough armoured (with scale, lamellar, laminate and eventually mail) that they no longer bothered with shields either, and tended to require heavy two-handed spears (preferably at charge, where one could pierce two layers of armour - or two relatively lightly armoured men, if some Roman accounts are to be believed) and hefty "mass" weapons like axes and maces to go down. Darts tipped with volcanic glass can go home to momma in that company.
lukelightning 06-26-07, 03:31 PM	I have it on good authority that the aztecs used their atlatls to throw katanas, which were capable of beheading 4 spaniards in a single throw.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 05:02 PM	The account of the two "highly burnished" mailcoats being pierced by a stone arrow does go on to note that the Spanish did continue to use not-so-burnished (presumably heavier?) mailcoats in conjunction with native-style quilted armour for a better defense against native archery. That account is from de la Vega. If I recall correctly, the coats of mail were tested without padding. They were put over a basket or some such. That's not exactly biased in favor of the armor. Still, he has many other examples of Amerindian arrows piercing mail in combat. He's not the only one, either. Most tales of the Amerindians of Florida note the power of their bows. I suspect they were using bows as heavy as the English used. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable that they could get through mail. Well, what else would you expect from someone called "White Harness?" I still think your comments were out of line. Have you even read the article from Antiquity? If not, how can you say the tests were flawed?
Watchman 06-26-07, 05:11 PM	Forest-dwellers often had powerful bows. The English were tossers in that regard; didn't even have flat-bows by what I know of it, and actually had to legally oblige their peasants to practice. Up in the Forest Belt you could pretty much just levy a random peasant, and he was more likely than not a pretty well seasoned archer.
WhiteHarness 06-26-07, 05:28 PM	That account is from de la Vega. If I recall correctly, the coats of mail were tested without padding. They were put over a basket or some such. That's not exactly biased in favor of the armor. Still, he has many other examples of Amerindian arrows piercing mail in combat. He's not the only one, either. Most tales of the Amerindians of Florida note the power of their bows. I suspect they were using bows as heavy as the English used. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable that they could get through mail. I don't doubt the mail-piercing abilities of certain tribes' projectiles. Mail is an imperfect defense. That said, I recall an article from Primitive Archer (I think...) that detailed the radical differences in the power of bows among various Amerind tribes. Not all native archers had bows as powerful as those Floridians. I still think your comments were out of line. Have you even read the article from Antiquity? If not, how can you say the tests were flawed? To be honest, I can't find the article online; only a lot of references to it on various message boards. I retract my earlier grumpiness. Still, it is pleasing to note that it looks like most of the KE figures for the darts fall well within more normal ranges. Only that one 771J result stands out. I still say the obsidian point would fail before the steel armour would at that level of force...
TheCobra 06-26-07, 05:39 PM	To be honest, I can't find the article online; only a lot of references to it on various message boards. I don't think it's available online. I had to look up the print copy in my college's library. Still, it is pleasing to note that it looks like most of the KE figures for the darts fall well within more normal ranges. Yes. The average for the heaviest dart is about the same as what Olympic-level javelin throwers supposedly manage. Vegetius wrote that the military javelins of his time could pierce mail, so I imagine they came fairly close in terms of KE. And I don't know of any source claiming javelins could pierce plate. Fourquevaux wrote that they could murder unarmored troops, implying that they weren't much use against armored men.
Watchman 06-26-07, 05:57 PM	Depends on the armour and javelin in question, natch. Mail always had some issues with any kind of spear for example, and light javelins are impact-wise a far cry from the heavier throwing-spears that pretty much double as fighting-spears as required - nevermind now the really heavy stuff like the ancient Italic pilum, its later derivatives spiculum and angon, or the all-iron Iberian solifera. 'Course, the heavier the spear the harder it is to throw it far so you're basically trading range for power there. The Romans at one point took to adding lead balls to the shafts of their pila for even more punch, which has been found to reduce the already less than impressive range of the weapon to something like ten-fifteen meters.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 07:02 PM	Yeah, I'd love to see some energy figures for heavier javelins. All I've heard about are modern tests that supposedly supported the idea that the pilum was effective against armor.
Watchman 06-26-07, 07:38 PM	That one is really basic physics. The more mass you put behind a point striking something with velocity, the more stubbornly it tries to bust through the obstacle. Even depleted uranium tank gun shells work by that basic principle, no ? And of course people wouldn't have bothered with those expensive and inconvenient heavy throwing spears if they hadn't served a purpose.
WhiteHarness 06-26-07, 08:24 PM	That they even had to add weight to the pilum attests that at least some armour was effective against it. Roman-era arms and armour isn't really my thing, but I wonder if the attempts to increase the impact force of the pilum coincided with the Romans facing a heavily-armoured foe...like the Persians and their cataphracts, maybe... Just to keep this thread somewhat on the subject of D&D... Does there exist only one type of javelin in the D&D rules? I'd like to see some diversity. Are there some types from non-core books that I'm just not aware of? Incidentally, the Aztec/Conquistador discussion has whetted my appetite for a campaign in a similar setting. However, I don't want the Spaniards running around in full plate all the time. I remember that one D20 product featured a "three-quarter plate" armour type: +7 armour bonus with a +1 max dex. Does anybody know which supplement that was?
TheCobra 06-27-07, 03:49 AM	And of course people wouldn't have bothered with those expensive and inconvenient heavy throwing spears if they hadn't served a purpose. Sure, but that vague notion isn't at all the same as hard numbers. More crunch, less fluff! However, I don't want the Spaniards running around in full plate all the time. You could give them padded armor. That's what most of the infantry actually wore. Of course, in D&D, such armor sucks. Really, you should consider some other system for such a setting. I don't think D&D would work very well.
Watchman 06-27-07, 08:09 AM	Sure, but that vague notion isn't at all the same as hard numbers. More crunch, less fluff!Hard numbers are often hard to come by, and tricky to interpret in practice. Take for example your earlier mentions of arrow and knife-stab energies; those seemed to entirely sidestep the little detail the knife gets a constant supply of energy from the person behind the stab, while the arrow has to make do with what's left (and dwindling rapidly) of its "muzzle velocity"... should be pretty obvious which one deals with obstacles better. Which is why I tend to prefer logical deduction based on contemporary accounts and practices. The people who actually used the stuff to kill each other can be assumed to have had a pretty solid grasp on how the relevant things worked, no ?
TheCobra 06-27-07, 02:35 PM	Which is why I tend to prefer logical deduction based on contemporary accounts and practices. Yeah, that's good to. But I don't know of many primary sources addressing the javelin's ability to pierce armor. Vegetius is one. There are probably other. I don't really focus on ancient warfare.
Optimator 07-02-07, 12:43 AM	Stuff Honestly, Watchman, I never get sick of your history lessons. Keep 'em up!