Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVII

[gkathellar]

So, regarding the non-professional armies of the regions: you've got part-time soldiers who campaign in between planting and harvest. That strikes me as being quite similar to the Greek hoplites, or pre-Marian Republican Rome. Would it be reasonable to draw parallels between these systems? I.e. a citizen-soldiery, where certain rights were linked to being able to serve in the army on campaign and provide suitable equipment for yourself, with the equipment requirements depending on status and/or wealth.

I'd hesitate to assume that. Armies of part-timers who campaigned in between harvests were commonplace throughout history. Even serfdom contracts sometimes included stipulations to that effect.

[Kiero]

Was the concept of a professional army taken up by other states of the area around the time? In between times of Assyrian ascendancy, did other Mesopotamian kingdoms such as Babylon begin to incorporate elements of this system? Did the later Assyrian empires revive the idea of a professional army?

For the most part, no. The reason is very simple: cost. Professional armies are exceptionally expensive, keeping men in harness all year round means you have to pay them, and they are not doing other productive (and tax revenue-raising) things while they are there.

Philip II of Makedon created a professional force, turning a levy rabble into a proper army that could beat his Greek neighbours. He could only afford to do that because early in his reign, he discovered gold mines, and funnelled all that new wealth into reforming his military.

[Mendicant]

I have a question about a homebrew weapon. The dueling spike or fighting spike is essentially a wrought-iron spike. It has a square cross section about three quarters of an inch thick at the base, tapering to a point, and the hand is protected by something between a basket hilt and a very small buckler.

Spoiler:

Show

The weapon has a cultural application independant of its utility in normal combat--duels are pretty normal, and the main weapon are cudgels. Usually you pair the cudgel with a small shield, but the option to request a spike instead is always present and indicates you want to fight to the death. (The duels are all officially "to the death" but cudgel and shield only very rarely ends with a fatality.)

In a duel with spikes, the spikes perform a dual role as offhand defensive weapon/finishing weapon.

Somebody who openly carries around a spike in this culture is advertising their readiness to murder, and people tend to avoid them and view such individuals with contempt.

How viable would this be as a more general-purpose defensive weapon in the same niche as a buckler or maine gauche? It'd be heavier than a dagger, but to my mind the spike would require less care in how it met attacks and would be more effective if you wanted to punch through mail when on the offensive.

[Mr Beer]

How long is this spike? Does it have a handle? Sounds a bit like a heavy stiletto.

Also, why do people duel with spikes instead of knives? Cultural I guess but knives tend to be ubiquitous in low tech environments so it seems a bit odd.

[Mike_G]

Wrought iron isn't very strong, so the spike runs the risk of snapping near the tip when facing steel weapons or armor.

It's kind of a heavy dagger that can't cut, or a very short epee.

So, yeah, you could fight with it, but it's more or less just a worse version of a main gauche.

[Pauly]

I have a question about a homebrew weapon. The dueling spike or fighting spike is essentially a wrought-iron spike. It has a square cross section about three quarters of an inch thick at the base, tapering to a point, and the hand is protected by something between a basket hilt and a very small buckler.

Spoiler:

Show

The weapon has a cultural application independant of its utility in normal combat--duels are pretty normal, and the main weapon are cudgels. Usually you pair the cudgel with a small shield, but the option to request a spike instead is always present and indicates you want to fight to the death. (The duels are all officially "to the death" but cudgel and shield only very rarely ends with a fatality.)

In a duel with spikes, the spikes perform a dual role as offhand defensive weapon/finishing weapon.

Somebody who openly carries around a spike in this culture is advertising their readiness to murder, and people tend to avoid them and view such individuals with contempt.

How viable would this be as a more general-purpose defensive weapon in the same niche as a buckler or maine gauche? It'd be heavier than a dagger, but to my mind the spike would require less care in how it met attacks and would be more effective if you wanted to punch through mail when on the offensive.

Basically what you’re describing sounds to be like a jitte sharpened to a point, or a main gauche with an estoc blade profile.

Historically the jitte was mostly used without a point. Originally it was a non-lethal weapon used by the shogun’s guards, because the carrying of swords close to the shogun was banned. In wider use it was then became a non-lethal weapon for police and government inspectors. There are some spiked versions which indicate that in some situations the non-lethal part was optional. In either case it was used as the main weapon of a government officer doing his duty.

There are some example of main gauche daggers built with a spike rather than a blade. Conjecture is that it was done either for reducing cost or for penetrating mail armor like a rondel dagger. In this situation it was primarily an off-hand parrying weapon, but it might become your main weapon if you were ambushed in an alley.

[Mendicant]

How long is this spike? Does it have a handle? Sounds a bit like a heavy stiletto.

Also, why do people duel with spikes instead of knives? Cultural I guess but knives tend to be ubiquitous in low tech environments so it seems a bit odd.

It is a lot like a heavy stilletto, except with a much more significant hand guard and meant to fill a defensive/parrying role for ~90% of the fight.

I'm trying to steer clear of knives and daggers for a couple reasons. A knife isn't typically a formal dueling weapon for a lot of reasons, and wouldn't be much of a defensive complement to a main-hand weapon. Probably more important for my purposes is that it's just not much as a cultural signifier for a dangerous ne'er-do-well--just about everybody in this particular culture carries a knife on them as a matter of course. I've seen some stuff about carrying a buckler having that sort of connotation during the renaissance, and I'm trying to translate that into a setting where having a whole set of weapon on you or your horse is quite normal.

[gkathellar]

May I recommend the Bowie knife? Not only is it better suited to defense than your average knife, it’s pretty distinctive and clearly intended for, how can I put this gently? Trouble.

Alternately there’s the regrettably-named smatchet, which is unmistakeable and meant for the sole purpose of separating enemy combatants from their lives.

[Brother Oni]

How viable would this be as a more general-purpose defensive weapon in the same niche as a buckler or maine gauche? It'd be heavier than a dagger, but to my mind the spike would require less care in how it met attacks and would be more effective if you wanted to punch through mail when on the offensive.

Sounds very much like a push dagger with additional hand protection.

There's spiked gauntlets, which has found use in a variety of situations from Roman gladiatorial combat to WW1 trench warfare.

Spoiler: Gladiator cestus variants

Show

Spoiler: WW1 spiked gauntlet (Imperial War Museum collection)

Show

There's various sword gauntlets which either locked around the sword or had an integrated blade/spike. The clearest example I can find is the Indian pata, although it's too long compared to your homebrew weapon.

Spoiler: Patel

Show

The Indian katar is probably too blade-y for you, although it's shorter.

Spoiler: Ornamental katar

Show

There are also shields with spike on the centre boss for additional offensive capabilities. This also ranges from larger shields to bucklers and there are a number of mentions of its use in fencing manuals like the 'Gladiatoria' Fechtbuch (Manuscript 5878): (Arma link).

Spoiler: Sword and spiked buckler

Show

So in terms of its practicality, your fighting spike sounds like a perfectly viable weapon and there are multiple sources that will also tell you how to use them too!

Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you how it compares to a buckler or a main gauche as I don't do that style of fencing, although some others here do.

[Martin Greywolf]

There are also shields with spike on the centre boss for additional offensive capabilities. This also ranges from larger shields to bucklers and there are a number of mentions of its use in fencing manuals like the 'Gladiatoria' Fechtbuch (Manuscript 5878):

I highly doubt those spikes are meant for offense - I mean, sure, if you can smackstab a guy in the face then by all means, but your primary weapon will always be the sword. It's longer, and... that's pretty much all the reason you need. The spike is IMO a defensive trapping tool, it stops what would be a glancing blow that bounces off in its tracks, and that can be very useful with bucklers, especially all-steel ones.

So in terms of its practicality, your fighting spike sounds like a perfectly viable weapon and there are multiple sources that will also tell you how to use them too!

Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you how it compares to a buckler or a main gauche as I don't do that style of fencing, although some others here do.

Buckler and dagger are almost non-interchangeable, I tried to figure out I.33 based style with a dagger and it... didn't work. Every single position had to be either changed or abandoned. And something like Bolognese style where you use buckler more statically to hide behind? No dice.

With this spike, it really depends on how it's made. Unless it has a centre grip, it will not perform as well as a buckler would (rotating it is a big part of using it) in bucklery roles, but added spike turns it into those Gladiatoria bucklers in a way. Personally, unless it's patel-like covering for the whole forearm, I'd stay away from it, but this is supposed to be a duel weapon, so many things will fly on basis of tradition.

I'd decalre it usable but not ideal.

On a related note, there's this supposedly Hungarian buckler in Gladiatoria:



I say supposedly because there is no trace of the bugger anywhere in actual (former) Hungary, either as a find or in iconography, so it's probably a misinterpretation of some thing or other. It is somewhat similar to the weapon we're talking about here and Gladiatoria folks thought it is workable, so it may be the best of both worlds.

[gkathellar]

Given katars/punch daggers have been mentioned, this old BBC documentary on Kalaripayattu may be of some use. While most of it is probably irrelevant, there is some footage of actual katar-fencing from 27:15-28:20 and then from 37:45 to the end.

[The Jack]

Javelins tended to be more powerful than bows/crossbows, right? I know they'd be dependent on user strength, but given fit equally fit shooters

It strikes me as weird that in dnd, throwing weapons are worse for damage, and that there's no martial versions of throwing weapons. I can understand heavy crossbows being more powerful, but theyre about equal to shortbows. I'm assuming this is a gameplay decision that had little baring in reality.

[Gnoman]

Javelins tended to be more powerful than bows/crossbows, right?

On what, precisely, do you base this assumption?


Both bows and crossbows are energy-storing devices. This means that your total energy when you loose your projectile will be greater than you can exert at any given time, because you put that energy in over time. Crossbows are (if the design is good enough) far better storage devices because they can be loaded with mechanical advantage devices (cranks or levers) and include a trigger - meaning that the total energy in the crossbow is not limited by your own ability to hold back the bowstring.

Javelins have no energy storage. Only the energy that you can impart at the exact instant of throwing will transfer.


Javelins do tend to be heavier by a significant amount, which has beneficial effects for velocity retention and impact effect, and they can be thrown with a full-body motion that puts more of your body's muscle energy into the throw, but this is not necessarily enough to offset the storage of the other weapons.

[Pauly]

Javelins tended to be more powerful than bows/crossbows, right? I know they'd be dependent on user strength, but given fit equally fit shooters

It strikes me as weird that in dnd, throwing weapons are worse for damage, and that there's no martial versions of throwing weapons. I can understand heavy crossbows being more powerful, but theyre about equal to shortbows. I'm assuming this is a gameplay decision that had little baring in reality.

DnD and historical combat are like honey and engine oil. They may look the same but are totally different things.

Historical accounts suggest that javelins (and thrown axes like the francisca) did substantially more damage than arrows if they hit. However against that is that effective range appears to be very short, 10 to 20 meters or so. Most javelin users only carried 2 or 3 javelins, and the final one may have been kept to use as a short spear.

Also the javelin was obsolete or almost obsolete in European warfare by the late medieval period, and DnD combat rules are based around late medieval European combat asumptions.

[Clistenes]

On what, precisely, do you base this assumption?


Both bows and crossbows are energy-storing devices. This means that your total energy when you loose your projectile will be greater than you can exert at any given time, because you put that energy in over time. Crossbows are (if the design is good enough) far better storage devices because they can be loaded with mechanical advantage devices (cranks or levers) and include a trigger - meaning that the total energy in the crossbow is not limited by your own ability to hold back the bowstring.

Javelins have no energy storage. Only the energy that you can impart at the exact instant of throwing will transfer.


Javelins do tend to be heavier by a significant amount, which has beneficial effects for velocity retention and impact effect, and they can be thrown with a full-body motion that puts more of your body's muscle energy into the throw, but this is not necessarily enough to offset the storage of the other weapons.

The kinetic energy carried by a projectile depends on two factors: weight of the projectile and its speed (kinetic energy = half of mass times velocity squared).

The javelin is way heavier, the arrow and bolt are faster.

The bow stores energy, but its advantage isn't that it releases more energy, but that it releases it faster. If you try to shoot a javelin with a bow, it won't go far; the bow can't store enough energy to effectively throw the javelin...

On the other hand, it can throw a lighter projectile like an arrow way faster than your arm could do on its own. Since the arrow goes faster, and its relative friction isn't so different from the javelin, it reaches way further.

The closer the foe, the most effective the javelin is, since it carries more of its original energy. The further the foe, the slower javelin loses more of its energy due to friction and become less effective.

[Gnoman]

The kinetic energy carried by a projectile depends on two factors: weight of the projectile and its speed (kinetic energy = half of mass times velocity squared).

The javelin is way heavier, the arrow and bolt are faster.

The bow stores energy, but its advantage isn't that it releases more energy, but that it releases it faster. If you try to shoot a javelin with a bow, it won't go far; the bow can't store enough energy to effectively throw the javelin...

On the other hand, it can throw a lighter projectile like an arrow way faster than your arm could do on its own. Since the arrow goes faster, and its relative friction isn't so different from the javelin, it reaches way further.

The closer the foe, the most effective the javelin is, since it carries more of its original energy. The further the foe, the slower javelin loses more of its energy due to friction and become less effective.

All good points. I shouldn't post when I need sleep - I tend to oversimplify and misexplain things.

[Mr Beer]

It strikes me as weird that in dnd

D&D doesn't try to be a simulationist type system so it's not worth worrying about. Balancing various weapon choices is a way higher priority in D&D than realism.

[gkathellar]

I'm assuming this is a gameplay decision that had little baring in reality.

That, or it simply followed from whatever vague and unresearched intuitions the writer had about how things should work.

However, bear in mind that in reality, taking a direct hit from any of these weapons has a good chance of causing immediate incapacitation and imminent death. "1d6 damage vs. 1d8 damage" is already so divorced from reality as a concept that the question of whether it's correct almost misses the point. This is without even getting into the vagaries of terms like "short bow" when viewed in a cross-cultural context.

[The Jack]

That wasn't a very good post of mine. I wrote it when tired. I know DnD and rpgs in general hold different damage conventions to reality.

Still, Javelins are really cool. I did imagi e the upper end of crossbows would exceed them in power. When did they stop being used in european warfare?

[Pauly]

That wasn't a very good post of mine. I wrote it when tired. I know DnD and rpgs in general hold different damage conventions to reality.

Still, Javelins are really cool. I did imagi e the upper end of crossbows would exceed them in power. When did they stop being used in european warfare?

Javelins replaced bows when armor developed that was proof against simple shortbows. So in Europe this is associated with the classical greek era. Yes bows continued in use, but more as auxiliary weapon or as a skirmishing weapon, not a main weapon. The advent of lances and development of armor/shield that could resist the shock of a lance is when javelin use declined.

Bows replaced javelins when they developed mechanical advantage (composite bows, ratcheted crossbows, powerful longbows) that allowed them to store more energy. In Europe this, broadly speaking, started around 1200. In mountainous and boggy areas, such as Spain and Ireland, javelins continued in use for longer than other areas.

[Kiero]

That wasn't a very good post of mine. I wrote it when tired. I know DnD and rpgs in general hold different damage conventions to reality.

Still, Javelins are really cool. I did imagi e the upper end of crossbows would exceed them in power. When did they stop being used in european warfare?

Europe where? The javelin persisted longer in Spain, for example, than most other parts of Europe.

[Martin Greywolf]

First of all, stop using basic physics, this does not work. Kinetic energy is nice, but pointless because effect on target is based on much more than that. For one, you have momentum, then there's how different materials react to impact, i.e. how springy they are and how much energy is converted into deformation. Simple models of how these things interact use four dimensional matrices, so unless you have a dissertation based around this, any physics you pull out are irrelevant.

Tod of Todd's stuff once reportedly sat down with a mechanics professor and they ended up with agreeing that how a crossbow works is so unbelievably complicated a proper model could definitely get you a bachelor's degree thesis at the very least.

People tend to throw around kinetic energy because it's used for bullets, but bullets are 1) a lot more uniform and 2) not arrows or javelins.

Javelins going out of style because of bows catching up in power doesn't make much sense. First off, there's much arguing over wheter the bows actually did get stronger or how much, replicas of some pre-Roman nomadic bows have draw weight of somewhere around 120 lbs. I'd say that bows did get stronger on average, but maybe by not as much and it depended on the area. Also keep in mind you usually don't want to have as strong a bow as possible, you want is as weak as possible while still killing a guy - if few people have full mail armor and/or shields, there's little point in ramping up your bow draw weight.

The real reason is logistical, IMO. Javelins are much easier to make and much harder to carry - you can lug around maybe a dozen or so, while you can pack away a good 30 - 60 bolts or arrows. But, bows and arrows are a lot fiddlier to make, since they need to have wee little fletching and heads, and need a bone insert in their nock, and specifically shaped shafts and so on. Once you have enough fletchers (which takes people away from making food, so you need a decently sized kingdom), it makes a lot more sense to arm all of your ranged troops with bows.

There are some javelins that have a very fancy fletching too, but those are the exception rather than the norm as far as I can tell.

Lastly, let's not forget that bows and javelins did coexist in the same armies, since their roles are slightly different - javelins are short range harrasement, ideally before a melee, bows are for long range. Thing is, while bows can sort of fit into the short range harrasement role, javelins very much can't hit a guy a hundred meters away effectively. Okay, there was a grand total of one guy that made a throw in Olympic javelin that was over 100m mark in 1984, but still.

[Willie the Duck]

People tend to throw around kinetic energy because it's used for bullets, but bullets are 1) a lot more uniform and 2) not arrows or javelins.

Kinetic energy isn't even that good for bullets. That's why it almost always comes along with a bunch of qualifiers (like 'stopping power').

[The Jack]

Ignoring the mount itself and the equipment on the mount, how did cavalry generally differ from infantry in equipment from the early medieval to the reianssance? I know thats a sweeping question, but we don't really need to cover how cavlalry/infantry evolved or that cavalry was generally wealthier.
More leg armour, a preference for one handed weaponry with exceptions, and maybe spurs, a general trend for longer/curved swords. What else?

Side question; in cities big enough for propper policing, how did medieval/renaisance guards differ from soldiers?

[gkathellar]

Also keep in mind you usually don't want to have as strong a bow as possible, you want is as weak as possible while still killing a guy - if few people have full mail armor and/or shields, there's little point in ramping up your bow draw weight.

QFT. This sentence should be required reading for military studies. And martial arts. And life.

It's an important point with broad implications is what I'm saying.

[rrgg]

Kinetic Energy can be useful for estimating armor penetration assuming a similarly shaped projectile. It's the value Alan Williams focuses on in Knight and the Blast Furnace.

Regarding javelins or other throwing weapons the main thing to remember is that the energy efficiency drops off dramatically as the weight decreases, generally much more than with a bow. A strong thrower could theoretically put quite a lot of energy into a javelin throw, but that's with one weighing maybe 2-5 lbs., basically a just thrusting spear, and it's going to be traveling so slowly that he'll have a hard time throwing it more than 20-30 yards or so. With a very light javelin or a dart weighing just a few ounces he might be able to throw it much faster and farther, maybe 100 yards, but it's not going to have much kinetic energy.

Here's a video from Skallagrim that sort of demonstrates the difference: https://youtu.be/eMVgpYenYcg?t=454

Anyways, what I suspect lead to the declining popularity of throwing weapons at the end of the middle ages had a lot to do with the improving effectiveness and availability of body armor. If you were to fight someone who has a spear and shield with a two-handed polearm, even if you can outreach and overpower him, you always have to watch out for him suddenly deciding to chuck his heavy spear point-blank into your chest. If you don't actually have armor thick enough to stop that, then you're probably better off sticking to 1-handed weapons and a large, lightweight shield you can use for deflection.

[Clistenes]

First of all, stop using basic physics, this does not work. Kinetic energy is nice, but pointless because effect on target is based on much more than that. For one, you have momentum, then there's how different materials react to impact, i.e. how springy they are and how much energy is converted into deformation. Simple models of how these things interact use four dimensional matrices, so unless you have a dissertation based around this, any physics you pull out are irrelevant.

Tod of Todd's stuff once reportedly sat down with a mechanics professor and they ended up with agreeing that how a crossbow works is so unbelievably complicated a proper model could definitely get you a bachelor's degree thesis at the very least.

People tend to throw around kinetic energy because it's used for bullets, but bullets are 1) a lot more uniform and 2) not arrows or javelins.

Javelins going out of style because of bows catching up in power doesn't make much sense. First off, there's much arguing over wheter the bows actually did get stronger or how much, replicas of some pre-Roman nomadic bows have draw weight of somewhere around 120 lbs. I'd say that bows did get stronger on average, but maybe by not as much and it depended on the area. Also keep in mind you usually don't want to have as strong a bow as possible, you want is as weak as possible while still killing a guy - if few people have full mail armor and/or shields, there's little point in ramping up your bow draw weight.

The real reason is logistical, IMO. Javelins are much easier to make and much harder to carry - you can lug around maybe a dozen or so, while you can pack away a good 30 - 60 bolts or arrows. But, bows and arrows are a lot fiddlier to make, since they need to have wee little fletching and heads, and need a bone insert in their nock, and specifically shaped shafts and so on. Once you have enough fletchers (which takes people away from making food, so you need a decently sized kingdom), it makes a lot more sense to arm all of your ranged troops with bows.

There are some javelins that have a very fancy fletching too, but those are the exception rather than the norm as far as I can tell.

Lastly, let's not forget that bows and javelins did coexist in the same armies, since their roles are slightly different - javelins are short range harrasement, ideally before a melee, bows are for long range. Thing is, while bows can sort of fit into the short range harrasement role, javelins very much can't hit a guy a hundred meters away effectively. Okay, there was a grand total of one guy that made a throw in Olympic javelin that was over 100m mark in 1984, but still.

While properly explaining how projectile weapons work would be very complicated, explaining what they actually do isn't that complicated. The bow shoots a lighter projectile, but it does it faster than you arm could do. The slower javelin slows down and loses its momentum before the arrow does, so its effective range is shorter. The arrow is less damaging at short range, but its effectiveness remains for longer ranges.

And the reason behind that is simple: The javelin is heavier, but slower. The arrow is lighter, but faster. The bow won't allow you to throw heavier objects, but its allow you to shoot light objects faster...

And then you have heavy arbalests, which are a completely different kind of beast...

Kinetic Energy can be useful for estimating armor penetration assuming a similarly shaped projectile. It's the value Alan Williams focuses on in Knight and the Blast Furnace.

Regarding javelins or other throwing weapons the main thing to remember is that the energy efficiency drops off dramatically as the weight decreases, generally much more than with a bow. A strong thrower could theoretically put quite a lot of energy into a javelin throw, but that's with one weighing maybe 2-5 lbs., basically a just thrusting spear, and it's going to be traveling so slowly that he'll have a hard time throwing it more than 20-30 yards or so. With a very light javelin or a dart weighing just a few ounces he might be able to throw it much faster and farther, maybe 100 yards, but it's not going to have much kinetic energy.

There is a limit to how heavy an object you can throw with you arm. There is also a limit to how fast you can move your arm (and hence, how fast you can throw a projectile). If you increase weight, you reduce the speed, within these limits, and Vice Versa. The javelin tries to find a sweet spot that maximizes the effect.

[Vinyadan]

QFT. This sentence should be required reading for military studies. And martial arts. And life.

It's an important point with broad implications is what I'm saying.

A modern comparison would be with the passage from full-powered to intermediate ammo. You lose power, but you gain better control, and having a gun that can hit beyond 700 meter doesn't make much sense if you are handling an assault rifle in urban or forest environment.

[rrgg]

QFT. This sentence should be required reading for military studies. And martial arts. And life.

It's an important point with broad implications is what I'm saying.

Well, it does have its exceptions. For instance, throughout the early modern period even after armor largely fell out of use, military experts seem to have remained convinced that anything less than a long-barreled musket firing a 1+ ounce lead ball and loaded with enough powder to nearly dislocate the shooter's shoulder with each shot just wouldn't be able to kill people good enough. Even during the Napoleonic Wars you had the observations of Sir Charles Bell and a whole bunch of people really interested in the fact that the english muskets would shatter bones into slightly smaller pieces on average than the french muskets would.

[Kiero]

Lastly, let's not forget that bows and javelins did coexist in the same armies, since their roles are slightly different - javelins are short range harrasement, ideally before a melee, bows are for long range. Thing is, while bows can sort of fit into the short range harrasement role, javelins very much can't hit a guy a hundred meters away effectively. Okay, there was a grand total of one guy that made a throw in Olympic javelin that was over 100m mark in 1984, but still.

Not just in the same army, as part of the panoply of the same unit. The basic loadout of a Skythian-style rider in antiquity was a bow, a pair of javelins and an akinakes (a long knife) or two. A richer lord who could afford armour might add a spear and a mace or saddle axe. If amongst the richest who could afford heavy armour and barding for his horse, he might have a lance and a longer-bladed sword.

Also this discussion appears to be overlooking the fact that there were several variations of commonly-used javelin. In antiquity the akontio was a light javelin, designed for distance flight primary. Too flimsy to be used as a spear, there was also the danger of it breaking after use, because it was very thin. The longche was a heavy hunting javelin, which was robust enough to double up as a spear if need be. The Roman pila and Iberian soliferrum were very heavy javelins with either a long iron shank, or even made entirely out of iron. Not great spears, but they would do a lot more harm than a light javelin. Around the Black Sea some favoured a very heavy, barbed javelin.

All the heavier ones have shorter ranges than the light ones, but obviously the trade-off is in the harm if they hit.