Talk:Atlatl

There's an interesting terminology gaffe here. One of the external links has this to say about 'spear' throwing: "But most enthusiasts object to the term 'spear', since it suggests a rigid shaft. An atlatl actually throws a flexible shaft that's more like a 150 centimetre long arrow and is properly called a dart."

John, can you please say in this good article some more which nation of the Native Americans use this tool or is it too hard task for you since you're from and live on their 'native' land - Wisconsin. Here in Europe we are pretty much far from there - perhaps as you're from mother Russia :-) And look up for my ignorance. If you ask me if I know that Native Americans also live, for instance, in Wisconsin I must say I do not. BTW I am glad to hear that you're learning Russian. I'll probably learn it my whole life, ha, ha. And for sure I'll learn that long English too. Respect. --XJamRastafire 21:02 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hello John. Being a naive first-year college student (who still thinks digital watches are cool) I have all the enthusiasm and useless bits of trivia needed to write Wikipedia articles, but I tend to do a rather flimsy job of it. Now that my brain is smarter for knowing about the atlatl, something I, five minutes ago, did not even know existed, I have decided to use your articles as templates for writing my own. It's ok for me to *be* a 19-year-old -- but I don't have to write like one. Please, if you are ever so inclined, feel extremely free to edit my articles and be advicy (pardon my habit of putting the letter y in places where it should not be in order to make adjectivy descriptions more convenient for me. I am berated for it often, much as I should be). Take care, and please keep writing articles. You, typing at your keyboard, are making me a smarter person! Your Little Apprentice, Liesel Hess 18:12 May 08, 2003

Does anybody know from which australian language the word Woomera is taken from? --Yak 19:05, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

The spear might be a weapon, but the spear-thrower is only an instrument

--Yak 20:18, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Much as the "gun" enhances the effect of a thrown bullet, no? - Nunh-huh 20:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm- yes --Yak 20:24, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Armor piercing

"History shows that the spanish feared the Aztec atlatl above all other weapons and many an unfortunate spaniard was surprised to find the power of weapon could easily penatrate spanish metal armor..." There's something very wrong with that sentence. Period Spanish armor was made to protect from firearm bullets, and yet a projectile tipped with obsidian thrown at it could "easily penetrate"? Not possible. At most it would skip off with little concussive damage. This article needs serious revision. --SunWuKong 14:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firearm bullets at that time were large-caliber, low-velocity, and only as hard as printer's lead. Armor-piercing ammunition really wasn't an option for armies of the time. In armor design, the important qualities of a projectile are its hardness and the amount of momentum behind a given cross-section. A four-foot wooden shaft is actually fairly heavy, and silica glass is harder than even the best steel. An interesting discussion on the topic of Conquistador armor can be found here (http://forums.swordforum.com/printthread.php?s=547bb0ef4e0f82e529704363def9282c&threadid=43460); I've reproduced an excerpt below.--Joel 17:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Posted by Benjamin H. Abbott on 11-30-2004 08:41 PM:

The cotton vs. steel thing going on in the New World is odd. Heath claims that "Spanish chronicles" assert that Indian obsidian bladed spears could pierce metal corselets but didn't do as well against quilted armor. Heath also quotes Gomara in saying the Aztec obsidan bladed swords could "pierce or nick iron" and Diaz in claiming no armour was of any good against atlatl darts.

And of course Garcilaso de la Vega is quoted as saying that quilted armor turned arrows better than mail and "inferior plate." In all it makes me wonder about the quality of the armor the Spanish were using in America.

On the other hand, Cortes talks about the cavalry being very resistent to Indian weapons because it was well armored ("bien armado").

It's also strange how the Spanish never seem to have any trouble punching through Indian cotton armor (presumably similar to what many of the Spanish themselves were wearing), or at least never mention it.

Posted by Bret B. Dusic on 11-30-2004 09:34 PM:

I wonder if the reason that the Obsidian tips were less effective against the cotton armor was because they didnt 'react' to the cotton armor the way they would with steel.

I am more than willing to bet that when an obsidian tip hit a steel protection point that it shattered, sending shards of glass into any exposed area or even resulting in pits of glass getting caught under the armor and thus resulting in cuts or simmilar wounds.

Discussion references: Armies of the Sixteenth Century 2: The armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, other native peoples of the Americas, and the Conquistadores 1450-1608 by Ian Heath. Foundry Books, 1999. Chock full of useful info and nice little line drawings.

Arms and Armor in Colonial America 1526-1783 by Harold L. Peterson. Originally published in 1956, this is the Dover reprint from 2000. Slightly dated, but still holds up really well. Plenty of black-and-white photos of arms and armor, from the time of the Conquistadores to the American Revolution. Interesting excerpts from period accounts are included, regarding weapons and armor. A great book (and Oakeshott was a fan of Peterson, FWIW).

The Conquistadores by Terence Wise. Osprey Man-At-Arms series, 1980 (1988 reprint). The original Osprey Conquistadore book, and still the best. Color plates by Angus McBride.

The Conquistador 1492-1550 by John Pohl. Osprey Warrior Series, 2001. IMO this book is inferior to Wise's; Pohl has an annoying tendency to play the part of the historical revisionist (as with his negative comments concerning Columbus), and he sometimes just gets things plain wrong, as when he describes landsknechts as "Swiss pikemen" (and frankly, a research archeologist from UCLA should know better). Still a useful book, but problematic. Decent color plates by Adam Hook.

References and book commentary by David Black Mastro.