Login

Matthew Amt · 03-18-2004, 03:57 PM

Avete! 
Yeah, I knew it would happen. Calculating physics to the nth degree and comparing to bullets and anything else is all well and good, and may prove that a particular projectile has more power than someone else had calculated. But if an accurately reconstructed arrow is shot from an accurately reconstructed bow and repeatedly fails to pierce an accurately reconstructed piece of armor, the physics caluculations are irrelevant, yes? 
 
Germanicus, you seem to be assuming that a claim that arrows can not pierce armor is a claim that an armored man cannot be killed by arrows. We have not said this. The point has been made repeatedly that even armored Romans had a LOT of bare flesh exposed and could certainly be wounded or killed by arrows (or anything else) even if their armor is never penetrated. 
 
Bows and slings were common and very effective weapons on ancient battlefields because comparatively few warriors or soldiers had armor! Even in the Roman army, not all troops were armored (that's a different debate, though!), particularly back in the Republic. So you could wound and kill a LOT of troops without doing serious harm to the more heavily armored ones. 
 
Even at Carrhae, MOST of the Romans SURVIVED. They were worn down by days of this, and captured en masse. You do NOT have to kill a large percentage of an army to defeat it. 
 
The exact same principles apply in the Middle Ages, but again this is not the best place to debate it. If you want to argue, go to the Sword Forum International and check out the Antique Armor discussion board: 
 
forums.swordforum.com/for...forumid=48 
 
It has a number of LONG heated debates, anything you might want to bring up has been hashed over repeatedly. The thread entitled "Cutting Armor?" is one in particular, and has references to the Royal Armouries test: 
 
forums.swordforum.com/sho...adid=27946 
 
If you need a summary, though, the French knights at Crecy and other battles certainly took a beating, but there is very little evidence that many or any of them were hit by arrows that PENETRATED the metal of their armor. They were hit in the faces or feet or backs of legs, or killed in hand-to-hand combat with English knights--or by archers who had, for some reason, put down their bows to attack them with axes and mauls! No point in doing that if your arrows are gonna sail right through that silly armor, right? 
 
I would never say that it is impossible for an arrow to go through armor. I'm just saying that it was darn rare. 
 
Plutarch does not necessarily "tell a different tale" about Carrhae. Even if he is correct that some arrows were going through the mail (which I still think was uncommon at best), it could in fact be true that only one arrow in a hundred or more was hitting a man. We know the Parthians spent several days shooting at the Romans, and had camels carrying loads of arrows for the archers. If more of them had hit their targets, the battle would have been over much more quickly, with all the Romans dead. 
 
"Effective" archery does NOT mean that every arrow, or even lot of them, have to kill or wound their targets! It simply causes to the enemy to do something other than what they had planned. 
 
There are still far too many variables here. I don't know the physics of bows at all, so is it possible that the compound, laminated bow had a lot of penetrative power at close range, but that this fell off rapidly at longer ranges? I know the thing was powerful, and (for comparison) that crossbows typically have flatter trajectories than longbows. Also, be careful of things that slant your data--a shield is only ONE centimeter thick, not two! 
 
Anyway, carry on, guys. If you come up with something solid, let me know! 
 
Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

03-18-2004, 04:31 PM

Well, the bodkin point seems to have been an armour piercing arrow point, so I suspect that in some cases, arrow did penetrate plate armour. 
Otherwise, there wouldn't be bodkin points... 
On the other hand I also remember an anecdote about crusaders coming back from a charge against the Saracens with so many arrows sticking out of their mail coats that they looked like porcupines. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/18/04 5:38 pm

Matthew Amt · 03-18-2004, 05:13 PM

Well, all the bodkin points that have been analysed are simple wrought iron, and bend when they hit a plate. I'll certainly admit that they LOOK like they are intended to punch through something! Same shape as a pilum point, eh? Maybe they're just a handier shape for use in battle, because they don't tangle in your belt or quiver when you want to be able to pull them out quickly. Roman arrowheads are often a very similar shape, but the Romans were usually shooting at people who didn't have armor. Like I say, it's a complex problem. 
 
The version of that Crusader story that I read was that it was a crossbowman on foot. It doesn't even say that he was wearing mail, more likely was just a thickly padded gambeson. He was walking along, cocking his crossbow, and would turn around and pop a Turk out of the saddle, then turn and keep walking. There were 10 or 12 arrows sticking out of his gambeson, but he wasn't hurt. Even if it WAS mail, and the points had penetrated far enough to stick, they clearly had been stopped and had not injured him. So it worked! 
 
Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

03-18-2004, 10:48 PM

A brief comment on missile weapon performance at Agincourt. Keegan in his Face of Battle does an excellent interpretation on this pivotal battle. He maintains that the initial English arrow shower was what prompted the 1st wave of mounted French men-at-arms to charge. With the archers either behind or surrounded by stakes, they held firm and the charge was repelled. The second division began attacking on foot. Keegan also believes that armour by this stage was effectively proof against missile fire barring an unlucky hit. However the constant rain of missiles would have kept the French hunkered down, crouching as if walking into a strong wind (similar to how WW1 infantry marched into mg fire). This takes away their battlefield visibility and puts all the initiative to the English. He also theorizes that the French would have gravitated to the English men-at-arms instead of the archer blocks, they'd want the nobles for ransom and would feel insulted(?) having to fight inferiors. The combined effects were the French were channeled into three streams that marched head on the the three battles of knights. At point blank range, the arrows may have begun to penetrate the armour but the majority would have advanced unscathed. The huge amount of French would be tightly packed and unable to fight properly and (shades of Cannae?) been easy meat for the English. When they finally broke, they'd be chased down by the lighter archers, knocked to the mud and finished off with axes, mallets, breadknives, etc... 
I think missile fire has been extremely over-hyped (I blame hollywood!) mostly due to the cult of the longbow. Reading through battles, while missile fire may have devestated an army, it still took the sword/spear (or imminent threat thereof) to cause a rout. At Carrhae the army survived several days(?) of continuous bombardment before surrendering after their leadership was decapitated. With the constant shower of arrows, even if only one in one hundred arrows hit something (an oustretched arm, unshielded leg, etc...) there would've been inumerable casualties, something that would have caused heavy demoralization. 
Just my two denarii, 
Leon

03-18-2004, 10:49 PM

Hi all 
Very interesting subject, I would like to point out something that has been missed so far, the more imporatnt factor in arrow efectiveness is the archer. Bows were not made in an industrial era with a uniform standard, medieval longbows found range from 60 to 150lbs, in any army there would be strong, skillful archers capable of delivering a very strong shot with a powerful bow, and many others not so strong nor skillful. Besides, shooting a warbow, especially on horseback, is a very demanding exercise, archers would get tired and shoot weaker shots. For instance, In the XVI century Humphrey Barwyck stated that only 3 out of 10 archers in an army would be capable of shooting strong shots, and that after 6 shots they would be too tired and needing some rest.

03-18-2004, 11:21 PM

interesting points. 
 
I'm still standing behind [my sheild?] that after a few volleys of mass rains of arrows, some of them are going to find the gaps, and if the armor is infact bouncing arrows off in some direction, in tight formations those stray arrows are going to end up somewhere ouchy. 
 
Germanicus - I was not trying to say that the archers are specifically aiming towards the face [of individual Romans], I'm just saying it's an unprotected area and a fairly easy shot, as with the factor mentioned above. - Easy meaning it's more likely with each shot fired - not entirely a simple shot any doofus with a bow is going to be able to do - I also can't imagine anyone with an arrow through thier shield arm is going to be holding that shield for very long, pinned to that shield with said arrow or not. 
 
and just to add to my thoughts on forces and impact injuries, perhaps it's not arrows that would nessesarilly be knocking you back, but what about catapult, sling, and large ballista shot - with large stone balls - that will surely dent your armor and dent you up, as well as knock you around after a few hits 
 
and...let's not forget fatigue factor - I'm sure anyone who gets pelted by arrows, rocks, slingshot and ballista shot constantly is going to get really bruised and really sick of the idea really quickly - leading to a loss of morale, and people just running away to get the heck outta dodge. And I bet with no matter how much padding you're wearing, a really good clonker on the head or in the chest is going to knock some sense out of [into?!] you. 
 
I also totally agree with the fear factor - having rains of arrows coming down on you constantly must have been just terrifying, I certainly would not want to recieve that sort of hell not for Bill Gate's sallary, esspecially over and over again. 
It's the same effect for cannons and volley-guns, it's really meant to make the enemy regiment think twice about thier intent and path, as well as totally slow them up or confuse them or set them up for some other attack, but this is all for another topic entirely. 
 
Matt's right, too many factors involved. Not enough willing volunteers to get the crud beaten out of them to prove us all wrong or right. Just be darn glad you're not actually doing this for your life! 
-ANDY

03-19-2004, 08:21 AM

OK boys, i'm an ancher but not a "true believer": if they did an appropriate experimentation and found arrows did'nt pierce the armour in means the arrows coud'nt pierce the armour. 
OK. 
But what happens? If a longbow or a parthian bow could not pierce an armour could a sword (or a gladius) do it? 
I think not: some really interesting medieval web-pages say neither a sword could pierce an armour. 
So we have to think every killing blow was a blow to che legs and arms? The neck is not not so easy to hit, when you wear a body armour and an helmet with paragnatides. And a long shield. 
 
This sounds strange to me: in Cannae 49.000 romans were killed, in Carrhae 20.000. All killed from limbshots? Okay, a little part of the casualities may be from auxiliaries without lorica, but the big majority of the roman soldiers were armoured! 
 
What do you think about it? 
 
Germanicus

03-19-2004, 02:30 PM

I think it's completely feasible to die from limb damage. I remember speaking with Matt Amt about a gladius piercing a segmentata. He scolded my by saying you'd never thrust for armoured areas. The soft spots would be the target. I also saw this repeated on one of those history channel shows where they take regular joe's and make them legionarys for a week. One of the segments was gladius training, and the instructor told them to go for the face, or unprotected limbs. 
 
An arrow piercing your flesh, partly stopped by armour may not penetrate past the first inch or so. Even a light slash by a sword on skin, can create a gash for the entire length of your arm or leg! Even a thrust will do mroe damgae, the point of a gladius is bigger than an arrow head, so sheer size will create a larger wound. Now imagine you're breathing hard, your blood is pumping like crazy, and you're body is having a hard time clotting the wound because your blood pressure is through he roof! Also consider the number of major blood vessals that run through your legs and arms. Not to mention your neck. 
 
Now factor in getting more than one slash or stab. You slump down on the battle field because you're exhausted from blood loss and fatigue. Sure, I can envision that easily. 
 
Picture a major stab or slash wound to one of the meaty parts of your body....thigh, or shoulder, forearm. Having all those muscles torn and cut open would be devastating wound. I'm no doctor, but i'm pretty sure unless you had it stitched up, and was able to rest immediately, it would be fatal. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

03-19-2004, 03:14 PM

You are right. Sure you have to go to the neck. It is a first class target. And (do you remember the timetable of death by rex applegate?) you can surely die for a limb stab. 
 
In the army i was trained exactly in that fashion. 
 
But, in the heat of the battle, maybe you have no choice to go to the neck or arms. One arm is surely behind the shield, neck in protected by the chin and the upper part of the armour: in take a good stab to get it. Maybe the easier stab you can take is a belly stab upwards after grabbing (and moving) the enemy's shield. Or a side stab just like a hook punch. 
 
Maybe. Keegan, talking about greek warriors (the great history of war) says the most common cause of death was a belly stab inferted by a spear. They wore bronze armours. 
 
I remember, in the high school, i had translated greek stories talking about belly (and genitals) stabs. 
 
In the middle age, with still heavier armours, the often used maces and axe to destroy armours: in roman times i have no notices of such weapons. Maybe they think that were not necessary. 
 
If we had a supply of armours and weapons we could do a lot of interestins tests! 
 
Germanicus

03-19-2004, 03:43 PM

Very interesting discussion so far, lots of good points brought up. However, if we're talking just about the lorica segmentata, then we can't use the Battle of Carrhae as an example of Parthian bowmen decimating the legions, the lorica segmentata only was in use later in the reign of Tiberius (AD 14 to 37), Carrhae was in 53 BC. The legions would have been armoured with mail at that point, maybe augmented by pteruges at points. Regardless, the result would have been the same, it doesn't matter what the Romans were wearing, either mail or plate, the hail of Parthian arrows would have found gaps. On top of being pinned by horse-archers, it must have been pretty demoralising for the legionaries to have to just stand there and not be able to fight back!

03-19-2004, 04:13 PM

You are right, but there are lots of battles with thousands of deaths with lorica segmentata too. Back in Alessandro or Maratona times, there was always a lot of heavily armoured oplites on the ground... 
 
Germanicus

03-19-2004, 05:04 PM

Germanicus, 
 
If we compare greek armour defense values against spear, sword, and arrow penetration, we'll need some muscled cuirasses and linothoraxes added to our test pieces! It may be that the bronze material behaves differently when displacing the energy of an impact. Perhaps bronze is more or less flexible than steel/iron, or the overlapping plates of a segmentata give better energy displacement? Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

03-19-2004, 05:15 PM

The body armour of a hoplites were very heavier than the lorica. Don't remember the weight, but i think it was much more. 
 
Because of the phalanx-style of fighting thet have. 
 
Bronze is less resistant than iron, but they use it because it was easier to melt in one-piece armours. The same was with the helmets. Now i'm gonna take a look at grecian forum! 
 
Germanicus

03-19-2004, 05:45 PM

The battle of Wisby in Scandinavia which had a lot of the victims burried with their armour still on .. had to get em in teh ground quick for health reasois 
 
I read an article which showed that once you had been hit with a sword or axe you were very likely to recieve 4 or 4 more blows to finish you off. One poor bu#@#R lost both his legs below the knee from one strike... no doubt trying to fend of a blow whilst on his back 
 
If you can get hold of a book on this it will give agood insight into what wounds were suffered ..i'e. left shin & thigh with light bone damage & then a smashed skull or a face strike. 
 
No killer blow to start with but once wounded you were cut to bits. 
 
I dont recallfrom what I have read if arrow penetration of armour was mentioned. Crosbow bolts through the face were though. 
 
Conal

03-19-2004, 06:07 PM

Comment on Germanicus' question about Cannae, during the 2nd Punic war, most legionaires were not armoured aside from a chest (pectoral) plate that protected a half-foot (not sure of exact size) of the chest. Only the wealthy could afford a mail shirt. It would be very easy to kill/injure those compared to a 1st C in Segmentata. Another thing to remember is that many died afterwards of disease/infections/etc... 
Another good snippet on the damage a sword will do was in James Burke's Connections series where he talked about Hastings and showed what a sword does to a hunk of cow. Very nasty. And even if you're armoured, there will still be a concussion, in terms of the battle that may be as incapacitating as a major wound or death.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Technological studies on Bronze Age metal body armour	Steven James	0	904	12-28-2016, 12:21 PM Last Post: Steven James
	Men of Bronze: Experimental approaches to the first body armour in the Aegean and Eur	Steven James	0	1,056	09-25-2016, 05:59 AM Last Post: Steven James
	Arrows Against Linen and Leather Armour	Steven James	1	1,852	09-21-2016, 07:41 AM Last Post: MonsGraupius