+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Armor versus archery (/showthread.php?tid=20113)
Pages:
1
2
Armor versus archery - Darth_Roach - 01-16-2012
Many of Rome's enemies made great use of bows, namely the Sarmatians, Huns, Parthians and Persians. I wonder how effective was it against the heavily armored Roman soldiers? Any specific types of archery tactics being more effective than others, perhaps? For example the arrow guides the Persians employed to shoot short, heavy bolts from their bows, or nomadic horse archers getting in close before loosing the shot. To sum up - how did archery fare against armor overall?
Re: Armor versus archery - Dan Howard - 01-16-2012
Under battlefield conditions one could generally conclude that any kind of metal armour was was very effective against arrows. The problem is tht armour doesn't cover the entire body. There are pleny of unprotected spots vulnerable to an arrow. Keep in mind that the most common threat on any battlefield was from spears and arrows. If armour did not protect against these then it would have been augmented till it did or it would have been discarded.
The short arrows shot with an arrow guide were very light, not heavy. They flew with a higher speed and thus a lower trajectory and were more accurate but completely useless against any kind of armour.
Re: Armor versus archery - Darth_Roach - 01-16-2012
Thanks for the answer!
However, I recall Arabs stating that the short bolts were dangerous to even armored troops. When you think about it, making short arrows lighter makes little sense. That way they are worse at retaining velocity, and any advantage in range there might have been is wasted.
Re: Armor versus archery - Dan Howard - 01-16-2012
Joinville was hit by five of those darts wearing nothing but his underarmour aketon and only received minor injuries.
Re: Armor versus archery - Darth_Roach - 01-16-2012
Hmm... Duncan Head claims that Arab sources describe such arrows being deadly to even armored troops. I'll try looking into primary sources.
Re: Armor versus archery - Medicus matt - 01-16-2012
Quote:Joinville was hit by five of those darts wearing nothing but his underarmour aketon and only received minor injuries.
Do you mean his description of the battle at Mansoora? If I recall correctly (don't have a copy to hand) Joinville writes that he found a Saracen 'oakum' tunic which he held in front of him as a shield. That worked well enough that he was only injured five times by 'fire-darts'.
Re: Armor versus archery - M. Demetrius - 01-16-2012
Romans at Carrhae would likely agree that arrows were effective, though as stated already, the armor resisted penetration. If you can put enough arrows in the air for long enough, you're bound to hit something unarmored sooner or later. Imagine how much these soldiers hated those supply camels laden with baskets of arrows!
[sidetrack: Does anyone have a good estimate of how many arrows the Parthians brought with them in that battle?]
Re: Armor versus archery - daryush - 01-16-2012
Quote:Thanks for the answer!
However, I recall Arabs stating that the short bolts were dangerous to even armored troops. When you think about it, making short arrows lighter makes little sense. That way they are worse at retaining velocity, and any advantage in range there might have been is wasted.
A short, light arrow leaves the bow faster, vibrates at a much higher frequency, and so gets higher up into the air and falls from a much higher height, and the velocity at the target is going to be greater, if shot at the same angle. So even if they retain less of their velocity than a heavy arrow, they still have more velocity anyway.
Tests done by the Tirendaz archery group (who use very light Ottoman arrows) comparing penetration of heavy longbow arrows with light Ottoman arrows have shown that the light arrows are not inferior to heavy arrows, provided that their barrelled profile doesn't break on impact. This problem wouldn't exist for parallel arrows - parallel short arrows of the same diameter as the long arrows would be stronger.
In my experience shooting at a foam boss with a) wooden, heavy arrows with big, long, finely tapering tips (50 - 60 grams), and b) bamboo arrows with very small, bullet tips (30 - 35 grams), the light arrows leave the bow faster and achieve MUCH higher penetration, all other variables (range, bow, release, etc) being the same. I haven't done any shooting with a Navak/Tong-ah/Majrah/Solenarion or Siper in case I shoot my hand or bow, however.
Of course, there are lots of different variables. Arrow wood, tip shape, and the angle at which the arrow hits your enemy are probably just as important.
Having said that, the cataphract evolved among the Central Asian nomads, most likely to be used as an adjunct to friendly horse archers / arrow-proofing against enemy horse archers.
Medicus Matt - holding a piece of fabric out in front of you is actually a very good defense against arrows. The fabric billows about, and traps or deflects arrows, rather than being punctured by them. There is a similar device worn on the backs of Japanese Samurai cavalry made of silk which was used to stop arrows.
Re: Armor versus archery - Alexandr K - 01-16-2012
Quote:[sidetrack: Does anyone have a good estimate of how many arrows the Parthians brought with them in that battle?]It is impossible to estimate this with any certainty. I speculated about it here - in the final part of the article (sorry for the bad English, I haven't found anyone to proofread it and correct at least the worst errors). But it is only a guess. The whole last part of the article tries to address the issue of the penetrative power of Parthian arrows at Carrhae.
Greetings
Alexandr
Re: Armor versus archery - bachmat66 - 01-17-2012
salve,
I would like to point that based on the historical sources - Plutarch, the horse archers of spahbod Rustam Suren army were not Parthian per se but most likely Saka, 'feudal' vassals and retainers of the Suren clan, perhaps from Sakastan http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/indo-scythian-dynasty-1 but also traditionally drawn from northern Parthian 'confederacy' http://www.iranian.com/GuiveMirfendereski/2005/May/Saka/index.html and mercenaries from beyond Caucasus eg the Alanoi http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/alans-an-ancient-iranian-tribe-of-the-northern-scythian-saka-sarmatian-massagete-group-known-to-classical-writers-from . http://dariocaballeros.blogspot.com/2011/09/parthian-concept-sketch-mypaint.html
Perhaps this accounts for the bows being heavier and with more penetrating power than the traditional horse archery based on the short 'Skithian' bow
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/yanghai.htm
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf
Re: Armor versus archery - Gaius Julius Caesar - 01-17-2012
Just a thought on those lighter, high velocity arrows .
Perhaps they were more deadly to even armoured troops
Because they could be aimed more accurately at weak-points
In a solders covering.
Harder to guard agains something coming in faster than
You are used to!
Re: Armor versus archery - Cerco 21 - 01-17-2012
In the end it all revolves around Energy. There are several "studies" and papers published regarding arrows vs armor, however they are usually biased, either they don't take in to account underpadding,armor angles, overlapping etc etc etc, or they "forget" that arrows were used until the mass proliferation of gunpowder that's more than 2000 years.
So even if armor is protection enough versus single arrows, a flight might find a weak spot, or a warrior with a few loose plates...
Arrow have limited efectiveness, but everything counts in large amounts.
Re: Armor versus archery - joeandmich - 01-17-2012
How did the Parthian archers differ from the Mongol archers that devastated Asia and eastern Europe? The Mongols had to deal with more modern plate and chain mail armor.
Thanks,
Jor
Re: Armor versus archery - daryush - 01-17-2012
Quote:How did the Parthian archers differ from the Mongol archers that devastated Asia and eastern Europe? The Mongols had to deal with more modern plate and chain mail armor.
Thanks,
Jor
I'm not sure whether the Parthians at Carrhae were using the more modern "Hunnish" bow or the old "Scythian" bow. The last century BC through to the first two or so centuries AD may represent the transition era when Scythian bows were gradually replaced by Hunnish bows.
The most common type of bow in use by the conquest-era Mongols were symmetrical Hunnish bows (with curved and laminated siyahs). Some warriors must have used the slightly newer Turkic bows (with V-spliced siyahs) that started to appear in the 10th or 11th Century. The V-spliced construction is has much simpler joinery. A laminated siyah allows for a greater siyah angle and more energy storage.
During the late 1200s, features such as semi-flexible kasans, short recurved tips, and string bridges started to appear (features of Ottoman Turkish, Crimean-Tatar, Ming, and Korean bows). All of these bows have V-spliced rather than laminated siyahs.
I suppose the major difference would be the use of stirrups.
Re: Armor versus archery - Sean Manning - 01-19-2012
Some people talk a lot about bow technologies (and occasionally about arrow types and draw techniques), but its worth remembering that a given archery technology can produce a wide variety of bows. You can make a yew longbow anywhere from 40 lbs draw to 200 lbs draw, and lose a wide variety of arrows from any particular bow; figuring where in that range an average bow fit requires types of evidence which are very rare in the ancient world.
We know a lot right now about Old World military bows and arrows from 1400 to 1700. Its best to be cautious about earlier periods, because most of the necessary work hasn't been done.