Polybius, horse archers arrows, roman armour, oh my.

[marka]

The argument is based primarily on David Starley's essay in De Re Metallica on arrowhead evolution and medieval armor. Starley himself admits that his conclusions are based on only a very small number of analyzed examples (four type 16 broadheads, and two bodkin heads). However, at no point does Starley claim that bodkin heads were not intended to pierce mail armor. Quite the opposite, he quotes Oliver Jessops' recent medieval arrowhead typology and agrees that bodkin heads were clearly meant to defeat mail. This is in agreement with Halpin's study of military archery in medieval Ireland (where excavated examples are unusually well dated), which similarly concludes that thinner bodkin heads were used to defeat mail, but declined in use when plate began to replace mail. Starley's claim that type 16 broadheads were developed to defeat plate is much more problematic (Halpin believes the lighter needle bodkins were replaced with heavier bodkins as possible armor piercers), but not really relevant to this topic in any case.

Gregg

halpins theory makes more sense