07-17-2009, 04:59 PM
Ah, thanks for that information, John! Had no idea there was stuff like that surviving. Even if it's not exactly a complete Parthian bow from 50 BC, it gives us a lot more to work with. But yeah, like you said, many variables...
No no! We can learn a lot. For instance, if we make a lorica of about the same general thickness as the real ones, even approximately, and pretty much capture the shape and function of the plates and fittings, we can put to rest any arguments that such armor was "too heavy to bear". And if we do some general whacking on it with whatever sharp things are close to hand, we can also get a pretty good idea that armor that thin is not "useless" (as all too many books have stated!). Doesn't have to be precise, especially if we know that our armor is probably not quite as good as the real stuff, and that our test makes it easy for a good weapon to get a clean hit. Our inaccuracies just mean the test weapon is MORE likely to go through than a real one against real armor. So we've learned, but we know there is a limit to our data.
Well, as I understand it, a compound bow is an extremely complex thing, with enormous potential for variation in shape, thickness, materials, glues, seasoning, finishing, etc. All of those will affect its strength, to some degree or another. I will certainly grant that IF there is enough data to determine a general range of power, reflecting what ancient authors have told us of such a weapon's power, etc., then I expect we can toss out most of the concern over those variables and just go with a bow with a draw weight in that ballpark. Of course, all that goes away once someone comes up with a new authority who declares that no Parthian bow was ever stronger than 50 pounds, or that they were all at least 100 pounds! But then we can start over with new ballpark figures. No biggy. I always love as much precision as possible, to get scientific results, but that isn't always necessary.
I have heard that at least a couple were made with horsehair ropes, so I suspect those would give a better idea of historical performance. Assuming that the rest of the machine, and the missiles, were within what we know of the historical range of size and materials!
Well, it depends on what you're trying to prove. I've seen TV shows with arrows shot against repro Greek armor, and I would be very leery of their conclusions. But Dan Howard, for instance, has never tried to use his Dendra repro to prove things like that. Instead, he can compare the thickness of the metal it is made of to the original, and point out that his repro is not difficult to wear or move in, in spite of it being heavier than it should be (and he being an office jockey rather than a warrior trained from birth!). So that completely refutes modern "experts" who claim that such an armor wasn't really functional because of its weight or mobility. My own bronze armor will easily shrug off all sorts of blows from weapons that would otherwise have been fatal, and I *know* the metal is not nearly as good as the work-hardened high-tin bronze used in ancient times. So even though I don't tend to let some howling barbarian superhero take a free swing at me, I can be pretty sure that ancient bronze armor was indeed capable of keeping its owner alive in an ancient battle. Doesn't mean it's invincible!
I'm not sure how many of the differences between Roman mail and modern reproductions are significant. But that's the point: I'm not sure! There could be significant factors that we haven't even thought of. There are factors that we don't have data for, such as the use or absence of padding under the mail--how thick, what it's made out of, etc. So it's VERY hard, if not impossible, to get a scientifically rigorous test of Roman mail, even besides the fact that there is a heck of a lot of complex physics involved. So if you shoot arrows at modern mail, be very careful about what conclusions you draw from the results.
Sure, IF we have established that 60 pounds is a reasonable draw weight for a Parthian bow, no problem, I really have no objection to the use of a modern plastic bow or an air cannon or whatever. BUT we have NOT established that 60 pounds of force will penetrate a Roman mailshirt. I don't think it will, at least at the ranges the Parthians were most likely shooting from (outside pilum range, shall we say?).
The ancient sources seem to agree pretty well that the horsearchers shredded the legionaries eventually, and they do imply that the archery made a deep impression on the Romans. But I don't think we can be certain that they were trying to tell us that Parthian arrows went *through* Roman mail with any sort of regularity. And I'm not sure that any tests we can currently do will really prove otherwise.
Valete,
Matthew
Quote:I guess the same can be said for all experimental archaology then? A total waste of time?
No no! We can learn a lot. For instance, if we make a lorica of about the same general thickness as the real ones, even approximately, and pretty much capture the shape and function of the plates and fittings, we can put to rest any arguments that such armor was "too heavy to bear". And if we do some general whacking on it with whatever sharp things are close to hand, we can also get a pretty good idea that armor that thin is not "useless" (as all too many books have stated!). Doesn't have to be precise, especially if we know that our armor is probably not quite as good as the real stuff, and that our test makes it easy for a good weapon to get a clean hit. Our inaccuracies just mean the test weapon is MORE likely to go through than a real one against real armor. So we've learned, but we know there is a limit to our data.
Quote:I would have thought a compound bow using traditional materials was as close as any other tests put up on here? Sorry to sound petty here, but, every single piece of reconstructed equipment ever tested here was done with modern craftsman making them, therefore, the prevailing logic is it is all useless info.
Well, as I understand it, a compound bow is an extremely complex thing, with enormous potential for variation in shape, thickness, materials, glues, seasoning, finishing, etc. All of those will affect its strength, to some degree or another. I will certainly grant that IF there is enough data to determine a general range of power, reflecting what ancient authors have told us of such a weapon's power, etc., then I expect we can toss out most of the concern over those variables and just go with a bow with a draw weight in that ballpark. Of course, all that goes away once someone comes up with a new authority who declares that no Parthian bow was ever stronger than 50 pounds, or that they were all at least 100 pounds! But then we can start over with new ballpark figures. No biggy. I always love as much precision as possible, to get scientific results, but that isn't always necessary.
Quote:Which of any ballistas ever produced by any modern actually use horsehair or tendon ropes for springs?
I have heard that at least a couple were made with horsehair ropes, so I suspect those would give a better idea of historical performance. Assuming that the rest of the machine, and the missiles, were within what we know of the historical range of size and materials!
Quote:The same can be said for reconstructions of ancient greek armour, say the dendra panapoly? No modern reconstructions are actually made using ancient methods, and metals, so what is the point?
Well, it depends on what you're trying to prove. I've seen TV shows with arrows shot against repro Greek armor, and I would be very leery of their conclusions. But Dan Howard, for instance, has never tried to use his Dendra repro to prove things like that. Instead, he can compare the thickness of the metal it is made of to the original, and point out that his repro is not difficult to wear or move in, in spite of it being heavier than it should be (and he being an office jockey rather than a warrior trained from birth!). So that completely refutes modern "experts" who claim that such an armor wasn't really functional because of its weight or mobility. My own bronze armor will easily shrug off all sorts of blows from weapons that would otherwise have been fatal, and I *know* the metal is not nearly as good as the work-hardened high-tin bronze used in ancient times. So even though I don't tend to let some howling barbarian superhero take a free swing at me, I can be pretty sure that ancient bronze armor was indeed capable of keeping its owner alive in an ancient battle. Doesn't mean it's invincible!
I'm not sure how many of the differences between Roman mail and modern reproductions are significant. But that's the point: I'm not sure! There could be significant factors that we haven't even thought of. There are factors that we don't have data for, such as the use or absence of padding under the mail--how thick, what it's made out of, etc. So it's VERY hard, if not impossible, to get a scientifically rigorous test of Roman mail, even besides the fact that there is a heck of a lot of complex physics involved. So if you shoot arrows at modern mail, be very careful about what conclusions you draw from the results.
Quote:60lbs is 60lbs of force, whatever generates it.
Sure, IF we have established that 60 pounds is a reasonable draw weight for a Parthian bow, no problem, I really have no objection to the use of a modern plastic bow or an air cannon or whatever. BUT we have NOT established that 60 pounds of force will penetrate a Roman mailshirt. I don't think it will, at least at the ranges the Parthians were most likely shooting from (outside pilum range, shall we say?).
The ancient sources seem to agree pretty well that the horsearchers shredded the legionaries eventually, and they do imply that the archery made a deep impression on the Romans. But I don't think we can be certain that they were trying to tell us that Parthian arrows went *through* Roman mail with any sort of regularity. And I'm not sure that any tests we can currently do will really prove otherwise.
Valete,
Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
