Lorica Hamata being pierced by arrows

[Alanus]

They could shoot on the Roman formation under these great conditions for a very long time (probably up to 7 hours). The Parthians showered the legionaries with a very high number of arrows. I have calculated that some 270 000 arrows is the minimum number of arrows fired on the Romans during the main battle (ie. not counting the retreat during next days)...

Actually, one of the archers dropped an arrow and stepped on it by mistake. So, only 269,999 arrows pelted Crassus' men. They were very laid-back archers, in no hurry, and they shot in typical Hollywood "slow motion."

...it seems to me pretty obvious, that the reports of Cassius Dio and Plutarch are exaggerated and the Roman shields and armour did a good job.

Really? When do we decide that a particular historian was exaggerating? When it suits our scenario, and contradicts the opposing view? I don't know about Cassius Dio, but Plutarch was a truthful historian who is known for interviewing key eye-witnesses.

Surely most of the missiles were blocked by the large shields. However, given the long time the Romans had to spend under the terrific barrage of Parthian arrows coming form more angles, many arrows must have reached past the shields and these must have been blocked by chain-mail... So - yes, the Parthian arrows could sometimes pierce Roman shields or chain-mail armours (as Plutarch and Cassius Dio claim)

Hold it! Wait a minute! You just about-faced from your verbiage in Paragraph 2-- the one about both Cassius Dio and Plutarch telling tall tales. However, I do agree with the last sentence. Thanks for posting an informative and well-thought-out postulation. mile:

[Alexandr K]

Hi Alan,

Well, as you may realise from all my previous posts, I've never thought and told that it was impossible for Parthian arrows to pierce Roman shields and armour. My problem is only that from the accounts of Plutarch and Dio and also from the articles/books of many modern historians and from many posts of military enthusiasts on the internet it seems, that it was quite normal that Parthian arrows regularly or even often penetrated them and killed/wounded the men behind them and that this was one of the main reason, why the Romans lost. This is what I do not believe and what I tried to argue is not true, and this is why I wrote that Plutarch's and Dios reports are exaggerated in this respect. That's all. So, if you ask me whether a Parthian arrow could have pierced Roman chain-mail and incapacitate the wearer, I say yes, sometimes under favourable circumstances from a short distance, yes.

Greetings,
Alexandr

[Alanus]

Hello, Alexandr

I know that you and I are in general agreement. After reading many modern historians, I have become wary of many of their viewpoints toward ancient writers. Also, with our "modern" sensibility, we tend to dismiss or "interpret" the ancient viewpoint into what fits a "new and breakthrough doctorial thesis".... if you get my drift. :-) I've found the best thing to do is to take the original verbiage at face value.

[Conal]

And second, these steppe tribes ate a high-protein diet, giving them a well-muscled and large physical stature. 30% of their diet was fish, stimulating healthy brain development. On another thread-- Were Steppe Horsemen Cool, or What?-- we show the actual body of Cherchen Man, an individual who stood 6-foot 3-inches tall. Even the women were large; and in some Sarmat cemetaries, 30% of female graves have archery equipment. When you combine large stature, good diet, and a rote of riding and shooting a bow from early childhood, you have a very formidable opponent.

Alanus

I have put in a link to a beefy bloke shooting his new 123lb for the first time. You can see the strain of doing this and the difference when he goes back to a mere 90lb bow!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLlBNnQg6Bs

I appreciate he has not been working up to it since childhood but my point is that from what I have read about Manchu tradition the 100lb+bows were for non mounted troops (and the 150lb+ ones for excerise and strength testing only only) due to the effort of puling them and that mounted bows were of the 60-80lb region as they had to be manipulated whilst sitting and controlling a horse, a completely different proposition than being able to use your whole back in a foot draw. Notice how Bigbowbrum stands, very similar to images of Manchu foot archers, kind of hunched forward.

Another aspect is that the draw poundage is not all that needs to be considered as I understand the speed of return is important for arrow speed and umph. The high poundage Manchu bows were slower than lower poundage due to size and weight and length. One manifestation of this is that apparently they shoot a heavier arrow faster than a light arrow ... counter intuative I know but you maths dudes can probably explain that, I can't, something to do with mass.

Working out how much whack these old bows had may be nigh on impossible ad:

For some fun check out the backyardbowyer, a pvc pipe bow with saya inserts for just a few bucks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEvnbnevjs

[Alanus]

Thanks, Conal

That was quite the posture. I noticed, like with most yew "self" bows, the draw length was at 28-29 inches with the 90-pounder. I have no idea where his posture came from, because you needn't stoop while using heavy poundage, perhaps even bad for your back.

As you and I noted, steppe archers began their art in early childhood and they could work up to heavier poundage. Personally, I doubt many actually used 100 pound bows. Draw weights of 60 to 75 pounds were probably common. However, there's an "X factor." They drew back to the collar bone, not the mouth, and the draw length was up to 30 to 32 inches. I don't know how to calculate the additional draw-weight of (let's say) a 60 pound bow designated by the standard of a 28 inch draw. It might be significantly heavier because the bow is reaching its limit and "stacking." Also, the speed and "snappiness" of the Sarmat-Hunnic bow with siyahs was (and is) much more impressive than a wooden long bow. These factors, plus the sheer number of arrows, resulted in a Parthian victory at Carrhae.

[Mrbsct]

Guys thank you for your response. Now lets draw conclusions.

-How powerful is the Parthian bow? Compared to the English longbow and Turkic Composite bows? Was it revolutionary to the Scythian bow?
-What kind of arrows did the Parthians use?
-Was Roman chainmail higher quality and better than Medieval mail?(Roman chainmail is heavier and smaller links)
-Can Medieval chainmail be pierced by English lonbgbow/Mongol bows? Why can't Salidin's bows pierce it?


-

[Dan Howard]

There are too many varieties of mail for those questions to be answered. You'd have to do an analysis for every type of mail separately. Some types of mail were significantly heavier than others and some were more resistant to arrows than others. Roman mail tends towards the heavier part of the spectrum but some types of European mail were proof against everything - even axes and mounted lances. The French called it de toute botte. I'm guessing that it may have been too heavy or not as flexible as other mail types or it would have been more common. The most popular method of increasing the protection of a mail hauberk (for those who could afford it) was to simply wear a second one over the top but it doesn't seem to have been needed for arrows - it was usually done when expecting to be hit with mounted lances. Instead of two layers of mail, Richard the Lionheart wore an iron plate under his mail during his joust with William de Barres. There was also mail specifically designed to resist a mounted lance called a "jousting hauberk" (haubert de joute). This was at a time when jousts were conducted with fully sharpened war lances.

This will help
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

[Nathan Ross]

Now lets draw conclusions.

I don't think we have enough real evidence to be conclusive about any of this, which is why we keep discussing it!

How powerful is the Parthian bow? Compared to the English longbow and Turkic Composite bows? Was it revolutionary to the Scythian bow?

From what I've read here and on other threads, I would guess 60-70lb as a good estimate for the Parthian bow. Some later English bows could go up to 170lb - but the effectiveness of a bow on the battlefield is not solely determined by weight.

Was Roman chainmail higher quality and better than Medieval mail?(Roman chainmail is heavier and smaller links)

'Roman' and 'Medieval' are such vast time brackets that I don't think we can generalise! I don't see anything to suggest that Roman mail was ordinarily heavier or stronger than later types.

Can Medieval chainmail be pierced by English lonbgbow/Mongol bows? Why can't Salidin's bows pierce it?

The tests I linked to earlier suggest that under ideal conditions (mail pinned against a flat surface, arrow striking at 90 degrees), an arrow from a 70lb bow at very close range can penetrate well-constructed mail of a weight apparently close to Roman varieties from Dura etc. I'd also go along with the suggestion that, after absorbing a lot of arrow impact, the links could be weakened and the mail could break.

However, this was clearly a rare occurance - most arrows struck from longer range, and against oblique or moving targets. Under most battlefield conditions, in other words, good quality mail would provide an excellent defence against arrows. But the idea that the powerful Parthian arrows could penetrate their armour is what frightened Crassus's men, not that they always did.

[Alanus]

There are too many varieties of mail for those questions to be answered.

Well said, Dan. And Nathan added a few good points.

to Andy,

Carrhae can't be simply analyzed like the ingrediants in a spaghetti dinner. The variables were not recorded. Basically, Crassus assumed he had the upper hand, particularly more soldiers. However, if the bow found at Yrzi was typical of the style the Parthians were using, then the Romans were suddenly confronted with a new and more effective weapon than the "cupid" bow. Nor did they expect to face an almost immediate cataphract charge or camel trains with additional arrows. Occasional arrows penetrating hamate were insignificant compared to the unexpected shock of reality.

I hope I don't sound like an Armchair General with the above, but I believe the true combination of factors were not explicitly explained by the two historians who recorded the events. :whistle:

[Michael Kerr]

Alanus wrote:

I hope I don't sound like an Armchair General with the above, but I believe the true combination of factors were not explicitly explained by the two historians who recorded the events.

Hah! More than a few armchair generals on this site, myself included with 2000 years of hindsight to prove our various theories. :grin:
Regards
Michael

[Mark Hygate]

.............
-How powerful is the Parthian bow?.............................
-What kind of arrows did the Parthians use?
-Was Roman chainmail higher quality and better than Medieval mail?(Roman chainmail is heavier and smaller links)
.................

I would like to re-state the hint about Parthian cataphract armour and why we have the two main types of Parthian combatant...

The Parthian cataphract armour (without any shield at all) was almost definitely proof against the Parthian arrow - hence why the nobles wore it and the peasants didn't!

Personally, just like Xenophon found, the Parthians were so damn effective on their home ground, where casualties from incoming bowfire are caused to any actually exposed portions (particularly from flanks and rear. If you deal with it, just as the Romans did, with testudo then you don't move - and not moving in the desert is death from heat. If you send out troops to run them off - then they just get taken out quicker as you cannot catch the fleet Parthian horse archer.

I do think that comparing to the Mongol bows much later, let alone medieval, is counter productive. Whatever we might think, the average soldier was not (in the main armies of the time) armed with a bow - and hence it probably wasn't all that effective. Armour piercing for everyone didn't happen until the crossbow and musket - all archers (not the Steppe Horse Cultures who used from a young age) were never present in large numbers and were always something 'special' - there's a reason for that!

[Conal]

I don't know how to calculate the additional draw-weight of (let's say) a 60 pound bow designated by the standard of a 28 inch draw.

I understand a rule of thumb is 2 to 2.5lb per extra inch. So a 90lb at 28in drawn to 32 inches willl be a 98-110lb pull.

Regarding the "snap" you mention I recall reading that, in relation to Manchu bows, the longer the bow the less the snapiness. The longer design, at least when compared to Turkish bows, is thought to have originated to fire heavy hunting arrows for taking big game (and of course translated into war arrows!) where absolute speed of arrow was less important to the penetrative power of a heavier arrow. I need to do some more research in that area.

What you say about volume of arrows in of much interest as I once read that an archer cound put three arrows in the air at different angles so that they arrived at the same spot at the same time.

And as for being able to shoot quick watch this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KC1Os-_NE I might drop him a line to see if he can do th efeat I mention :eek:

[Alanus]

Hello, Conal

Thanks for posting Anderson's amazing skill on this thread. You probably noticed he uses a bow with ridged siyahs. This is the same principle found in the so-called snappy "Hunnic" bows used by the Parthians against Crassus' forces, although the Sarmat-Hunnic bow was asymmetrical. It was faster than the Manchu bow, and Parthian arrows were not the huge ones used by the Manchu... who basically shot lengthy bows from a standing position. I believe the asymmetrical Hun bow was one of the fiercest weapons in ancient warfare, not surpassed until the introduction of the Turkic bow.

Also thanks for the "rough" formula for calculating extra poundage with a draw beyond 28 inches. My draw is to 30 inches, so my 45 asymmetrical is actually shooting at around 49 to 50 pounds. An identical bow (although with more poundage) is pictured further back in this thread as made by Grozer. When we combine this style of bow with rapid-fire releases, we can visualize what Crassus was up against. ;-)

[Conal]

I believe the asymmetrical Hun bow was one of the fiercest weapons in ancient warfare, not surpassed until the introduction of the Turkic bow.

And still regarded as more efficient than firearms by the Mamluks for a goodly time after their introduction.

With regard to asymetrical bows I have wondered if they were made to get the nock point to a point 50% from each end rather than would be teh case on a symetrical bow where it would be slightly above mid point.

[Alanus]

Conal,

I never even thought about it. I just grasp the bow and place the arrow so it falls 90-degrees across the string. For whatever reason, the asymmetrical bow automatically tips forward at the top when you draw it. This is seen in a number of period illustrations. I just shoot by correct feel and don't think about much. Not a very technical barbarian.