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

[Sean Manning]

have any pilum heads been found in syria-i googled it with no luck.
pila would have been a bit overkill where most of their eastern enemies were concerned apart from cataphracts.

I don't know, Marka: I don't know much about Roman military archaeology from the 1st century BCE. But pila were a basic part of the Roman fighting style, so I'd be very surprised if they didn't bring them.

Looking at the ancient sources, both Plutarch and Cassius Dio talk about the Parthians riding around the Romans and throwing up huge clouds of dust to choke them, which sounds like they mostly kept mounted. I imagine that the dust would have reduced the effectiveness of both Parthian and Roman missiles.

[Gregg]

Interestingly, all surviving medieval bodkin arrowheads have been shown to be unhardened wrought iron, and quite light in weight. The heavier broadheads turn out to be very high-quality hardened steel, and 3 times as common as bodkins. Since medieval English archers were typically supposed to carry 18 heavy "sheaf" arrows and half a dozen light "flight" arrows, the only conclusion is that bodkins were flight arrowheads, shaped to fly a long way, while the broadheads were the armor-piercers.

Hate to disagree with you (for once) Matt, but this really doesn't hold up. Only a statistically insignificant number of recovered medieval arrowheads have ever actually been tested ("bodkin" or broadhead), and quite a few of the many bodkin "types" are much heavier than the standard type 16 broadheads. It should also be noted that the vast majority of medival European arrowheads cannot be dated with any accuracy, and typology is extremely difficult and uncertain (the steel present of three of the four type 16 broadheads may in fact indicate that they were hunting heads and not war heads).

A short essay in the Royal Armouries website, and a more detailed article in the book De Re Metallica, claim that steeled broadheads may have been used to pierce plate armor and that non-steel bodkins were not. Unfortunately, this evidence has been claimed on amateur lists like Sword Forum as proof that bodkin heads were never used to defeat mail.

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

[Matthew Amt]

Thanks, Gregg! That IS more detailed than the information I had, and I will cheerfully eat at least some of my words. Dating problems--oh, yeah.... Even considering all that, I'm still going to knee-jerk a bit when folks imply that mail is "no good" against bodkin points! Just seems to me that it would not have been the most common form of armor for nearly 1500 years if it were so easy to get an arrow through it.

Thanks again and Vale,

Matthew

[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

[marka]

have any pilum heads been found in syria-i googled it with no luck.
pila would have been a bit overkill where most of their eastern enemies were concerned apart from cataphracts.

I don't know, Marka: I don't know much about Roman military archaeology from the 1st century BCE. But pila were a basic part of the Roman fighting style, so I'd be very surprised if they didn't bring them.

Looking at the ancient sources, both Plutarch and Cassius Dio talk about the Parthians riding around the Romans and throwing up huge clouds of dust to choke them, which sounds like they mostly kept mounted. I imagine that the dust would have reduced the effectiveness of both Parthian and Roman missiles.

pila were part of the roman fighting style but have any actually been found in syria and cappadocia?

[A_Volpe]

Seeing as there has never really been any real protection for the eyes/face for the Romans, I surely would be quickly demoralized and convinced to go elsewhere when faced with clouds of arrows raining down at my head/face/neck - If not being shot nearly straight-trajectory towards my face, being the mounted archers not that terribly far off level from someone standing on the ground and their face, certainly thinking of the ballistic drop as the arrow flies down range.

That, and having one's armor, be it maille, being pelted continuously with some serious arrows would be pretty damn scary. Knowing the - possibility - of just one of those arrows breaking through maille links would reduce my confidence in the armor... I can only imagine it being similar to being pelted with paintballs at fairly close range wearing not much more padding than a sweater....I'm sure you're going to end up covered in some nasty welts and deep bruising, which would cause I'd think anyone some serious discomfort and weakness in the limbs (getting hit there repeatedly). I think this is what Polybius is really addressing - not if the armor is effective or not.

I think an even better comparison is to ask Police or Military people who have been shot while wearing [kevlar] and ask them if they find it fun.

[Dan Howard]

A short essay in the Royal Armouries website, and a more detailed article in the book De Re Metallica, claim that steeled broadheads may have been used to pierce plate armor and that non-steel bodkins were not. Unfortunately, this evidence has been claimed on amateur lists like Sword Forum as proof that bodkin heads were never used to defeat mail.

You may want to recheck your facts. I first suggested this years before a paper by De Re Metallica or anybody else. The first thread on SFI dates to 2004 but I have been thinking about this long before that.

FWIW the 2004 thread begins with a simple question: Assuming hypothetically that bodkins were not developed to penetrate armour. For what other reasons might they have been developed? What other advantages do they have over other arrowhead types?

This idea sprang up from ther simple observation that decent testing indicates that no arrowhead was particularly effective at punching through plate armour (except at very short ranges) and expanded from that. Other factors to consider:

1. Sir John Smythe reccommended a fourth of each sheaf be flight arrows to "gall" the enemy at range, so it is reasonable to believe the bodkins are in fact representative of "flight" arrows. Smythe states that war arrows must travel 12 score yards (240) while flights should make "24 or 20 scores". Bartlett and Embleton make note of the Mary Rose arrows: Two arrow types were recovered: the first tended to be tapered, averaging about 1/2" dameter at the head, and tapering to 3/8" at the nock. From rust stains showing an outline, most of these arrows seem to have been fitted with broadheads similar to MoL Catalogue Type 16. The second type, recovered in far smaller numbers was a parallel sided arrow bearing bodkins of MoL Type 8. These simpler arrows are not appreciably lighter at about 7/16" diameter, though the overall weight of a bodkin vs. broadhead must also be considered.

From Smythe we know that the English carried at least two types of arrows and the smaller in number were intended as flight arrows. If there were flight arrows on the Mary Rose then they must have been bodkins.

2. If you take two arrows of equal weight - one with a type 16 and another with a type 8 and fire them from the same bow then the type 8 consistently outranges the type 16 (by at least 5%).

3. Turkish flight arrows all use a bodkin typology.

A few years later we have two new pieces of data.
4. Metallurgical analysis of extant arrowheads show evidence of hardening on some type 16s but none on any bodkin typologies. There are primary sources saying that hardened arrowheads are preferred for armor penetration so a reasonable conclusion that any arrowheads found on a battlefield that show evidence of hardening might have been intended for armour piercing.

5. The type 16 compact broadhead is just as effective at punching through plate armour as a type 8. This test is easy to perform since it doesn't require exacting reproduction of periood materials. The same result is observed regardess of the type of plate used.


There are problems with the above.
1. The sample size of tested arrowheads is way too small to say whether no bodkins were hardened.
2. Some bodkins were heavier than some broadheads.

There is no doubt that English archers carried flight arrows. I ask a simple question: If the Type 8 was not intended for Smythe's "flight arrows" then please suggest an alternative.

[Gregg]

You may want to recheck your facts. I first suggested this years before a paper by De Re Metallica or anybody else. The first thread on SFI dates to 2004 but I have been thinking about this long before that.

My appologies, you are correct Dan, your querie was made back in '04, and predates the book by almost a year. In fact, you may recall I answered your query at the time in some detail, explaining why (IMHO) bodkins were clearly armor piercers, and were not suitable for harrasment fire. Reviewing the original thread, I see no change in the validity of the points I made then.

1. Sir John Smythe reccommended a fourth of each sheaf be flight arrows to "gall" the enemy at range, so it is reasonable to believe the bodkins are in fact representative of "flight" arrows.

Not at all. Keeping in mind you're quoting someone who was writing at the end of the 16th century, a few years before the longbow all but ceased to exist as a weapon of war, there is still no reason to assume that any bodkin design was intended for long distance harrasment shooting. As I pointed out back in '04, the standard Medieval bodkin (type 7) is considerably heavier than the standard Medieval broadhead (type 16), and is not designed to "gall" the enemy at a distance, while the lighter barbed type 16 clearly is.

Bartlett and Embleton make note of the Mary Rose arrows: Two arrow types were recovered: the first tended to be tapered, averaging about 1/2" dameter at the head, and tapering to 3/8" at the nock. From rust stains showing an outline, most of these arrows seem to have been fitted with broadheads similar to MoL Catalogue Type 16. The second type, recovered in far smaller numbers was a parallel sided arrow bearing bodkins of MoL Type 8. These simpler arrows are not appreciably lighter at about 7/16" diameter, though the overall weight of a bodkin vs. broadhead must also be considered.

From Smythe we know that the English carried at least two types of arrows and the smaller in number were intended as flight arrows. If there were flight arrows on the Mary Rose then they must have been bodkins.

Interestingly, Hardy's conclusions were essentially the opposite. Since all of the iron arrowheads on the Mary Rose arrows had corroded away to nothing and were, according to him, "unidentifiable", his conclusions were based on other evidence. Hardy notes that two sizes of arrow were found on the Mary Rose, long and short, and that the long outnumbered the short three-to-one. He notes the size of the long arrow at 31 1/2" and weighing 60g, and the shorter arrow at 29 1/2" and weighing 35g. He goes on to note that the shorter shaft fitted with the standard light type 16 broadhead would be nearly identical, in length and weight, to the Chapterhouse Arrow, the only surviving medieval war arrow. He also notes that the longer shaft seems better equipped with the heavy type 7 bodkin head, and when thus equipped weighs in at 73g, very similar to a replica medieval war arrow created by Saxton Pope based on an 1831 drawing of a (now lost) medieval arrow. In other words, the evidence clearly suggests that flight "harrasment" arrows were equipped with barbed broadheads (as one would expect), and heavier arrows for closer range direct fire were equipped with armor piercing bodkins. Again, as one would expect.

If, by your (and Smythe's) calculation, shorter lighter arrows were for harrasment fire, and longer heavier arrows were for direct fire, then the shorter lighter arrows on the Mary Rose (typified by the Chapterhouse arrow) fit the bill perfectly as flight arrows to "gall" the enemy at a distance, and the longer heavier arrows (equipped with the heavy bodkin head) were typical direct-fire war arrows.

2. If you take two arrows of equal weight - one with a type 16 and another with a type 8 and fire them from the same bow then the type 8 consistently outranges the type 16 (by at least 5%).

Fascinating, but problematic, when you consider the average weight of surviving type 16 broadhaeads is 7gs, and surviving type 7 bodkin heads average around 13gs, and type 8 bodkins (for which I don't have average weight) are supposedly thinker and heavier than type 7 bodkins. Without more information I'd have to question the validity the tests, though typology and dating may be the problem here.

3. Turkish flight arrows all use a bodkin typology.

Turkish flight arrows (IIRC), which were not used for war but for sport shooting, used target heads, somewhat similar to London Museum catalogue type 5. They were not equipped with bodkin warheads.

There is no doubt that English archers carried flight arrows. I ask a simple question: If the Type 8 was not intended for Smythe's "flight arrows" then please suggest an alternative.

The obvious problems with this is that by the end of the 14th century the two "standard" warheads (if they can be called that), the type 7 bodkin and the type 16 broadhead, were being superseded by new types, including thicker, squatter bodkin designs and even lighter broadheads, something akin to the type 13 I believe. By the 16th century this lighter broadhead, in many ways just a smaller version of the type 16, were probably the type in use for harrasment, just as the type 16 had been in the earlier Middle Ages.

And I admit all of this is getting a bit off Carrhae...

Gregg

[John Conyard]

I fear on a far less serious note, and partly in jest, but last weekend I did a show at Ribchetser partly as a horse archer shooting at 1st century legionaries. The semicylindrical shield boards funnelled the arrows towards the slight gaps left in the testudo. And when the legionaries were running to form the testudo I couldn't resist shooting one in the posterior, uncovered by his armour. Although the head and body were armoured, it still leaves plenty of choice

But the real effect of cavalry is psychological.

[Matthew Amt]

pila were part of the roman fighting style but have any actually been found in syria and cappadocia?

I don't think much of ANYthing has been found in those areas! There are archeological excavations, to be sure, but nothing like the concentration of military sites you find in western Europe. So just not a lot of military equipment in general, from that era. Once you get into the mid- to late first century AD, Roman armor and weapon finds are very much like those found in the west.

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

http://www.grozerarchery.com/index_ac.htm

If you click on the link and go to Arrow Heads, I cannot imagine how C-2 would not penetrate mail, given a good clean shot.
This type of head was around at that time was it not? Or am I going down the wrong road again?

[Matthew Amt]

http://www.grozerarchery.com/index_ac.htm

If you click on the link and go to Arrow Heads, I cannot imagine how C-2 would not penetrate mail, given a good clean shot.
This type of head was around at that time was it not? Or am I going down the wrong road again?

Well, sure, it will tend to stick through the rings a little, but hardly a fatal amount. If it does not have enough force to break the link, then that's it! Remember, a ring in a mailshirt is not sitting still, it moves when hit, and that moves rings around it, and that moves even more rings around them--and all that movement is dispersing energy. If your arrowhead is shaped like a pair of wirecutters, I'll seriously worry about it going through a hamata. Otherwise, I can very well imagine that that particular arrowhead would be stopped by decent mail.

That said, getting poked repeatedly with needly little points would be very annoying!! Not to mention the ones that miss the mail and hit flesh... And I'd certainly keep my scutum up and wish like heck they'd run out of arrows!

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, once I get my 60lb Composite bow, I intend to try it out...hopefully.
Mind you, the mail will only be the less authentic indian variety....I don't plan on buying any of Eriks just to fire arrows at..... hock: hock: hock:
I wonder if hardening the mail would make it more authentic? Or just make it brittle.... :?

[Sean Manning]

Well, once I get my 60lb Composie bow, I intend to try it out...hopefully.
Mind you, the mail will only be the less authentic indian variety....I don't plan on buying any of Eriks just to fire arrows at..... hock: hock: hock:
I wonder if hardening the mail would make it more authentic? Or just make it brittle.... :?

High-carbon mail which had been succesfully hardened is known from late medieval and renaissance Europe, but I don't know if any Roman mail shows the technique. It doesn't seem like something that common soldiers could afford ...

[Dan Howard]

The metallurgical properties are irrelevant compared to all the other problems with Indian mail. If you want to shoot arrows at it, please don't waste bandwith posting your results here. It will tell us nothing about how Roman mail might have performed.