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

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I guess the same can be said for all experimental archaology then? A total waste of time?
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.
Which of any ballistas ever produced by any modern actually use horsehair or tendon ropes for springs?
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?

Lest all pack up and take up knitting shall we?

60lbs is 60lbs of force, whatever generates it.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Given enough force a pencil has a high probability of penetrating.

That i doubt :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ever seen the carnage after a tornado? I've seen small wooden objects penetrate brick walls. Given enough force is the key.

IIRC the tornado warps the wall, tree whatever and then the airborn object gets lodged in the crack thus creating the illusion that it punched into the brick

[Matthew Amt]

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...

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The same can be said for a seg made of titanium really.....the plates are the samethickness as the originals, so I can move freely....

As I said, I am looking at the shape of the bodkin in question, and using a wood, sinew and horn bow, of a measured 60lbs of force, plan on firing at samples of mail I have in my possession. If Dan has any authentic mail laying around, he can send them to me too, and I'l happily fire arrows at that too.
It just takes one look at the head, to be pretty positive that a tiny rivet is not going to stop it penetrating and quite probably parting the ring. Perhaps I will be wrong, but I am pretty sure of it on gut feeling.

But also, even if the rings only stop the arrow, the yare going to be feeling a lot more like a puch than a little prick....your going to be severly demoralized to say the least.
But the good shots, and really, pilum range is not so great, as a good shot from a bow, that there will undoubtedly have been many 'good shots' that hit home and penetrated, yes., even mail.
Even a lower powered bow I was lucky enough to use last month had a fairly flat tradjectory over 20 yards or so.

I will be posting results, one way or the other, and the bandwidth be damned, I will let anyone draw whatever conclusions they want. Unless of course the mods tell me to take a hike....c'est la vie.

[John Conyard]

Byron, I would count myself a firm supporter of reconstruction. Reconstructions have a powerful visual impact. Learning to use them can yield valuable data and greater understanding. They should be viewed as integral to the understanding of artefacts and those who used them. But I also try and have realistic understanding of how far they can get us. But that is another discussion.

[Gregg]

The Yrzi bow is a unique survival, dated by the excavator to the Parthian era (1st c BC - 3rd c AD) because of "associated finds." Based on surviving artwork, I'd personally date the bow to the 1st c BC. The most recent and accurate reconstruction of the bow by McEwan suggests a draw weight of 80 lbs, I assume based on a draw using Dura arrows. While this bow is certainly a godsend for those of us poor bastards interested in the Parthian military (almost no Parthian military equipment survives), there are some problemss with the Yrzi bow. First of all, though almost all of the bow survives, one arm is missing. Brown's reconstruction in 1937 assumed a symetrical shape, and all reconstructions of the bow have followed this belief. If true, then the Yrzi bow may not be a horse bow, as most horse bows at this time were asymetrical. It's possible the missing limb was longer (or shorter) than Brown believed, in which case it may well be a horse bow. On the other hand, the bow was found in Mesopotamia, and the horse archers at Carrhae were nomadic dependents of the Suren clan, proabably Dahae, from the far Eastern part of the Empire in Seistan. In other words, the Yrzi bow is almost certainly a Parthian bow, but it is a "Western" Parthian bow, not an "Eastern" Parthian bow, and regardless may be a hunting bow and not a war bow. And though the bow was constructed with great skill, it was composed of "scraps and offcuts," and therefore cannot be considered a bow of particularly high quality.

That said, it should be remembered that it was the Parthians, through their Dahae relatives on the Central Asian steppe, who first introduced this newest, and last, evolution of the composite bow to civilization. Before this new type the composite bow had long been of the Scythian cupid bow type. And though this new bow type is usually credited to the Huns, Sassanians, or even Sarmatians, the earliest artistic depictions are clearly Parthian. Though variations on this new style would continue (more bone plates and lathes, etc.), the basic design would remain unchanged until the age of gunpowder.

Before Carrhae, the Romans may have been familiar with older bow designs, like the traditional Scythian type and wooden self bows. Therefore Carrhae may have been that rarest of battles, one in which the Romans not only found themselves contending with an entirely alien military system (steppe horse archers), but archers armed with a new (or highly improved) weapon system. After Carrhae the Romans quickly adopted the Parthian bow, which became the standard war bow throughout the Empire.

Gregg

[Gregg]

Looking at the bodkin style ... is there any source which indicates that it was designed as a mail penetrator?

It seems to me that it might be just a simple form of arrow head to form in forging...easier to hammer out that other types ... maybe cheap to produce when you need 1000s for military operations.

There are numerous sources that indicate that certain arrow types were designed to defeat armor, and did so. What we don't know is which arrowhead designs they were. So why was it almost certainly the bodkin head design? A whole lot of reasons, actually. The pyramid-shaped heavy missile head was clearly developed to pierce materials more resilient than flesh and cloth. For instance, Roman pilum heads and catapult bolt heads, as well as Medieval crossbow bolt heads, were basically identical to the bodkin head in shape, and were specifically designed to pierce armor and shields. The Romans may not have adopted the bodkin-head shape with their arrows until they had a bow powerful enough to justify the design, probably in the Augustan era when ear lathes begin to appear, signifying the Roman adoption of the more powerful composite bow, specically the Parthian composite bow first encountered at Carrhae. The Romans also used spearheads with this same basic design, clearly intended to do more than simply pierce unprotected flesh.

It would also be a grave error to assume that bodkind designs were easy or "easier" to forge than other types. The easiest type of arrowhead to forge would probably be a simple leaf blade type, like that employed in large numbers by the Mongols. But though this arrowhead form did exist in the West during the Middle Ages, it wasn't particularly common. Again, the type 16 barbed broadhead seems to have been the most common warhead through much of the Middle Ages, and it certainly wasn't an easy form to forge. Neither are bodkins particularly easy to forge, as most designs tend to be diamond shaped, wider at the base of the head than where they connect to the arrow shaft. There is no evidence that "simple" arrowhead forms were resorted to when large numbers were needed. Quite the opposite, the evidence suggests that the warheads produced in the largest numbers (trilobate forms in the Classical era, broadheads and bodkins in the Middle Ages), were in no way easy to forge. Indeed, surviving complaints suggest that Medieval blacksmiths didn't skimp on the basic design of the arrowheads they produced (they probably had no choice in the matter), but rather in the quality of the material. Hardened steel was probably the basic requirement of all warheads, but evidence suggests the blacksmiths producing the arrowheads, in great quantities in a short period of time, would often skimp during the forging process, saving money and time by producing simple iron heads instead of the more expensive, time-consuming steel heads.

Me too. I think the weight of the arrowhead, rather than the shape, is a far better indicator of whether it was designed to be used against armour

This argument seems to fly in the face of, among other things, basic physics. Putting it in simple terms, a small diameter projectile will apply greater stress to a smaller area, and will need lower velocity to achieve penetration. Narrow forms will meet less resistance and will loose less energy through friction. Hence the bodkin head. The obvious disadvantage is the amount of damage a bodkin would inflict to flesh, which is considerably less than most other arrowhead designs. The classical trilobate and Medieval broadhead forms were barbed, produced a nasty wound that needed a sugeon to extract. The bodkind would produce a relatively small wound in diameter, easily removed without a surgeons tools. The weight of an arrowhead certainly played a part in doing its intended job, but arrowhead weight alone as the determinging factor seems like another dead end to me.

Gregg

[Sean Manning]

Re: Arrow weight, heavier arrows designed for a particular bow typically have more kinetic energy but a shorter range than lighter arrows designed for the same bow. This is related to air resistance and limits to how fast the bow-string-arrow system can accelerate. So arrows designed to pierce armour have to be reasonably heavy. Similiarly, if the head bends or the shaft shatters on impact, the arrow won't penetrate, so being too light and slender can be bad.

The ideal armour-piercing arrow would be heavy, sharp, and aerodynamic, with a hard and compact point.

[John Conyard]

The power of McEwan's reconstruction of the Yrzi bow is variuosly quoted as 60-70lb in Coulston (1985) 240 and 80lb in James (2004) 19.

[Dan Howard]

FWIW Alan Williams tested two samples of mail. One was a surviving 15th C example. Another was a reconstruction made by Erik. Both samples required 120J to be penetrated by a bodkin-type spike. This tells us nothing about Roman mail but it suggests that McEwan's reconstruction would have little chance of penetrating the two samples tested by Dr Williams.

[Matthew Amt]

For instance, Roman pilum heads and catapult bolt heads, as well as Medieval crossbow bolt heads, were basically identical to the bodkin head in shape, and were specifically designed to pierce armor and shields.

Good stuff as usual, Gregg, but one brief caveat. Modern tests with ballistas show that bolts with any kind of broadhead will "plane"--the head acts as fins and the bolt sails wildly off where it wills. So the conclusion is that the bodkin point simply gives good streamlining and accuracy.

Matthew

[Macedon]

Only regarding the Carrhae incident I have to say that of course some arrows would have penetrated armor or shields. As was and still is the case, some Parthian horsearchers would have stronger bows, some Roman legionaries would have worn, badly maintained or otherwise flawed mails and shields. When millions of arrows are shot against tens of thousands of closely packed men walking in square testudo, there are bound to be casualties. Yet, casualties from arrows (actually from any missile weapon of the time) were very low when compared to the amount of missiles used up during the course of any battle, especially against armored and shielded infantry. The "battle" of Carrhae is a perfect example of this rule, as the actual number of casualties during the Roman march (cavalry casualties of course excluded) was very low taking into account the timespan of continuous shooting and the amount of missiles used up until the Romans reached the heights.

According to my knowledge, bows of the era did not have the devastating armor piercing ability of later bows at any distance and any test performed always takes into account a perfect scenario, where the arrow will land on its target at a perfect angle and with maximum force from a nearly point blank range. Under those conditions and against a badly maintained or manufactured mail or shield I believe that defensive weapons would fail, but truly, I think that casualties among the non fighting personnel and because of random shooting hitting unarmored body parts were much bigger. The most problematic part was how to save the strugglers and wounded, since outside the protection of the square there was no hope of survival. According to Plutarch. the Parthians found 4.000 men in the Roman camp after the legions had left, wounded or exhausted (maybe also the dead), combatants and non combatants and a great many strugglers.

By the way, the ancient greek verb "ekdramein" does not mean "charge", but moving away from the phalanx (actually "run (dromos) out (away) (ek)"). This is why the lightly armed hoplites of Xenophon were called "ekdromoi" (about a translation somewhere in the first page of these posts).

[marka]

Before Carrhae, the Romans may have been familiar with older bow designs, like the traditional Scythian type and wooden self bows. Therefore Carrhae may have been that rarest of battles, one in which the Romans not only found themselves contending with an entirely alien military system (steppe horse archers), but archers armed with a new (or highly improved) weapon system. After Carrhae the Romans quickly adopted the Parthian bow, which became the standard war bow throughout the Empire.

Gregg

the romans had faced horse archers with powerful bows before but the skill with which they were employed+crassus lack of preparation+the terrain and the heat contributed to the roman defeat.

[marka]

Looking at the bodkin style ... is there any source which indicates that it was designed as a mail penetrator?

It seems to me that it might be just a simple form of arrow head to form in forging...easier to hammer out that other types ... maybe cheap to produce when you need 1000s for military operations.

Me too. I think the weight of the arrowhead, rather than the shape, is a far better indicator of whether it was designed to be used against armour

no both weight and shape are important
but anything shaped like a bodkin would be for armour piercing,
a trilobite would cause a more severe injury to an unarmoured target and these would have been used for hunting

[Dan Howard]

deleted duplicate post