Armor versus archery

[rrgg]

Part of the issue is that arrows tend to be fairly low energy projectiles, even compared to weapons back then. If ancient armorers developed their equipment with the intent of stopping the likes of sword-thrusts, spears, heavy javelins etc. then all but the most powerful archers would likely have found themselves left in the dust pretty early on as far as penetration goes. I agree that most casualties due to arrows would have likely occurred on unarmored limbs or ill-equipped soldiers.

[Cerco 21]

Part of the issue is that arrows tend to be fairly low energy projectiles, even compared to weapons back then. (...)

This is not an absolute truth. For example as we demonstrate on our web site a ballista bolt has almost twice as much impact energy than a .38 bullet at 60m

We can compute impact energy with ease, and from there you need to compute penetration. And arrow section is much smaller than sword or spear tip section, so there is more pressure.

As with everything armor was effective, arrows were effective, but no armor and no weapon "dominated" the battlefield in such a way that you could say they "ruled".

And we can NEVER remove weapons and armor from context, being weather, battlefield position, economic leverage etc. etc.

Nonetheless testing is fun and a lot of people do it. The results are only valid however for the very restrictive testing conditions.

[joeandmich]

I disagree the English/Welsh longbow took out many a French knight in full plate armor in the 100 years war.

Joe

[Alexandr K]

Hello,

salve,
I would like to point that based on the historical sources - Plutarch, the horse archers of spahbod Rustam Suren army were not Parthian per se but most likely Saka, 'feudal' vassals and retainers of the Suren clan, perhaps from Sakastan

Well, may be a little bit off-topic, but the thread can always be splitted if needed. While the above hypothesis is possible, I think it is still far from a proven fact. There are a few loose indications in this regard, but nothing convincing enough. Generally the arguments based mostly on Plutarch are as follows:

1) The house of Suren always had a very strong base and position in the eastern part of Parthia, where once the Sakas shortly resided, until they were pushed farther by the Parthians, and which was neighbouring with the lands, where the Sakas moved.
2) Surenas' soldiers had their hair combed in the Scythian manner, which may indicate that they were Sakas (Scythians). While this may be true, it is certainly equally possible that there were simply just influences coming from the Scythians on the eastern border. After all we know that Parthian military has always been strongly influenced by the nomads (Scythians).
3) Surenas' soldiers were equipped with armour made from Margian steel, which points to their probable eastern origin, which may again point to the Sakas. Of course this is possible, but it is surely also possible and valid to interpret the message in the way it was actually written – ie. that the soldiers may have been ordinary Parthians simply equipped with armour from Margian steel (ie. not necessarily of eastern origin, not to say Sakas).

So yes, it is quite probable, that Surenas' soldiers were drawn from the eastern parts of Parthia and perhaps they may have been mercenaries/vassals from the Saka tribes. But that's all. Just a speculation. The opinion that they were actually Parthian soldiers (not Sakas) is equally plausible. May be even a bit more, I would say, but that's just my personal opinion. We must not forget that Surenas' army may have included also soldiers assigned to him by Orodes (not only Surenas' own vassals).

Greetings
Alexandr

[Darth_Roach]

I doubt Orodes trusted Surena enough to entrust him with his own personal retinue. You have to keep in mind that the king only had a relatively small force, and giving it to a potential rival would be a bad idea.

[Alexandr K]

I doubt Orodes trusted Surena enough to entrust him with his own personal retinue. You have to keep in mind that the king only had a relatively small force, and giving it to a potential rival would be a bad idea.

Actually we have absolutely no information about the forces Orodes had at his disposal. Anyway, while the house of Suren was the most powerful after the Arsacids in Parthia, it was not the only powerful clan in Parthia. We know of several other clans and individuals with their vassals, who most probably mostly accompanied Orodes to Armenia. We can mention at least Sillaces, a satrap in Mesopotamia and certainly a significant man with forces at his disposal, who campaigned with Surenas.

Also Orodes certainly trusted Surenas enough to send him against the usurper Mithridates just a short while before Crassus' invasion. He trusted him enough to entrust him with the defence of Parthia itself, while the king attacked Armenia (I don't think Orodes would leave for Armenia, had he not been convinced about Surenas' loyalty). It seems to me that the execution of Surenas was the result of the prestige and increased influence he gained thanks to the victory over Roman forces, rather than some suspicion before the battle.

Greetings
Alexandr

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There is an excellent book which covers this subject in detail, and it surmises the
execution was indeed due to Orodes jealousy and fear of the competition of a spectacularly
successful rival. I unfortunately have it packed away or would give you the title.