08-21-2014, 09:09 PM
No, in the tests in the book in question they used a modern compound bow to shoot arrows with bronze and iron arrowheads at both linen and bronze armor. They did test a modern hunting arrowhead as well, but only against linen, not against bronze. It makes me wonder how well the modern hunting arrowhead would do against bronze, iron, or steel armor.
It also makes me wonder how well 15th-century English arrows made with hardened steel would do against the armor tested. I suspect they'd perform significantly better than any of the replica ancient arrows.
Now that I've looked over the book in some detail, I actually find the idea of glued linen armor thoroughly plausible. The biggest problem I see with the authors conclusions is their assessment of the power of ancient bows. I've always found Henry Blyth's figures for Persian and Scythian bows laughably low. Bows that delivered only 18-36 J up close would make mediocre hunting weapons and hardly seem suited for the battlefield. Even Blyth's high figure of 52 J initial for the Persian bow would be quite low by later standards. In 17th- and 18th- century China, authorities apparently considered bows below 70-80lbs unfit for military service - and in one case that was with Manchu bows, so such a minimum strength bow likely had an initial energy of 100+ J with the standard heavy Manchu war arrows. A wealth of evidence from China, Turkey, England, and so on indicates that good infantry archers drew roughly 120-180lbs and good cavalry archers drew 80-120lbs. While it's possible bows were simply weaker (and perhaps also less efficient) in antiquity, the reconstruction of an ancient eastern Scythian bow weighed in at 120lbs and the authors suspect the original fell into the 80-140lb range (Turkish bows from thousands of years fall into about the same range). And there are Greek and Roman accounts of arrows piercing shields and arrows.
I suspect arrows from decent ancient infantry archers would have had at least 80 J of kinetic energy. Glued linen armor as tested would still solid protection against such arrows at range, but direct shots up close would have been potentially deadly.
P.S. I've noticed a discrepancy in the book's reported thickness and weight of the supposed 1.8mm bronze plate tested. They write that it measured approximately 45x45cm and weighed 2.49kg. But bronze of the composition described has a density of about 8.7g/cm2, so a 1.8mm 45x45cm plate should weigh 3.17kg. Thus the authors erroneously reported the weight, the elemental composition, or the thickness - or perhaps the plate had a varying thickness.
It also makes me wonder how well 15th-century English arrows made with hardened steel would do against the armor tested. I suspect they'd perform significantly better than any of the replica ancient arrows.
Now that I've looked over the book in some detail, I actually find the idea of glued linen armor thoroughly plausible. The biggest problem I see with the authors conclusions is their assessment of the power of ancient bows. I've always found Henry Blyth's figures for Persian and Scythian bows laughably low. Bows that delivered only 18-36 J up close would make mediocre hunting weapons and hardly seem suited for the battlefield. Even Blyth's high figure of 52 J initial for the Persian bow would be quite low by later standards. In 17th- and 18th- century China, authorities apparently considered bows below 70-80lbs unfit for military service - and in one case that was with Manchu bows, so such a minimum strength bow likely had an initial energy of 100+ J with the standard heavy Manchu war arrows. A wealth of evidence from China, Turkey, England, and so on indicates that good infantry archers drew roughly 120-180lbs and good cavalry archers drew 80-120lbs. While it's possible bows were simply weaker (and perhaps also less efficient) in antiquity, the reconstruction of an ancient eastern Scythian bow weighed in at 120lbs and the authors suspect the original fell into the 80-140lb range (Turkish bows from thousands of years fall into about the same range). And there are Greek and Roman accounts of arrows piercing shields and arrows.
I suspect arrows from decent ancient infantry archers would have had at least 80 J of kinetic energy. Glued linen armor as tested would still solid protection against such arrows at range, but direct shots up close would have been potentially deadly.
P.S. I've noticed a discrepancy in the book's reported thickness and weight of the supposed 1.8mm bronze plate tested. They write that it measured approximately 45x45cm and weighed 2.49kg. But bronze of the composition described has a density of about 8.7g/cm2, so a 1.8mm 45x45cm plate should weigh 3.17kg. Thus the authors erroneously reported the weight, the elemental composition, or the thickness - or perhaps the plate had a varying thickness.
