Armor and Weapon Effectiveness

[Dan Howard]

I heard the reason they beat the sarmatians is because they could take down cataphracts before the Alans could close the distance. So a hun could punch mail from over 100 meters, that's for sure.

Nothing is sure at all. There are plenty of ways to take down an armoured opponent without punching through the armour. A lot of the Roman mail I've seen would stop all but the heaviest bows at the closest ranges. But if you shoot enough arrows at someone then one of them is going to find a spot that isn't armoured. The more skilled archers will deliberately aim for these spots. The horse is usually the most susceptible target for archers. If you take out his mount then it doesn't matter what sort of armour he is wearing.

"He furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer's skin unhurt." [Anna Comnena, Alexiad, VIII.8].

[Alanus]

When we discuss penetrating armor, we also need to qualify the style of arrowhead. For instance, the bodkin would have a higher chance of penetration. Historians who don't "look back" are perhaps unaware that the bodkin was developed in the steppe Bronze Age, not in medieval Europe. If the Huns were so deadly, this illustration of exceedingly ancient arrows might hammer the point home (metaphoriclly speaking). :whistle:

Check out arrow-point #10. Gives me the willies. :dizzy:


[attachment=6880]40-inchSarmatiansword001.JPG[/attachment]