Michael,
I would respectfully submit that as you said on paper it sounds good. I would even say that some unusually strong person could maintain those rates of fire. In reality puling a 75-100 pound or even 50 pound bow is not that easy. Having said that having several hundred men shooting at you even at a much reduced rate would be terrifying even to the most brave and disciplined troops. Especially if their leadership is ineffective and their experience, training and ingenuity in the field is incapable of neutralizing and enemy firing on you like that. On top of that if your equipment such as shield and body armor is not effective you have all the ingredients for a very bad day at the office. In my opinion as humble as it may be arrows can and will penetrate even the best made hamata under the right conditions. That doesn't mean that I would prefer to go with out just that it is a tool with its uses and limitations.
The fire destruction layer that includes the mail shirt is dated AD273-318. The usual estimate is c.AD296, although suggestions of an attack on the wall in relation to the Carausius/Allectus usurpation have been questioned more recently. (ref Current Archaeology 164, Aug 99)
So it seems most likely that the Arbeia mail is indeed late third century, or very early fourth - not that there's much difference, probably!
Quote:Yes the Scythians, Parthians, Sarmatians and Huns all had bows with over 100 pound draws, but these weren't common. Why? Well first of all most people can't draw a 100 pound bow more than like an inch. Second of all these were the utmost, top quality bows that took a decade or more to make.
Hi Evan, I don't know too much about draw-weights so you are probably right when you state that not all the steppe peoples you mentioned above had these stronger bows however I think you are overlooking that these peoples' whole lifestyle relied on the bow, for protecting their herds and their families from predators and enemies alike, hunting as well as being quite handy in their seasonal raids on neighbours and enemies. Both western and particularly Chinese sources tell about how their young are trained from childhood with smaller bows to hunt smaller prey like foxes and hares and as soon as they can walk are put on the back of sheep which I must admit would have been funny for their parents watching them try to hang onto a jumping sheep, but over time and after many falls they would learn how to hang on and maintain balance and graduate to stronger and bigger bows and horses and become consumate horse archers who can shoot arrows easily from horseback bringing down enemies and predators alike. If anybody in the ancient world could use the stronger bow for long periods of time to maintain a high rate of fire it would be the steppe horse archer because this was their lifestyle and how they made war and archery was their business which they excelled at, so they were not like most people even in ancient times and comparisons to the present or even ordinary Roman infantrymen are pointless.
The Han used to estimate how big a population a steppe people like the Wusun or Yuehzi contained by the number of horse archers that they could muster and while some would be better equipped and better archers than most others you could bet London to a brick that most of them were pretty accurate and accomplished archers who had a reasonable chance of hitting a target while on a moving horse. It wasn't a hobby or pastime that was done on weekends or on holidays for these guys, they were not weekend warriors or people that needed training in the use of the bow. They just knew and a lifetime of practice ensured that they were good at their trade so to speak.
The horse archers that Surena used at Carrhae were his personal troops from his province, Sacastane far to the East bordering Afghanistan, possibly Saka (as I doubt if Orodes would have given him any troops as it seems he did not like Surena and his family who by right had the privilege of crowning the Parthian king. Orodes probably expected the Romans to defeat Surena's army and do him a favour by removing a possible rival for him), who owed him and his family personal loyalty and according to A.D.H. Bivar used compound bows which the Romans never faced before in the wars against Mithradates, and as history showed, underestimated them and the mobility of an all cavalry army as well as some bad leadership and decisions by Crassus, at least according to Cassius, got quite a shock. I don't know if these bows were any bigger but according to Bivar they made a difference. :?
In regards to the practice of making bows even if they did take time I think that bow making would have been a common practice in most nomad encampments. These people were expert wood turners who knew how to make axles and wheels for their transportation and would have had to cross some pretty rough terrain in these vehicles which would have meant lots of knowledge of the properties and maintenance of different types of wood, so the manufacture of bows would not be difficult for these people. They knew about glues and would have had access to bone and animal sinew from their herds and would have had a knowledge of using the best fibres for bowstrings, probably horse hair etc.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Quote:In reality puling a 75-100 pound or even 50 pound bow is not that easy.
and Mark Hygate mentioned... "a bunch of people with simple recurved bows...."
I also need to respond to Evan. And that Michael is dead-on in the above post. First, the steppe bow was anything but "simple." It was and still remains a highly refined instrument. It puts the much-later English long-bow to shame. The horse-bow showed up around 2,000 BC at the birth of bent-wood technology, the same process that produced the chariot wheel. At the time, this "bunch of people" were far ahead-- technologically-- than other cultures. They introduced bronze to China and the spoked wheel to Europe.
And second, these steppe tribes ate a high-protein diet, giving them a well-muscled and large physical stature. 30% of their diet was fish, stimulating healthy brain development. On another thread-- Were Steppe Horsemen Cool, or What?-- we show the actual body of Cherchen Man, an individual who stood 6-foot 3-inches tall. Even the women were large; and in some Sarmat cemetaries, 30% of female graves have archery equipment. When you combine large stature, good diet, and a rote of riding and shooting a bow from early childhood, you have a very formidable opponent.
So, we are looking at a culture that excelled at archery and had the physical strength to shoot a heavy-poundage bow for hours without tiring. I used a 55-pound bow until I broke it. At the moment, my bow is a 45-pounder-- made exactly like the 2,000-year-originals-- a combination of steppe cattle horn, wood, and sinew. To Evan: The gluing process does take time, up to a year, because the sturgeon bladder glue dries slowly, BUT it doesn't take "ten years" to produce one of these bows. The bowyers who made them were "world class," and mine was made by Czaba Grozer.
These were NOT just a "bunch of people." And their bows were far from "simple." I'm 72 years old and weigh 155 pounds without armor, YET I standardly practice archery with my 45-pounder for 2 hours a session. At the end of 2 hours, I'm not tired; and I wasn't tired when using the 55-pounder at full draw. To have consistent accuracy, an archer must use a full draw repeatedly with no variation.
In this light, a healthy young archer could shoot a heavy-poundage bow constantly and accurately during battle. If a person such as myself can use a 55-pounder with no trouble, then many an ancient archer could easily handle a 75-pound bow, and a goodly number could shoot 100-pounders. These high-performance bows, combined with bodkin-tipped arrows (dated back to 700BC) were the most lethal weapons in the ancient world. As Sun Tsu always said, "Never under-estimate the enemy." :whistle:
Here is a 55-pound Sarmat-Hunnic bow currently listed by Czaba Grozer, a formidable bow in any time-frame:
I'm basing that extreme poundage-- 100-- on the size of ancient arrow heads, some of which must have weighted 3 to 4 ounces or larger, such as Manchu heads. Modern Mongolian bows are still built up to 100 pounds, and Czaba Grozer makes them up to 75 pounds. I don't think the Mongols would be shooting 100-pounders by stepping up the size of their sport-target weapons. They must be based on tradition.
Humh. If you have any citations handy for arrowheads that heavy, with sockets which could take a wide shaft, found in the ancient world, I would be interested to see them. Recent Turkish archers seem to have preferred light heads with their powerful bows, but I have not been reading up on steppes archaeology as you have. A 3 oz point would be heavy for a 16th century English selfbow let along an ancient composite one.
Quote:In this light, a healthy young archer could shoot a heavy-poundage bow constantly and accurately during battle. If a person such as myself can use a 55-pounder with no trouble, then many an ancient archer could easily handle a 75-pound bow, and a goodly number could shoot 100-pounders.
I think that ancient archers could have learned to use bows with a 150 lb draw if they had wanted to ... but that doesn't mean that they actually did so. There are plenty of skills which an archer can develop, and most traditions focus on two or three (the English focused on shooting fixed targets at long rage with heavy bows, some steppe traditions focused on moving targets and rapid fire at medium range, ...) You probably know the articles on Turkish bows which Adam Karpowicz has put online, but ancient archery traditions don't look much like recent strongbow traditions to me.
I don't have a problem with the odd ancient bow with a draw weight of 100 lbs or more, and we seem to agree that the average for the common types of bow was lower. As you point out, a more powerful bow is not always better (Maurice specifically advises that a soldier's bow should be too light rather than too heavy, although he also says that recruits should be given stronger bows after they have learned to shoot).
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
I'm in the middle of moving and my reference library is boxed. I was going by memory, and it could be the entire arrow weighed at 3 or 4 ounces, and these were Manchu as mentioned. In the above post, I illustrated standard steppe arrow heads, which were smaller. Here are some large Manchu heads, and the arrow weight was upwards to 100 grams, about 3.53 ounces:
[attachment=10157]military.jpg[/attachment]
Heavy arrows were and are less effected by the wind, therefore more accurate than light ones. You hear a lot about "reed" arrows, but steppe ones often had poplar or birch shafts even though the various tribes had easy access to reed. Mine have pine shafts and a very light bodkin, and weigh between 1.3 and 1.4 ounces.
You cited Adam Karpowitz and Turkish bows, which is comparing apples to oranges because I was referring to Sarmat-Hunnic bows from antiquity. On the Turkish model, Karpowitz mentions "Two Bows" he built, stating, "The tips do not have horn inserts of bone overlays as the lighter draw weights did not require such reinforcement," and he adds, "these bows have substantially lower draw weights than the old ones." His bows have a draw-weight of 64 pounds at a 28-inch draw.
So, what about the "old ones," like maybe "war bows." Forty six authentic Turkish bows, 39 from the Topkapi Palace Collection and 7 from the Military Museum of Istanbul, have been tested-- and their draw-weight averaged 110 to 120 pounds.
I imagine these Turkish bows were tested at a 28 inch draw. However, the Sarmat-Hunnic bow was longer than a Turkish bow, averaging 58 to 59 inches, or 1.5 meters. Such a bow can be drawn to 32 inches, or 4 inches beyond the Turkic bow. So Czaba Grozer's 55-pound bow, when "stacked" another 4 inches exceeds 64 pounds. If we had a steppe warrior like Cherchen Man (6-foot 3-inches) he could draw a bow the full reach of 32 inches. Overall, we are seeing heavy-draw bows. And the Hunnic bows, built with 7 to 8 reinforcing overlays (which Karpowitz didn't need), were designed to shoot distance and, at the same time, down an enemy at short range.
Frankly, my estimate of a rugged draw-weight as 100 pounds was conservative.
As for Maurice? Again it's apples and oranges, because a steppe archer and a Roman one were two entirely different bowmen (or bow-women). His soldiers began shooting bows after reaching adulthood. On the steppe, a 4-year-old began the same rote, even little girls; and by adulthood he or she was far more powerful and accurate than Maurice's archer. Either gender was impressive, and that's why we see Scythian women commonly on Greek earthenware:
[attachment=10158]012.JPG[/attachment]
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Seems logical. Archaeologists have been confused on which is which going back to 2,000BC, especially during the Andronovo period in steppe weaponry. Personally, I think a small point-- a bodkin-- would be most effective for penetration. And we do see a lot of them, again right back to the bronze age. :dizzy:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
I would just add, that an actual Parthian bow was found at Yrzi (Brown, F. E.: A recently discovered composite bow, Seminarium Kondakovianum 9, 1937, p. 1–10). Allegedly a reconstruction of this bow made by Edward McEwen suggests a draw weight of ca. 60-70 pounds (Coulston, J. C. N.: Roman Archery Equipment, in: Bishop, M. C. (ed.), The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment. Proceedings of the Second Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar, BAR International Series 275, Oxford, 1985 p. 242; Junkelmann, M.: Die Reiter Roms III: Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung, Mainz, 1996, p. 163). Admittedly, we cannot be certain here, because only one limb of the bow survived, so we cannot be sure, if the size of the other one, which did not survive, wasn't perhaps different.
Quote:Hello,
I would just add, that an actual Parthian bow was found at Yrzi (Brown, F. E.: A recently discovered composite bow, Seminarium Kondakovianum 9, 1937, p. 1–10). Allegedly a reconstruction of this bow made by Edward McEwen suggests a draw weight of ca. 60-70 pounds (Coulston... Admittedly, we cannot be certain here, because only one limb of the bow survived, so we cannot be sure, if the size of the other one, which did not survive, wasn't perhaps different.
Thanks for posting this, Alexander
The Yrzi bow is important in many respects, although the conclusions by Brown were interpretive to the current knowledge of steppe bows in 1937. When Russian studies became available post-1990, we received a shocking update. As you mentioned, the bow had one intact limb while the other was missing with the exception of the "ear" (siyah, or lath).
This is the "new" style of bow I mentioned in posts above. The Yrzi bow had a total (estimated) length of 1.47 meters. The ears differed-- one at 22.5cm long, the other at 16.7cm. Brown wasn't aware of asymmetrical bows and he drew it as a symmetrical, both arms equal. We now know that ears of differing lengths indicate a shorter lower arm, very handy for shooting from a horse. The Grozer bow, pictured in an above post, is asymmetrical. The oldest lengthy bows with reinforced ears show up in Sarmat graves circa the 3rd to 2nd century BC. They were adopted by the Saka-Sarmatians, Huns, and-- as we see with the Yrzi bow-- the Partians. Here is a low-quality photo of an asymmetrical eared bow depicted on the Orlat battle plaque, c. 1st century BC to 1st century AD.
[attachment=10160]Orlatbeltplaque002.JPG[/attachment]
The new eared bow had two advantages over the Scytho-Greek bow-- the "cupid bow"-- which was much shorter; and it was a more refined weapon than the slower European self (wooden) bow. It gave an increased draw-length, and the ears added leverage. It was a faster bow, and arrows were released with a "snap."
More recently, Adrian D.H. Bivar realized the importance of this find, and he claimed that Carrhae was the first time the Romans faced this style of bow and its armor-piercing capabilities. Whether he was entirely correct is open to debate, but it's something to think about. :unsure:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Just as a point and keep in mind I am new here, has anyone considered the amount of strain the armor had previously absorbed? I mean armor was state funded and more then likely extra-ordinarily expensive for the average guy to just buy a new set. I imagine a good deal of the troops were fighting with battle/environmentally/and wear worn and torn sets of armor.
In fact it would blow my mind to have show that even a sizable portion of the men had brand new AND good quality armor for the battle. Realistically there's no telling how well each set had been maintained or who had done the necessary repair and with what qualities of iron either. Just a point that I didn't see addressed that could have made sense of how Plutarch or Cassius were writing the details.
Armor was kept in superb condition by the soldiers. It wouldn't have been worn and torn, although it would have seen a lot of action. Roman armor was of excellent quality, and very well maintained, far better than pretty much anything else until the 15th century.
True but I mean on campaign there must have just been logistical gaps in preparation and ability to afford repairs. Perhaps some soldiers "ruffed" it or enjoyed the look of a long campaign.
Again just positing the idea that there may have been more factors then just construction and design especially since even the Romans noted a preference in kinds of armor and made note of lower and higher quality arms.
You also have to wonder about the quality of both the troops and their equipment for Crassus's Parthian campaign as both Caesar & Pompey had large armies in Gaul & Spain. In the 50s Caesar would have had between 4 & 11 legions & Pompey had 4 in Spain so the barrel would be scraped bare in regards to manpower, armour & weapons.
Did he have quality officers to ensure that his troops would be disciplined & well maintained re weapons & armour?
Did Crassus devote enough time to training & planning before his invasion as in hindsight he was hopelessly short of quality cavalry?
Dio mentions that Crassus had to recruit new troops from among Lucanians, Marsians & Apulians 'not the choicest of troops' so making sure these troops had the best quality armour, except among the wealthy is doubtful. These were the late Republican times so although the state supplied troops after the reforms of Marius, I think that there wouldn't be much quality equipment available.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
That was exactly my point, its not a matter of hyperbole or the well respected quality of a good soldiers armor but of what was available how well kept it was. I am sure a wealthy soldier had nigh indestructible armor for the time but what of the poor? How well would a repair really have held up? What could a new recruit who was poor really expect or be afforded when their were sparse but apparently better soldiers or wealthier ones?
