Time period weapons vs time period armor

[Dan Howard]

Most battlefield accounts make no distinction between incapacitated and dead. The incapacitated were either captured, in which case they show up in the list of prisoners, or they were killed where they laid after the battle (or left to die by themselves), in which case they show up in the lists of the dead. You can't use these figures to determine how many died as a result of fatal injuries. My point is that it is irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you inflict a fatal injury on a soldier during a battle. All that matters is that he can't fight any more. Analysis performed on skeletons from various battlefields show that the majority of injuries were to the limbs. The percentage of torso injuries vary from negligible to nil. This tells that body armour was virtually proof against most attacks or that soldiers never bothered aiming for the torso (probably both).

[Bryan]

In his De Beneficiis (On Benefits) (5, 24), Seneca the Younger recounts an anecdotal story of Caesar meeting up with one of his old veterans that he had met before but no longer recognized due to extensive scars from battle, where the soldier had his eye taken out and his skull crushed (though survived), as well as his helmet split open, by a Spanish machaera.

[Dan Howard]

His helmet was doing its job by keeping him alive. It shows that there is a lot of difference between damaging armour and killing the man underneath.

[Benjamin Abbott]

Most battlefield accounts make no distinction between incapacitated and dead. The incapacitated were either captured, in which case they show up in the list of prisoners, or they were killed where they laid after the battle (or left to die by themselves), in which case they show up in the lists of the dead. You can't use these figures to determine how many died as a result of fatal injuries.

It can be a fine distinction. For example, somebody might be out cold from a severe cut to the head but not technically die until minutes, hours, or even days later.

My point is that it is irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you inflict a fatal injury on a soldier during a battle. All that matters is that he can't fight any more.

That's certainly true, but blood loss constituted a key way to incapacitate foes and that often leads to death.

Analysis performed on skeletons from various battlefields show that the majority of injuries were to the limbs.

The data set of studied historical battle skeletons is rather limited. Drawing firm conclusions on such studies strikes me as premature.

The percentage of torso injuries vary from negligible to nil. This tells that body armour was virtually proof against most attacks or that soldiers never bothered aiming for the torso (probably both).

But written sources from antiquity suggest otherwise for that time period. Such claims about the heavy javelin stand consistent with various assessment of thrown spear/javelin kinetic energy. For example, even shortest spear thrown in this early 20th-century test must have had 300+ J of kinetic energy.

Also, here's Plutarch on the sarissa piercing shields and armor.

[Dan Howard]

This raises a question I've been meaning to ask. How heavy a bow would be required to have the same penetration capacity as a javelin?

[Benjamin Abbott]

This raises a question I've been meaning to ask. How heavy a bow would be required to have the same penetration capacity as a javelin?

Well, Olympic javelin throwers manage about 360 J with their relatively light javelins. Only the roughly 240lb Manchu bow supposedly used to win a contest in the 18th century could hope to compete with that. Of course, such numbers require a full run up for the javelin thrower.

[Mark Hygate]

This raises a question I've been meaning to ask. How heavy a bow would be required to have the same penetration capacity as a javelin?

Well, Olympic javelin throwers manage about 360 J with their relatively light javelins. Only the roughly 240lb Manchu bow supposedly used to win a contest in the 18th century could hope to compete with that. Of course, such numbers require a full run up for the javelin thrower.

I studied/competed with javelin at school to county (UK) standard, which is way off Olympic and years of selfless devotion. However I suspect I could compare well to the average ancient soldier at my peak, certainly. Whilst I feel it very unlikely that the average thrower would get anywhere near such a high standard (Olympic), equally I would think that the standard 'light' javelins of the ancient world - ie those used by Greek psiloi, Roman velites/lanciarii and cavalry (lancea), et al would probably compare similarly in weight (and not talking pila).

Why not perhaps consider the overall question from the other way - particularly if a not unreasonable assumption can be made from a sociological standpoint?

We have the example of one of the earliest horse archer nations in the Parthians and, on most open field battles a very simple partition into an army composed of only two troop-types - who both engaged against the Greeks and Romans and others at the time. Their armies often seemed to consist of only light 'peasant' horse archers and heavily armoured (neither with shields) 'noblemen' cataphracts.

Considering the normal relationships with between nobles and peasants, it does not seem unreasonable that the Parthian cataphracts would be relatively impervious against the average peasant group (and thus some reasoning behind the troop-type development). Thus, at battle ranges (ie sufficiently far away to engage with arrows, lobbing them in from distance, so as not to be caught) I would not expect bowfire to be that effective at all. Thus a consideration that a covering of mixed mail and scale may be perfectly effective at range.

Note - I am not talking about close range, maximum power, flat trajectory fire from the strongest man available with the highest quality bow possible.

Certainly that would make seem to make sense when reading the Anabasis or accounts of Carrhae. Arrows are only effective when hitting exposed portions (ie those not armoured) and at close range. It's for this reason that we don't, for example, suddenly see the Romans (let alone others, particularly in the West) making sudden changes to bow-armed troops. This only happens when the additional range becomes essential (ie against cavalry armies/raiders) and those who also only fight at distance.