Did the Romans have the composite bow?

[Eleatic Guest]

Very few tests against mail resembles the stuff that was worn historically. Generally the links are too large, the riveting inadequate, and the backing material unsuitable.

Ok. Lets get to business. This is about the constrcution of the lorica hamata used in the test I gave the link above:


General introduction:

1. Kettenpanzer lorica hamata

Bezüglich der Herstellung von Kettenpanzern nach römischem Vorbild sei auf die Arbeit von David Sim in Britannia, Vol.XXVIII, 1997 verwiesen.

D.Sim weist in seinem Experiment an gestanzten und anschließend über einem Leerdorn durch Hämmern kalibrierten Ringen einen Anstieg der Härte von ursprünglich 146 HV auf 210 HV nach. Diese Zunahme der Härte um rund 25% ist auf die mechanische Maßnahme der sogen. Kaltverfestigung zurückzuführen. Mikroskopische Untersuchungen an gestanzten Originalringen aus Nydam (187 HV) und Thorsberg (191 HV) belegen durch identische Hammerspuren an den Außenkanten und Quetschungen des grobkörnigen Stanzgefüges an den Innenkannten, eine offenbar identische Materialbearbeitung wie im Experiment.

Gebogene und anschließend vernietete Ringe wurden bereits in der Antike aus Draht hergestellt. Als Ausgangsmaterial verwendete man das relativ weiche und damit für den Ziehvorgang hervorragend geeignete Schmiedeeisen. Dieses, in Rennfeuertechnik aus sogen. "Luppen" gewonnene Rohmaterial wurde durch einen allerdings sehr arbeitsintensiven Schmiedeprozeß von Schlacken befreit und soweit verfeinert (raffiniert), bis in seinem Inneren eine langfaserige, strähnige Struktur entstand. Der eigentliche Ziehvorgang gestaltete sich sodann folgendermaßen: Nachdem man aus dem zuvor genannten Rohmaterial dünne Eisenstäbe mit einem Durchmesser von ca. 5 mm geschmiedet hat, werden diese erneut ausgeglüht, sauber gebürstet, an der Luft abgekühlt und anschließend mit Bienenwachs oder Rinderfett eingerieben. Danach erfolgt das Ziehen der Stäbe durch die Löcher einer sogen. Ziehplatte. Die Perforationen dieser Eisenplatte sind leicht konisch ausgebildet und weisen abnehmende Durchmesser auf. Das konsekutive Ziehen der anfangs noch recht kräftigen Eisenstäbe durch die sich kontinuierlich verjüngenden Löcher der Ziehplatte führt letztlich zur entstehung eines Drahtes von beliebiger Dicke. D.Sim konnte in seinen Versuchen einen Anstieg der Vickers-Härte bei ausgeglühtem (normalisiertem) Grundmaterial von initial 100 HV auf 159 HV nach dem Ziehvorgang feststellen. In Anbetracht der Tatsache, daß die Drahtherstellung in der Antike mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit nach dem gleichen Prozedere abgelaufen ist wie oben beschrieben wurde, kann auch von den gleichen Härtewerten beim Endprodukt, dem vernieteten Ring ausgegangen werden. Demgegenüber weist das von uns verwendete, moderne Material eine um ca. 25% höhere Härte auf (211 HV). Es kann allerdings unterstellt werden, daß bei den Drahtringen die Härte des Ringanteiles von untergeordneter Bedeutung ist, da sich der Nietbereich als entscheidend für die Widerstandskraft gegenüber Gewalteinwirkung gezeigt hat.

Die für die gestanzten Ringe gemessene Härte von 185 HV korreliert sehr gut mit den von Sim ermittelten Werten.[/code]



Hamata used:

Als `lorica hamata' benutzen wir ein 20x20 cm großes Geflecht aus abwechselnd gestanzten und vernieteten Kettenringen, in der Größe ( gestanzte Ringe: 9/6 mm Durchmesser, Dicke 1.2 mm, vernietete Ringe: 10/9 mm ). Die Unterpanzerung für das Kettenhemd (thoracomachus) bestand aus mit Roßhaar bis zu max. 1.5 cm Dicke aufgefüttertem, gestepptem Leinenstoff. Bild
Für den Beschuß wurden die Replikate auf Strohballen befestigt.


Pic of the Hamata used:

[Eleatic Guest]

Vendtidius routed the Parthians with slingers, not archers...
Johnny

Really? Could you provide sources, please?

[Carus Andiae]

Hi,
I think it's a little bit different, when you are shooting from 5 m distance or from 100 m distance.
Greetings
Alexandr

When the enemy were only 5m away I'd have said that it was a bit late for shooting :?

[Johnny Shumate]

Cassius Dio
I think books xlviii-xlix.
I'll check this afternoon, my copy is at home!
Johnny

[Johnny Shumate]

Cassius Dio book XLIX
chap 20

20 In this way he met Pacorus in Syria Cyrrhestica and conquered him. For when he had not prevented them from p383crossing the river and had not attacked them at once after they had got across, they imputed sloth and weakness to the Romans and therefore marched against their camp, although it was on high ground, expecting to take it without resistance. 2But when a sally was suddenly made, the assailants, being cavalry, were driven back down the slope without difficulty; and although at the foot they defended themselves valiantly, the majority of them being in armour, yet they were confused by the unexpectedness of the onslaught and by stumbling over one another and were defeated by the heavy-armed men and [size=150:bo1gl7gm]especially by the slingers[/size]; for these struck them from a distance with their powerful missiles and so were exceedingly difficult for them to withstand. 3The fall of Pacorus in this struggle was a very great loss to them; for as soon as they perceived that their leader had perished, although a few men zealously fought for his body, yet when these also were slain, all the rest gave way. Some of them desired to escape homeward across the bridge and were unable to do so, being cut off and killed before they could reach it, and others fled for refuge to Antiochus in Commagene. 4Ventidius easily brought into subjection all the rest out of Syria, which had been hesitating while awaiting the outcome of the war, by sending the prince's head about through the different cities; for the Syrians felt unusual affection for Pacorus on account of his justice and mildness, an affection as great as they had felt for the best kings that had ever ruled them. 5And Ventidius himself made an expedition against Antiochus, on the plea that the latter had not delivered up to him the refugees, but really because of the vast wealth which he possessed.

[Dan Howard]

Ok. Lets get to business. This is about the constrcution of the lorica hamata used in the test I gave the link above:

A translation would help. What sort of riveting was employed? What did they use to simulate a subarmalis? If the link diameter is 9-10mm then that is way too large for typical Roman mail. 6-7 mm is far more typical. The alignment is wrong too. If you hang mail the way it is in the above photo then the weight of the armour spreads the links making them more susceptible to thrusting attacks. Rotate the mail 90 degrees and you'll find the armour functions far more effectively. My initial impression is that this test is biased heavily against the armour.

[Eleatic Guest]

I've written an email to the testers and invited them to share in a constructive discussion here about the mail used and the testing conditions.

I really would like to see them here at the forum.

[Aluscladiusmaximus]

In my opinion a 61# bow is not really powerful enough to be a war bow. Longbows were 110# and above sometimes 160#. I normally shoot a 70# bow and it will just about penetrate 18mm plywood using target points at 50 yards.

Aulus Cladius Maximus

[Aluscladiusmaximus]

Using google translation tools and an Idea of what they are saying I have produced a poor translation of the article. It will however enable non german speakers to get the bare bones of their findings. I don't speak german but I do speak archery

Aulus Cladius maximus
To the protective effect of Roman armoring of the 1. century n.Chr in relation to arrow bombardment in the experiment.



Introduction

With examination of the historical sources of writing of the antique ones the impression may develop, bow

contactors often and were used, however no substantial meaning for the fighting in detail would regularly have

possessed. The military writers against it point several times to the meaning sagittarii (among other things. Vegetius

epitoma 1.15). This obvious depreciating of the bow weapon by the historians may therefore agitate that sagittarii

among the auxiliary troops (Auxilia) it ranked and the historical writers therefore less important published than the

members of the putting ion infantry. Perhaps however one classified the bow also rather as `mechanical

Hilfsmittel´ as military weapon; exactly the same as also the portion of the artillery of the battle happening relatively

rarely one mentions.
Also regarding a protective effect in relation to arrow bombardment in the Roman army a body armoring was used,

which predominantly consisted in the 1.centuryn.Chr of the so-called chain shirt (lorica hamata) or the segmented

armour (lorica segmentata, modern designation). The Chain Mail was usually from into one another seizing iron

rings worked, in each case in the changes punched (anuli) and rings from wire (hami), whose ends were course-

riveted.

The Segmented armour however consisted of mobile on a system sheet metals forged by leather belt put on.

The thickness of the found sheet metal fragments is enough from approximately 1.2 - 1.7 mm. With some pieces of

find the thickness is with about 2 mm, and in Carnuntum (German old person castle, Austria) shoulder segments

with 3 mm of thickness were excavated, which according to older standards 20. century even for firearms as bulletproof

applies. These data for the sheet metal are already settled, thus without rust loss or - opening.

The rings of the chain mail occur in quite different dimensions. Anuli the however about 9 mm are large on the

average, with an opening of approximately 6 mm and approx. 1.5 - 1.6 mm of thickness. However also substantially

larger and just as also smaller rings occur. Both armour types were appropriate for the protection of the torso,

shoulders and upper arms, whereby the segment armour ended already scarcely underneath the waist, while the

chain shirt covered usually for instance a third of the thighs.
In the comparison to the not evenly rich find property of armoring, the soil inventory excludes itself to the bow

weapon still more modestly. There the bow s exclusively of organic material consisted, remained parts of it

naturally only in rare exceptional cases. Such a stroke of luck is present for instance with the find of several horn

ends, which are kept now in the Huntarian museum (Glasgow). Horn parts of this kind belong to bow s, which

consisted of a wood core to Komposit (reflex), which was reinforced with horn with chords and in the back in front.

When stretching the horn was tossed and the chords experiences a stretch. Due to this building method an optimal

weight achievement relation and the dimensions of the weapon develop could be kept relatively small. Picture

The received representations in the relief art show continuous these short bow s, however their form does not

correspond probably to the antique reality. Only the illustration on the gravestone bow contactors from

Housesteads (Hadrian's barrier), now in the museum OF Antiquities, Newcastle upon Tyne, seems to approximate

the actual shape of the bow s. Picture

Eiben long bow can be identified on no representation and are, probably at the very front because of their passing

condition, also in the find property not provable. Whether the long bow in the antique use found or not, leaves

itself due to missing evidence to clarify at the moment not surely.
Naturally the metallic heads of the arrow are in the archaeological material very many more numerously

represented. The most frequent projectile types are on the one hand three blade, on the other hand pyramid-

shaped projectiles, so-called “Bodkinâ€

[Taoye]

Reading that makes my head hurt...

[Erik D. Schmid]

I agree, that was a somewhat painful read. :lol:

While they tried to do a decent test, they failed on a few key points. One is that they used modern material for the mail rather than what was in use at the time. This would have had a very different effect on their data. Mild steel is not wrought iron by any stretch of the imagination. Another thing is the fact that the link size is quite large and does not seem to be very representative of the mail in use at the time. This is in reference to both diameter and thickness.

I also question their conclusion that the riveted joint is the weakest part of the link. This only seems to happen when the link has been subjected to heat treatment in the form of normalizing or annealing after it has been riveted closed. Otherwise, the riveted joint is actually stronger than the surrounding link material due to it being work hardened. Unless of course the riveting is poorly done that is.

[Virilis]

In my opinion a 61# bow is not really powerful enough to be a war bow. Longbows were 110# and above sometimes 160#. I normally shoot a 70# bow and it will just about penetrate 18mm plywood using target points at 50 yards. Aulus Cladius Maximus

Yes, I agree. I have a 110# pound bow (with a 30 inch draw) and I think that the "warbows" of the roman era must have been at least this heavy. It is not a superhuman effort to shoot with it and a trained roman auxiliary must have handled one quite easily...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The test link shown by Dan is pretty interesting, but i would also tend to agree with Jyrki, that the Romans would have used pretty powerful bows.
They were in the business of killing the enemy, afterall!

[Arahne]

What about the arrows? Do the trilobite arrows in combination with composite bow have some special effect on loricae?

[jc02005]

Romans did have composite bows but they were less used