Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Very enlightening Aryaman2 and thanks for the link.
Now back on th penetration issue.
Xenophon talks about arrow penetrations of the Karduchian long bow and mentions that it needed footpress to be drawn.
Yesterday I saw in a film some archers laying on their back and using 2 feet to push the bow while holding the arrow and chord with both hands. I have heard some Orenoco tribes doing that too.
I know it is so "very Holywood" but how plausible is the posibility that this was the reason for Karduchian arrow power taking into account that the muscles of the legs are the strongest human muscles?
I mean if you are separated by impassable terrain from your opponet and you have space to do this thing how close to reality it can be?
Please let me have yor comments
Kind regards
Stefanos
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
It would be good to get some more information on the Karduchian long bow: what it looked like, how it was strung, the technique needed to fire it. It seems reasonable to assume that if the leg muscles can be incorporated into the shot then more power can be generated than relying mainly on the arms and back.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:"The weapon which the Papal injunctions had sought to ban was the composite crossbow of wood and horn...
<snipped>
There were lighter variants of the steel crossbow than the ones Guilmartin seems obsessed with. Considering that his focus is on naval warfare and not the battlefield, this is understandable though. But you should not take his description of these very heavy crossbows and assume that they functioned the same as those intended for battlefield use.
The crossbow was first banned by the Second Lateran council in 1139. Much earlier than the 14th century implied above. The weapon at the time consisted of a simple wooden span - not the composite one of the 13th-14th century. Plate armour was not worn at all when crossbows were first banned.
Guilmartin also seems to be confusing the windlass with the cranequin. The windlass was used on lighter steel crossbows and only took around 12 seconds to load. This is hardly "a great deal of time". The cranequin was used on the heavier crossbows that Guilmartin discusses and required about 35 seconds to load.
Another thing you seem to be ignoring is the improvements to the trigger design in the 15th century that improved accuracy, and the addition of an adjustable wooden backsight for aiming. If these weapons were so inaccurate why bother with aiming devices?
If you want a decent source on crossbows then read Payne-Gallwey's "The Crossbow". It is considered the definitive work on this subject and covers all crossbows, not just those that might be relevant to naval combat.
the muscles of the legs are the strongest human muscles?
The medical profession maintain that the strongest human muscle is the one that shoves babies out into the world. Okay, there's not much chance of it being used to draw a bow...
My real interest remains in armour thickness in the Classical period and the capabilities of the weapons then available for piercing it.
In "Greece and Rome at War", Connolly asserts that the Persian cavalry commander, Masistius, was wearing armour of gilded scales and that the Athenians, coming upon him when he had been thrown from his horse, "finding that they could not get to his body", "stabbed him through the eye and so dispatched him". Connolly does not give his source for this information. It puzzles me, in that anyone who is in a position to take aim and strike at someone's eye, ought also to have sufficient leisure to strike a powerful blow elsewhere. Masistius was on the ground, surrounded by Athenians. One would have thought it the ideal situation for some can-opening.
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Herodotus says that the Persian mounted archers were giving the Megareans a hard time and the Athenians sent archers (aka. Skythian slaves or mercenaries) supported by Epilektoi (heavy armed hoplites) to help them. One of the archers wounded the horse of Massistios and as he was on the ground very close to the falanx an Epilektos hoplite killed him.
Herodotos is no eye witness though. My explanation is that Massitios recoverd and he defended himself with a gerron shield and axe or akinakes. His scale armor did help him for the majority of blows but he must be facing at least 3 or 4 Epilektoi. 2 or 3 pinned him against his horse and the 3rd or 4th killed him. It was teamwork that got him not his armors fault.
I also dont think he was completly surrounded because that meant breakin ranks something not likely by the Epilektoi especially with horse archer roaming arround.
An other explanation is that he was stopped by the spears and an archer shot him in the face.
And since I am no eyewitness either I can only guess.
Kind regards
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Dan
Guilmartin cites extensively Payne-Gallwey work, for instance in note 9 about the Papal interdict
"The use of the crossbow against all but infidels was first interdicted under penalty of anathema by the Lateran Council in 1139. The prohibition was confirmed at the close of the twelfth century by Pope Innocent III, and Conrad III of Germany (1138-52) forbade its use in his territory. See Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow (London, 1903), p. 3."
Again in note 13 on range
"Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, p. 10, gives 80-300 yards as a ‘moderate’ range for ‘the destruction of a single enemy’. When he says this, however, he is thinking primarily of penetrating power and not accuracy. Against a moving target on the battlefield we should shorten this considerably"
I think the question is efective range vs efective range. For instance the French Chassepot rifle had 1500 yards maximum range, but the maximum effective range was considered 300 yards. I think the same would be true for the crossbow, otherwise I don´t understand why it was replaced by the arquebus, with an admitted effective range of 30-40 yards.
AKA Inaki
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
The first link is about the Skythian bows:
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm
The second link gives stat for turkic bows:
http://www.atarn.org/islamic/akarpowicz ... _tests.htm
This link is about the physics of arrow penteration:
http://www.tradgang.com/ashby/Arrow%20Lethality%204.htm
I posted that at the subject Persian bows started by jjhhofman
and I belive it is relevant here
"... Procopious who wrote about Velissarios and the battle of Dara,
750 years after the Persian wars, said that the persian bows were
inferior to the roman and that the katafracts considered them of
nuicance value.
Tradition weigh heavily at that time so there is no significant
manufacturing changes unless archeology proves me wrong."
Please give me you thoughts
I hope it helps
Kind regards
Stefanos
Stefanos,
I read the stuff on the Scythian bows link; very informayive, thanks.
Dan,
I got the impression that Stefanos was suggesting that the cheekpieces of Pilos helmets were sometimes added after purchase as a way of explaining why they are so frequently depicted without them. I wasn't aware that they were ever equipped with cheekpieces, until I read it here (mind you, I'm very new to this). They might make the damned thing a bit more effective and less stupid to look at!
Posts: 354
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
In re the death of Massistius, it should be noted that being shot or stabbed in the face was a commonplace way of being killed in the later Middle Ages, when plate armour was prevalent. The face cannot be completely covered with metal, there must be eye slots and breathing holes of some sort. When these open holes are accessible and all the other vital parts are armoured, the chances of being killed through these opennings goes way up.
Felix Wang
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:In re the death of Massistius, it should be noted that being shot or stabbed in the face was a commonplace way of being killed in the later Middle Ages, when plate armour was prevalent. The face cannot be completely covered with metal, there must be eye slots and breathing holes of some sort. When these open holes are accessible and all the other vital parts are armoured, the chances of being killed through these opennings goes way up.
Archoelogy does not support the existance of face masks at that time but "Armenian" helms that were later adopted by the Byzantine klibanioforoi covered the face with a chain mail mask so face can be coverd by metal.
Massistios who comanded horse archers might choose for parctical reasons to wear an openfaced helm. A surviving exmple in Olympia looks more like an "Assuro-Babylonian" type. It protects the scull but not the face.
Also Paul, the Kretan headband that survives today as part of the national dress, according to an old man was a way of resting the helmets on the head. It is a theory but it is plausible. If you try it please tell me the results.
Dan's argument about the roman helmets makes sence but the Imperial logistical system of the state arming the troops did not aply to later hoplites that they still had to arm themselves from the income of a ravaged land so economy was a factor. When Philip used the income of the Paggaio goldmines to arm his troops heavier equimnent and better helmets appeared again.
Kind regards
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
I never said that the cheekpiece could not have been retrofitted to helmets. I was wondering how you came to the conclusion that a hinged cheekpiece was added later and a rigid cheekpiece was not. I fail to see how hinges are in any way relevant to this since a rigid cheekpiece could be retrofitted just as easily, and the Romans made use of hinged cheekpieces which were not retrofitted.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Regarding face masks, this fragment dates to the late Mykenaian period.
http://s8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_C ... id=2997669
It seems to me that this might help corroborate Homer's use of the phrase "hollow-eyed" to describe some of his helmets. [Iliad, 5.182; 11.353; 13.529-30; 16.794]
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the link Dan. Very enllghtening.
I must comment though that this item might try to depict the hinged Tyrins helmet. Homer might describe them but he may also describe the Proto-Corinthian helmet that existed in his time.
In the Helenistic era there are "thrakian type" helmets that the elaborate artwork on the chieck pieces made them looking like facemasks but they were not facemasks per se.
Most surviving ancient Greek facemasks are associated with the theater not war and of course there is the "Atreas face mask" in the Museum in Athens that covered the face of a dead Mykenean King.
OK I cannot rule out the pssibility of their use but it is only a possibility.
Kind regards.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
I just found out that the image to which I linked was of a fragment found on Crete and dated to around 1450BC (not Late Mykenaian). So it pretty much rules out Corinthian-type helms. It looks more like a face mask than a full helm to me but it is difficult to tell.
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Thanks again Dan.
What I said in my previous reply about Homer was speculative.
He was possibly describing a helmet of hit time.
The "Tyrins" helmet reconstructed is Mr M. AMT's page here:
http://www.larp.com/hoplite/bronze.html
and the original here:
http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21104m/00/lk04m04b.jpg
I am inclined to believe that this is the helmet depicted on the image you mentioned but stil it is an edjucated guess.
I cannot rule out the military face mask in Ancient Greece but I don´t strongly support the idea.
For those who want access to images I can suggest: http://www.fhw.gr and follow the links to the area of you interests.
Kind regards
Stefanos
|
