Quote:You haven't seen any modern reconstruction that even remotely resembles Roman mail. If you pay Erik to make a decent replica of something like the Arbeia hamata then I'll gladly stand in front of an arrow.
Dan - would you still accept the results of this test?
I found it very interesting - the arrows did penetrate the mail, but only at extremely close range (70lb bow at 15ft), although the same bow broke links at 20 yards. The links broke each time at the rivet point. Worth reading the whole article, anybody who hasn't.
This would seem to accord with Plutarch's description - the Parthian arrows perhaps could penetrate mail at close range, although it was a rare thing (and more to be feared than expected). On the other hand, Plutarch describes the arrows being fired in a shower (perhaps rapidly and with the bows not fully drawn?), and the principal injuries being to exposed hands, feet and limbs.
I also think that the sheer volume of hits would be a factor, as well. Modern bulletproof vests are really only designed to withstand one or two hits (although they often can stand up to more) after which the plates and Kevlar need to be replaced. In the article Nathan Ross referenced the 70 pound bows regularly broke links at 20 yards. How many links need to be broken before the "shower of arrows" reported at Carrhae might hit those broken links again, and pierce the armor? Essentially, by breaking links the steady stream of arrows is degrading the hamata. Eventually, the armor will reach the point where links previously broken by arrow fire will no longer be able to reduce the pressure of subsequent arrows, thereby allowing arrow penetration of the armor. Over the course of an entire day, given enough missile fire (such as that reported at Carrhae), many legionaries' mail armor may have been degraded to the point where it was no longer arrow-proof.
The volume of arrows that Crassus's army would have faced at Carrhae would have been very important according to Dr Kaveh Farrokh in his book 'Shadows in the Desert'. Mathematically if the Parthian/Saka horse archer was able to discharge on average at least 8-10 shots per minute then he would use up his supply (which was normally 30 arrows in a quiver or gorytos) in 3 to 4 minutes.
Although Surena seems to get the credit for allowing horse archers to resupply with well positioned camel trains (apparently 1000 camels at Carrhae) not far from the battlefield allowing them a reasonably high rate of fire over longer periods Farrokh claims it was devised earlier by Mithradates II who reigned from 123BC to 88BC, and this was one factor which Crassus seemed to overlook or ignore at Carrhae. He also states that the Parthians had a sophisticated network of workshops established throughout Luristan, Khuzistan, Persis, Khorassan, Hyrcania and Media where arrowheads were manufactured in large numbers by a unique casting system traceable to Iran and Central Asia which I suppose backs up Plutarch's story about Roman soldier's claims of strange missiles piercing through every obstacle and weakening /degrading the Roman's armour.
I also think that the Parthian/Saka eastern compound bow would have been a lot more powerful than the earlier Scythian bows described by Xenophon. So in a 30 minute barrage the average horse archer, at least on paper would be able to fire between 160-200 arrows which theoretically at least means that 10,000 horse archers would have fired 1.6 million to 2 million arrows in a 30 minute period. All mathematics and of course horsemen would have to peel off to resupply so that sort of consistent barrage over about 30 minutes by the full force of horse archers would not be possible I am sure but it does show that the Romans would have faced a massive arrow storm at Carrhae over the day.
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:What is the quality of Lorica Hamata compared to Medieval mail?
Also Xenophon mentions the Scythian bow is only effective at 147 meters far less than the English longbow or Turkic bows.
However, Parthian bows need not have been "Scythian" bows. I don't know where Xenophon got his info., but at roughly the very period he lived in a Greek-named archer, Anaxagoras, in the Crimea shot a record distance of 521.6 meters. Distance equates with a bow's power; and at a much shorter distance-- 20 or 25 meters-- that same shot would have been formidable. This record stood until the Middle Ages when it was topped by a shot from a Turkic bow. As for English longbows, they diminished in power over a short period of time because the wood stressed; and secondly, they have no connection with our time period or geography.
The link that Nathan directed us to shows a test with handmade, high quality hamata, not cheap Indian stuff. The bow used was a 50-pounder, far short of a steppe war-bow. 15 feet is closer than any barbarian would make a release; yet with 100+ pounds of thrust at three times that distance, we would find occasional penetration. I'm sure Roman padding would have helped, but once in awhile a legionary or auxiliary looked down and said, "Ooops!"
[attachment=10146]Oops.jpg[/attachment]
An arrow is a bullet; and sooner or later a bullet will kill you no matter what kind of flack-vest you're wearing.
If anyone wants to continue their losing argument, let them be an experienced archer.
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
Dan Howard post=356089 Wrote:You haven't seen any modern reconstruction that even remotely resembles Roman mail. If you pay Erik to make a decent replica of something like the Arbeia hamata then I'll gladly stand in front of an arrow.
Dan - would you still accept the results of this test?
Not for Roman mail, no. Julio's mail is a light weave more suited for layering with jacks and brigandines, or a second layer of mail, or as gussets and voiders in an arming doublet. Historically, it wasn't worn by itself. Mail intended to be worn as standalone armour, such as the Roman hamata, tended to be a lot heavier.
That's the problerm with these kinds of discussions. Mail was extremely varied and versatile. There were many different types and they all had specific uses. Nobody would expect a police kevlar jacket to stop a military round. You select the right type of armour for the right application.
The mail that is made in India today was introduced by Steve Sheldon. The method he developed was aimed at producing armour for the SCA market. He wanted mail that looked like historical riveted mail but was a lot lighter than the butted mail that was used previously. It was never intended to resist anything more substantial than a rattan stick.
FWIW I've never said that mail was invulnerable. If you read my essay you'll find eyewitness accounts where arrows penetrated mail. My claim is that the chances of mail being compromised in battle was so low that it had no effect on the outcome of that battle.
I'm far from expert in any of this, but the description of the mail given in the test article (riveted/solid links, 14-15 gauge wire, 6.5 - 7mm internal diameter) seems pretty close, if not a bit heavier, than the Roman mail fragments from Dura Europos.
The Dura fragments average 8-9mm external ring diameter, and 1 - 1.25 mm thickness (measurements from James, Final Report, pp116-119). Internal diameter would therefore be about 6-7mm or so. 15 gauge wire is 1.45mm thick, giving the test mail an external diameter of about 9mm or a bit over. The mail from Caerleon seems pretty much the same size and thickness.
Even if this test mail was somehow lighter in construction that Roman hamata, it still seems remarkable effective at protecting against most weapons - I don't know how much heavier or stronger it would need to be, practically speaking. As I think we can all agree, no armour is 100% invulnerable.
Dura Europos' mail fragments were exceptionally large for roman maile if I recall correctly.
The only complete Hauberk I know of is Arbeia which had a 7.5mm external diameter and a 4.9mm internal diameter. The Leiden hauberk had an internal diameter of 3.3mm.
Quote:In actual ancient combat, archers were using bows in excess of 100 pounds draw-weight, and such a bowman was incredibly formidable.
Do you have any evidence of any ancient bow with a draw weight of 100 lbs or more? We have quite a lot of evidence for bows with half that draw force (the reconstructions of Tut's bows, reconstructions of Scythian bows, and Blyth's work on how much energy could be delivered by reed arrows with Scythian points before the shafts buckled) and some ancient arrows had quite short shafts which also limits energy. I think that some people are too quick to assume that all bows used in war were like 16th century English, Turkish, or Japanese bows.
As an archery instructor, I think that you know all the reasons why flight shooting with flight arrows does not tell much about the performance of a bow with war arrows at short range. I think that Anaxagoras would have been quick to say that he, his bow, and his arrows were exceptional; if most archers could do what he did there would be no need to put up a stele.
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 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.
Scythian bows, on average, didn't seem to be all that powerful (excepting the one used by Anaxagoras), but there was a change in bows that occurred between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. I don't know where it started, perhaps with the Sarmats since that's when siyahs first show up along with heavier armor. These bows were up to 1 1/2 meters in length and must have complimented longer arrow shafts, longer than those of the Scythian type. Personally, I use a 45-pounder... legal enough to hunt deer with. I've found that heavier bows (I have a 55 pounder) slam arrows into a backstop deep enough that they become difficult to pull out. There hasn't been much study on ancient composite bows, particularly war bows, and the assumptions right up to the mid 20th century claimed they were all symmetrical. I don't believe that at all, and only recently has the asymmetrical bow been considered being more practical as a horseback weapon.
Heavy bows were the basis of classic legends. The mythical ancestor of the Scythians-- good old Scyth-- was the one brother out of three who could string the macho bow. And we have the tale of Odysseus' bow. Warriors would listen to these stories and relate to them, because there's a point that every archer reaches when he discovers his maximum. That maximum has diminished with the exception of the Mongolians.
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
Alanus post=356066 Wrote:In actual ancient combat, archers were using bows in excess of 100 pounds draw-weight, and such a bowman was incredibly formidable.
Do you have any evidence of any ancient bow with a draw weight of 100 lbs or more? ............
This would be my real question to start with - for I would wish to query the actual 'threat'....
Taking the initial Roman encounters with the Parthians (so 1stC BC) what sort of basic and early compound bow are we talking? Secondly, I assume we are talking about massed bowfire from a significant, but reasonable, distance (certainly outside light javelin range) from a moving horse. Therefore that's lofted arrows en masse describing an arc and covering that significant distance.
Leaving aside actual penetration tests, simple logic would suggest that mail/hamata with its lower maintenance and greater covering per weight would out-perform plate/segmentata even if it had been available and therefore probably wasn't introduced.
If a bunch of people with simple recurved bows at 100 yards want to shoot at 'me' in a proper mail tent with leather backing - I think I'd feel relatively safe. :-) Give me a nice large shield as well and I may even come out of the tent and face the arrows in the actual mail! My understanding of Carrhae and Xenophon's earlier writings are that the majority of ancient bowfire en masse is harrassing fire and it's the exposed portions that get hit. The Parthians' enemies were worn down by not being able to move, but have to shelter, and heat - not actual death and major injury.
Hunting bows and modern archery over flat trajectory distances are not what we should be talking about. :wink:
If the subject is limited solely to a barrage of Parthian arrows launched by non-moving Partians (each one staked to the ground by a tether or chain), then I would agree with you. But there is a sound and historical reason for the old expression, "Parthian shot." If you know what that is, then you also know the Parthians weren't playing around with 35-pound target bows. They were riding into the enemy formation, firing a number of machinegun-fast shots, then turning their horses and firing a few "classics." And they weren't using target-strength bows, the kind of bows now sold to people shooting at targets after a hard day at the office. :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
Quote: I assume we are talking about massed bowfire from a significant, but reasonable, distance (certainly outside light javelin range) from a moving horse
Why would the massed arrow fire have to be from a moving horse. They could quite easily just fire from a stationary horse (out of javelin range of course, assuming the Romans had any left) for better aim and if a legionary or an undisciplined group of them were foolhardy or maddened enough, either by frustration or thirst, to race out and attack the horsemen they would then probably ride off, then circle the isolated Romans and cut down the attacking infantry immediately as they knew how to fire while riding away. The Parthian/Saka horse archers were basically herdsmen from Surena's lands in the east so they would have been skilled at the use of the lasso as well to catch and drag any isolated legionaires away from the Roman square and then finish them off. You are right that the Romans were probably worn down more from heat and lack of water but they must have lost more than half of their army to arrow fire or their fearsome cataphracts as I think that the Parthians captured about 10,000 Romans and I am not sure how many managed to return to Syria but I don't think the Parthians/Saka horsemen had to constantly circle the Roman square like Indians around a circled wagon train and would have been very conscious of not wearing down their own horses. They would have concentrated in groups at perceived weak points in the Roman square and worked away at them. :unsure:
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:Dura Europos' mail fragments were exceptionally large for roman maile if I recall correctly... The only complete Hauberk I know of is Arbeia which had a 7.5mm external diameter and a 4.9mm internal diameter. The Leiden hauberk had an internal diameter of 3.3mm.
I'm not sure about 'exceptionally'! There are fragments at Dura from around 30 (presumably different) mail shirts, so the evidence for exceptionality is rather weighted in the other direction... The smallest iron ring from the Dura fragments is 8mm external diameter - some of the bronze edging rings are smaller (6mm minimum), but they are butted links. It is possible, of course, that some of the Dura mail was Persian.
I'm not sure about the background of the Leiden piece, but I believe the Arbeia hamata was found in the burnt ruin of a end room in a barrack block, implying that it might have been centurion's armour. As centurions could afford the best equipment, it's possible that this was a particularly well-made shirt with very fine links!
Does anyone have any info on the size of the Bertoldsheim mail? However, all of this is third century armour, of course, perhaps not representative of earlier eras...
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.
