Javelin's and their effectiveness [Archive]

Arman616

02-01-2006, 12:15

Adapted from the elephant thread:

Do you guys think javelins should do more damage? Especially to unarmored units which still have shields. Because if 200 or so javelins come flying at a tight group of people with just shields, a lot of shields are going to be pierced, shredded up, and knocked around; and some of the javelins will fly right through and hit the body. And some javelins will will actually hit flesh. Now I know we cannot simulate injury on the field, so do you think the kill rate of javelins thrown into units should be increased?

Of course heavily armored units should withstand a lot more javelins. But people with no armour and just shields should get ripped.

pezhetairoi

02-01-2006, 13:05

I dunno, my impression was that they were already getting considerably ripped... my mala gaeroas lost almost a quarter to a third of their troops by the time the unit of Roman leves opposite them finished their ammo...

jebes

02-01-2006, 19:25

fallen851

02-02-2006, 00:40

I completely concur with Jebes. 80 archers firing 80 arrows into 80 legionaries should produce at least 3 fallen legionaries I would think.

I never did like how you can fire hundreds of arrows into armored troops and kill none... as Jebes points out, there are weak points in the armor, and even more importantly, there are so many unprotected areas that would disable a man if not kill when hit there (legs, face, neck, arm, you try fighting with an arrow sticking out of one of those places causing massive pain and bleeding).

Javelins should be even more effective...80 javelines into a group of 80 legionaries should produce at least 8 fallen.

But if it makes you that upset, just edit it yourself!

Arman616

02-02-2006, 01:11

econ21

02-02-2006, 01:23

Arrows seem reasonable to me - I suspect those legionnaires would be fairly safe, hunkered down behind those big old shields. If 80 archers can kill 3 legionnaires in one volley and had 30 arrows, they could effectively wipe out the unit by shooting alone. That seems over the top. We had something like that in vanilla - 4 aux archers on a hill could stop a full strength pre-Marian stack.

80 pila killing 8 legionnaires sounds more reasonable though. For a start, there will only be two pila (I'd make javelins less effective). Typically, the defending pila throwers would get off just one shot. If they take down much less than 8, they would seem to be of little use. It may be a little high historically, but we can't catch the effect of pila in stripping men of their shields, so it seems reasonable. Plus I've read that javelins do have surprisingly high armour penetration - they are rather slow, but can slice through most armour of the time.

Does anyone know the actual kill rates in EB?

Megalos

02-02-2006, 01:29

Does anyone know the actual kill rates in EB?

Would be interesting to find out...If anyone is going to try it, i'd suggest doing it on the very smallest unit sizes, for time saving. ;)

QwertyMIDX

02-02-2006, 01:57

The problem here is that javelins weren't usally useful as killing weapons, they were more important as shield disablers, something we can't really portray in RTW.

econ21

02-02-2006, 02:17

The problem here is that javelins weren't usally useful as killing weapons, they were more important as shield disablers, something we can't really portray in RTW.

It can't be directly portrayed but presumably it should therefore be factored it into the overall kill rate of javelins. That was one argument I used to justify 80 pila killing 8 legionnaires.

If you want a more quantitative approach, you could make some calculations along the following lines:
(a) how many shields would you expect 80 pila thrown at 80 legionaires to disable? - let's say 20%
(b) how many extra casualties in a melee would you expect legionaires to suffer in battle as a result of not having shields - let's say 20% again
so roughly speaking, the shield-disabling effects of the pila might indirectly add 0.2*0.2*80=3.2 casualties to the direct kills. So if you think 80 pila would directly kill 5 men, then nudge that up to 8 to capture the shield disabling effect. If you think they'd kill only 1 legionnaire directly, nudge it up to 4 etc.

Now, the above calculations depend on unknowns and may vary greatly with the situation/units involved. But you are probably as well placed as anyone to make such judgement calls. :bow:

fallen851

02-02-2006, 02:34

Arrows seem reasonable to me - I suspect those legionnaires would be fairly safe, hunkered down behind those big old shields. If 80 archers can kill 3 legionnaires in one volley and had 30 arrows, they could effectively wipe out the unit by shooting alone.

30 arrows each that is...which comes out to 30 arrows = 1 dead legionarie...

Remeber there is 2400 arrows shot if there is 80 archers with 30 arrows each.

Even if we assume 3/4 of the arrows miss, its still 7.5 arrows hitting a single legionnaire...even with all the armor, don't you think one might sneak through and go through your nose?

I suggest increasing archer power, but reducing ammo to 20-25.

I can edit the file later...but I first have to finish my mod.

QwertyMIDX

02-02-2006, 02:38

fallen851

02-02-2006, 03:04

Likely more than 3/4 miss. Even with 7.5 per legionarie most if not all would hit the shield for the average legionarie, which is why if you can hit them from behind or the non-shield flank you'll do much better.

Likely more than 3/4 miss? Hmm, if I was a trained archer, I'd hope at least 1 in 4 of my arrows would hit a mass of 80 men (or more) packed together...

Otherwise I should be put in the unit of peasant...

Ok so if 5/6th of the arrows miss, there is still 5 arrows going into each legionnarie... 400 arrows on target if they have 30 ammo...

How many of those will land short and slice through a knee and break up the formation? How many will skid off the shield into another guys face? How many will go directly through the shield and into a fist? How many would hit someone with such power as to knock them over, and breaking up their defense and other mens defence...

With 2400 arrows fired and 400 on target (which wouldn't exactly be a unit of "dead-eyes") I'd imagine that 1/3 to half of the unit of legionnaries would go down...

Slingers would do even better, their stones would richochet (spelling?) off shields and armor into unprotected flesh, shatter into tiny bits on shields that would sent splinters of rock up that would blind people...

Ranged units should make a big mess.

I'll be editing to make 80 archers kill 2 legionnaries per 80 arrows, slingers kill 1 per 80 stones, and javelin troops kill 7 per 80 javelins. Ammo will be reduced (who brings 40 arrows to a battle, you know how many that is!)

QwertyMIDX

02-02-2006, 03:11

It sounds nice and logical, but sources say that ranged weapons weren't that effective against well armored units, especially ones with large shields. If you want to ignore that, fine and well, but I'd perfer not too. Missile weapons, especially in the west, seemed to be more a weapon of harasment rather than one of killing.

Also, 400 on target, the vast majority of which hit the shield and do no damage. Further, most of those that hit something other than the shield would either be stopped by the armor, or cause only minor wounds.

fallen851

02-02-2006, 04:11

QwertyMIDX

02-02-2006, 04:14

They kept them out of testudo with heavy cavalry charges, it only worked because of the effectives of combined arms.

Western archers almost all carried 15 arrows into battle.

fallen851

02-02-2006, 04:33

They kept them out of testudo with heavy cavalry charges, it only worked because of the effectives of combined arms.

Western archers almost all carried 15 arrows into battle.

Ok if we continue this back and forth between the two threads we'll be up all night.

I'm just curious how you plan to deal with the archer bug in 1.5 if EB is going to be ported?

QwertyMIDX

02-02-2006, 04:37

Not sure yet, I'm doing my best to work around it, but in the end I feel like it's a less crippling bug than the load/save bug.

LorDBulA

02-02-2006, 09:46

Very interesting thread i must say.

Lets make more calculations.
Basic assumptions.
We shoot to Hastati.
We shoot target that are far. This gives as more steep angel off attack but also decreases accuracy.
I choose this because when you shoot to close target then trajectory is flat and its hard to hit anything but shield (its a big ass shield).

Ok so this is our situation from arrow point of view.

https://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6722/hastatitarget3vn.th.jpg (https://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6722/hastatitarget3vn.jpg)

I think that assumption that only 1/6 arrows hit target when shooting on long range is reasonable.

As you can see surface that is directly expose to arrow is about 20%.
But its virtually not protected. 40% are arms, shoulders, 60% chest.
I would say that on hit there is 50% chance of soldier being injured lightly, and 50% chance of serious injuries.
RTW doesnt support injuries. In RTW person is ok or dead (in 1hp system).
Because of this i will count 3 wounded man as 1 dead.
Reasoning behind this is that wounded soldiers are retreating to the back of formation, but if they happen to join combat they are more likely to be killed.

So lets take a sample of 2400 arrows.
Arrows that hit = 400.
Arrows that hit exposed flesh = 80.
40 man are injured = 13.333 deaths.
40 man are seriously injured = 40 deaths.
In total we get 53.333 deaths.
Counting per 80 arrows (one volley) it gives us 1,78 dead.

Keep in mind that this Hastati are light troops only with big ass shield.

This mind experiment doesnt take into acount 2 very important things.
1) Soldiers are not stupid, they rise shields when arrows are coming.
2) When you shoot with many arrows to many targets only small portions hit target directly from front. Many will hit from left or right side.
Look at soldiers on left and right of marked soldiers. They are more exposed.
Other issue is that when you kill soldiers target gets smaller and smaller.

So number one decreases casualties and number two increases them.
There is now way we can take this into accout.
But with reasonable margin of error (like 50%) i would say that its possible that this two factors can cancel each other out.

Now lets take Polybian hastati.
Picture would be thae same but they would have breastplate.
What does it change?

Surface that is directly expose to arrow is about 16%
Minor injuries 80%
Major injuries 20%, most of vital body parts is protected.
The rest is the same.

Calculations:
So lets take a sample of 2400 arrows.
Arrows that hit = 400.
Arrows that hit exposed flesh = 64.
51.2 man are injured = 17.07 deaths.
12.8 man are seriously injured = 12.8 deaths.
In total we get 29.87 deaths.
Counting per 80 arrows (one volley) it gives us 0.996 dead.

As you can see wearing more armor have it uses.
And Polybian hastati are not exactly heavy troops.
Ofcourse this is only mind experiment so its most likely greatly off from practice.
But if we add what history have to say about archer effectivnes it has sense.

econ21

02-02-2006, 10:33

(b) how many extra casualties in a melee would you expect legionaires to suffer in battle as a result of not having shields - let's say 20% again
so roughly speaking, the shield-disabling effects of the pila might indirectly add 0.2*0.2*80=3.2 casualties to the direct kills.

Actually, on reflection, this is more complicated than I thought. The calculation implicitly assumed being shieldless would lead to 20% of the unit dying. In the text, I wrote it would lead to 20% more casualties. They are very different - e.g. if you only lose 5 men in a melee.

One "empirical" approach would be to set up a custom battle between two unit legionnaires, both with no pila and one without a shield. See how many more kills the shielded ones get before their enemy routs. Multiply that difference by the fraction of shield-disabling hits you think 80 pila would give and that is the extra casualties you can attribute to the pila from its shield disabling effect.

Of course, the results may differ between legionnaires and other units. Legions are relatively well armoured, so the shield may make less difference to their defence than it does to an unarmoured warband. But it'd be better than my hand-waving.

BTW: what's the archer bug in 1.5?

O'ETAIPOS

02-02-2006, 11:15

One info I see nobody takes care - some archers had shield crushing arrows - short range, huge head. This is the reason partians executed romans at Carrahe - 1-2 of those heavy arrows will destroy even scuttum (I saw what replica of skythian bow with heavy arrow could do to replica of scuttum.)
HA's in EB are very powerful indeed and could exterminate most enemies if terrain isn't bad (forrest, enemy on 50 degrees slope) on they own, or with little help from heavy cav.

fallen851

02-02-2006, 19:23

Lord's post seems reasonable to me, but the Hastati would likely be closing on the archers, so I would imagine somewhat better accuracy, even apporaching 75% as they got quite close. I don't think we can change accuracy though as they get closer.

One man (with some armor) dying per volley though is reasonable at long range. I do believe though that ammo should be reduced from 40, and when I looked at the export_descr_unit for EB, most units have far below 40 ammo. Still, many of them have 3 for a missile attack, which isn't going to kill much.

I think all archers should get a considerable boost in killing power, and a reduction in unit size. I'm editing one of the last pieces of my mod right now, and it happens to be the export_descr_unit, I give archers 20 arrows, and reasonable killing power, but there is only 40 archers per unit (800 arrows fired), they as expensive as a normal melee unit (I used EB's idea of massively increasing unit prices, I don't know if I will release my work) and they are crap in melee. My work is for 1.5 though, and I'm trying to overcome the archer bug...

Archer bug: http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm54.showMessage?topicID=37.topic

Dayve

02-02-2006, 21:04

What are you all talking about? O.o Javelin skirmishers are perfectly balanced apart from when firing at phalanx troops... In the campaigns i've played, serious long term ones, which is uh, 1, as Roma... I never could get the first reforms due to CTD's. What i noticed during said campaign was that:

A: Hastati get ripped apart by even the weakest javelin skirmishers.
B: Principes get ripped apart by even the weakest javelin skirmishers.
C: Triarii are practically invulnerable to anything with long range.

It got to the point where i was actually dreading fighting enemy armies with even 2 skirmisher units... On large unit sizes, my hastati were losing upto 10 men per volley, and if they got fired at whilst walking it could sometimes be worse... This is on medium battles... So i think to save the game from becoming like vanilla RTW where 6 units of archers would decimate your enemies army, javelins should be toned down and archers made a tiny bit more powerful.

jerby

02-03-2006, 20:21

https://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6722/hastatitarget3vn.th.jpg (https://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6722/hastatitarget3vn.jpg)
while I totally concure with your conclusion, I ahev issues with this picture. It is an hastati in idle-position....In battle his shield will be held higher-up, and one can assume even the worst trained soldier can spot a black cloud of arrows, and raise his shield (when not in hand-to-hand combat)

but honestly, I'm quiet happy with arrows at this point. but I still feel my peltastai are lacking umph...

LorDBulA

02-03-2006, 23:07

Yea i know.

This mind experiment doesnt take into acount 2 very important things.
1) Soldiers are not stupid, they rise shields when arrows are coming.
2) When you shoot with many arrows to many targets only small portions hit target directly from front. Many will hit from left or right side.
Look at soldiers on left and right of marked soldiers. They are more exposed.
Other issue is that when you kill soldiers target gets smaller and smaller.

So number one decreases casualties and number two increases them.
There is now way we can take this into accout.
But with reasonable margin of error (like 50%) i would say that its possible that this two factors can cancel each other out.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-04-2006, 00:25

While I don't feel able to comment on arrows, as I don't know much about compound and recurve weapons, I will say something about javalins.

I once read an article where are Saxon re-enactment group tested the power of javalins by throwing them at pig carcasses. What they discovered was that even a blunt javalin would go straight through, they tried the same with shields and even chainmail and the results were still devastating. They didn't try against full plate as that would be outside their time frame but the general conclusion was that a javalin is so massive that it more than makes up for the speed disadvantage vs arrows.

In other words javalins, thrown well, are deadly. As to pila, well they were even more massive and thrown at closer range, which is why they are even more devastating.

Count Belisarius

02-04-2006, 02:34

Do not mistake the ancient breast-bow for the longbow that dominated the battlefields of Europe in the high and late Middle Ages. The Greek bow was not composite or recurve, and was a mere 3-4 ft. long. Weak. All this talk talk talk about numbers of arrows vs. numbers of hits vs. casualties inflicted is a bunch of bollocks. Fact of the matter is, arrows were precious little use on the ancient battlefield. Good for shooting at horses and lightly armored opponents (velites, peltasts, other archers/slingers and most Gauls), but not much use against a well-formed infantry unit. If arrows were any damned good, the Persians would have rolled over the Greeks like a tidal wave. Name a battle occurring between the fall of Troy and the reign of Augustus that was decided by arrows or sling stones? Having trouble? So am I. Platea, Charonea, Issus, Granicus River, Cannae and all the rest . . . archers and slingers were a mere sideshow. Archers are fine the way they are. Short-ranged and relatively weak. Ineffectual against an armored opponent with a decent shield.

Javelins, on the other hand, are underpowered. As previously noted in this thread, a well-thrown javelin can pierce even the heaviest shield, and most armor, especially at close range. And contrary to what others have written here, the Roman pilum was not merely a tool for encumbering an opponent's shield. The pilum was also a sophisticated and efficient killing tool. Opponents who raised their shields against a volley of pila would find themselves, as often as not, skewered when the narrow, armor-piercing head punched through the shield. Your average archer's missile attack being rated a "2" and slingers a "3," a javelin deserves better than a "4." As is, most units will simply shrug off a volley of javelins, even if delivered from the rear. A "7" or even an "8" would be more appropriate, especially considering the shield bonus many troops would enjoy, and the limited supply of javelins.

QwertyMIDX

02-04-2006, 03:22

There are plenty of bows in the ancient world other than the Selfbow. Composite Recurved bows were VERY effective.

Those numbers you list aren't accurate either. Javelin attack rating depend on the type of javelin and the throwers skill. The Pila is a 4, but it has AP.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-04-2006, 12:54

Another thing to be said about javalins is that a javalin hit was usually fatal, whereas a tough warrior might shrug off an arrow in the shoulder. I think javalins should be twice as effective as arrows.

the_handsome_viking

02-04-2006, 13:42

Isn't there some sort of reenactment forum you can ask? that would seem like the most logical way to find out.

I've read and watched various demonstrations of weapons and armors and I think the bulk of celtic javalins didn't do so much damage to sheilds, however the Roman pilum did lots of damage to the sheilds.

That said, it really does depend on the design of the sheild, according to channel 4's history section, in weapons and armor demonstrations the Saxon sheild, covered in leather, could absorb a lot of damage.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/shield1.html

Three types of shields were tested. The plain lime-wood shield was split by an arrow and smashed in half by a throwing axe. However, once covered in leather, a lime-wood shield easily received the shock of an impacting arrow, absorbed the stopping power of a throwing axe and was only split around the rim by the almost unstoppable Dane-axe.

The final test, on the lenticular shield, proved that this design could indeed withstand the mighty Viking two-handed axe. In fact, when tested by machine to destruction, it required a Dane-axe impact four times as powerful as a man could swing.

So in conclusion, sheild are sexy.

fallen851

02-06-2006, 21:11

There sure is a lot of arguing going on, but not much problem solving...

Spectral

02-07-2006, 00:33

Name a battle occurring between the fall of Troy and the reign of Augustus that was decided by arrows or sling stones? Having trouble? So am I. Platea, Charonea, Issus, Granicus River, Cannae and all the rest . . . archers and slingers were a mere sideshow.

At least at Carrhae they played a very significant role, if not the most important one.

On the topic, sometimes the javelins feel like a bit underpowered, for example a peltast unit against a pezhetairoi one sometimes struggles to achieve even 1 or 2 kills...

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2006, 01:11

Well, if you read the Anabasis, you get a healthy impression about the sling stone's impact effect. Not so the arrow.

One problem we have with archery effect is that most of us have little personal knowledge of archery and many of us who do are thinking in terms of modern weapons.

Remember, during RTW's time-frame:

Compound bows were the exception and crossbows were not used outside of East Asia. Most folks went to war with the same bow they used for small game or one only slightly more powerful. There is a reason the AA and Chosens have more range and more killing power - they're using war bows.

Most of them were tipped with iron -- steel was expensive and rarely wasted on a disposable weapon -- and iron points will not pierce most plate (and even then will do so only at point blank range) [The history channel did a nice piece on this: in their test an arrow fired from an english Longbow would not pierce 1/8 inch of armor at 75 yards]. Therefore, in all likelihood, the greaves of a hoplite, the cuirass, most shields and helmets and a goodly portion of the mail even in this earlier period were strongly resistant if not altogether proof against arrows. This suggests that even though the number of hits may approach unity when firing at a mass of infantry from normal distances, the number of effective hits -- wounding in more than a cursory fashion -- is probably very low.

Arrows are bulky to carry without damaging the arrow -- so carrying enough to be decisive is tough. This would not be the case for a defender in a siege, who would -- if provisioned -- have buckets of the things nearby. Ancient records note their importance in sieges (as even the wounds of Alexander attest).

Sadly, if CA modeled the real effectiveness of archers, I suspect nobody would use them.

All-in-all, I disagree with up-powering the arrow, it should be decreased (if anything). Slings may be under-powered slightly, but javelins are probably pretty close to true.

fallen851

02-07-2006, 04:28

Well arrows played a very important role in the battle of Troy, due to the fact one went through a rather important man's heel...

I'm afriad this problem might solve (or one might be created, depending on how you see it) itself with the 1.5 patch port coming, unless Qwerty decides to not have archers firing on units in selected situations, archers will be getting a boost.

Sdragon

02-07-2006, 13:23

Javelins must be a pain to balance. Playing as Casse they deal great damage to the enemies I face. But in my Roman campaign firing at Greeks for example doesn't do much damage. Usually have to unload a few volleys into their backs to cause any real damage.

Kralizec

02-07-2006, 14:14

I think logic can easily explain why units were used in a harrassment role, they didn't have very much ammo.

When archers did have ammo, they were incredibly effective, at the battle of Carrhae, Persian archers firing from horseback with a basically infinite supply of arrows from a nearby baggage train put down 20,000 Romans, mostly with arrows... To be fair many were killed in the frantic retreat, but obviously arrows were effective enough to get them to route Roman Legionnaries, despite them being in a testudo. The fact is they were being killed at a fast rate.

I would think archers wouldn't be so effective because they didn't bring so many arrows to the battle, not because their arrows were ineffective. I don't think that even the most prepared archer brought anymore than 20 arrows... probably around 10-12 for most. And if 3/4 miss, that is only 4 arrows on target. So 2 archers put 8 arrows down on target, and I'd like to think one would kill.

A bit late, but I feel compelled to respond to this. I don't mean to crack you down, but this is a blatant inaccurate portrayal of facts.

Carrhae took days, not hours. As you said the horse archers (wich weren't drawn from Persians, correct me if I'm wrong) were so effective because they had an unlimited supply train of arrows. If you play EB or especially vanilla RTW with limited ammo off, it's easy to score a victory with negligable losses. That is, unless the Roman player is smart and brings in a good number of slingers and auxiliary archers, wich is exactly what the Romans did afterwards and enabled them to put up more of a fight against the Parthians in later battles.
A lorica hamata coupled with a scutum offers excellent protection against arrows, and when in a testudo formation legionaires would be nigh invulnerable to archers. The Parthian general realised this and charged with his cataphracts or just feigned charges, so to force the Romans to break up their testudo because it's a specialised formation that's no good in close combat, let alone warding off cavalry charges. The continuing cycle of charges of heavy cavalry, followed by massive barrages of arrows, proved exhausting to the Roman infantry and destroyed their morale.
I'm not entirely sure what happened after that, I think Crassus accepted a Parthian invitation to negotiate, but it was a trap...the Romans later tried to escape but were rolled over by the Parthian cavalry.

Crassus was a fool trying to fight an enemy that prefers horse archers with an army consisting almost entirely out of heavy infantry. The Armenian king actually tried to warn him I believe, but he ignored his advice. Horse archers are not an invincible force, but you have to bring along the right tools to fight them.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2006, 16:41

A bit late, but I feel compelled to respond to this. I don't mean to crack you down, but this is a blatant inaccurate portrayal of facts.

Carrhae took days, not hours....Crassus was a fool trying to fight an enemy that prefers horse archers with an army consisting almost entirely out of heavy infantry. The Armenian king actually tried to warn him I believe, but he ignored his advice. Horse archers are not an invincible force, but you have to bring along the right tools to fight them.

Absolutely.

Heavy infantry without significant missile support and insufficient water in a desert environment.

Allowing most of the cavalry off on a "raid" when facing an all-cavalry opponent (cut off and chopped up as we know).

Insufficient scouting/use of irregulars.

Crassus set himself up for a beating.

Arrows annoyed and flustered the Romans for days -- wounding many and killing a few -- but it was heat, exhaustion, and heavy cavalry that broke them.

O'ETAIPOS

02-07-2006, 16:47

A lorica hamata coupled with a scutum offers excellent protection against arrows, and when in a testudo formation legionaires would be nigh invulnerable to archers. The Parthian general realised this and charged with his cataphracts or just feigned charges, so to force the Romans to break up their testudo because it's a specialised formation that's no good in close combat, let alone warding off cavalry charges. The continuing cycle of charges of heavy cavalry, followed by massive barrages of arrows, proved exhausting to the Roman infantry and destroyed their morale.

Not! Scuttum could be crushed with 1-2 special arrows if you use compound recurve bow. Chain mail do not protect against specialised arrow. HA's had lots of types of specialized arrows for different tasks. After few hours probably half of romans didn't have shield at all.

Cataphracts were there mainly to destroy gallic cav had Crassus had with.

QwertyMIDX

02-07-2006, 17:19

Kralizec has presented the orthodox, widely accepted narrative of the battle. In fact I have never encountered a piece of scholarship making an argument for a seriously different narrative. So for the moment O'ETAIPOS, your interpretation is doesn't hold water. If you could find some sort of support for it I'd be interested though.

O'ETAIPOS

02-07-2006, 17:50

Well I do not question the narrative, but I saw effect of test hold on our university during scientific meeting. I saw replica of scuttum so powerful that you can stand on to be crushed by 2 arrows, shot from replica of skytian bow (90cm long, 50-60kg draw power) it were arrows with heads being replica of special heavy skythian ones found during excavations in Ukraine. I was shocked :)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-07-2006, 19:19

Do you think they had Scythian weapons? Also, how hard were the arrow heads to make? Would you use them on massed infantry.

conon394

02-07-2006, 19:39

O'ETAIPOS

02-07-2006, 20:47

O'ETAIPOS

If the Scutum was so vulnerable to arrows, why was the improved testudo formation used by Rome after Crassus’ defeat in later campaigns against the Parthians effective?

More importantly can you describe this demonstration more completely? At what range was the shield shot, under what conditions. What was the shield’s composition?

Maybe because they had more archers to protect the testudo? I dont know.
This is a short range arrow - head is big and heavy. If I found notes I made that time I will provide some more details. From what I remember - 20-30 metres (enough for HA to shoot and run away), shield was 3-4 layers, 1.2 cm thick (but i may be totaly wrong, as it was over a year ago)

Do you think they had Scythian weapons? Also, how hard were the arrow heads to make? Would you use them on massed infantry.

Those arrows are from 400 BC do you think steppe people decrease in theyre war abilities?
This head is useles for other use than shield crushing, if facing not massed inf, you could run around them and shot from unprotected side.

a_b_danner

02-07-2006, 21:36

If anything, I think arrows should be increased in power and javelins too against armored opponents. There was a reason that full plate mail became full plat mail. No matter how strong your breast plate is, hundreds of arrows hitting randomly will hit an uncovered spot. However, I can fire about 500 arrows into a group of guys with a cuirass, a helmet and a shield with their faces and next exposed and it won't kill barely any. Javelins are barely better.

Actually, i think the move to full plate in the middle-ages was because of the English Longbow with Bodkin (armor piercing) arrow heads, and to a lessor extent the Arbelest. That, and the Eurapean method of war, which to some extent was a gentlemens war, (ie; meet somewhere and have it out, with the loser often surviving in captivity), led to the full plate of the armored knight. Suiting up in Full Plate took time, and it couldn't be worn day after day on campaign. So it would be much less practicle to wear in non-gentlemens war.

Arrows in the roman period had low penetration compared to the Long Bow or arbelest. A case could be made that the composite bow had better penetration.

I think Javelins in EB could all be armor piercing, which would make them more useful, but this would detract from the relative effect of the Pilium.

fallen851

02-08-2006, 06:34

A bit late, but I feel compelled to respond to this. I don't mean to crack you down, but this is a blatant inaccurate portrayal of facts.

Carrhae took days, not hours. As you said the horse archers (wich weren't drawn from Persians, correct me if I'm wrong) were so effective because they had an unlimited supply train of arrows. If you play EB or especially vanilla RTW with limited ammo off, it's easy to score a victory with negligable losses. That is, unless the Roman player is smart and brings in a good number of slingers and auxiliary archers, wich is exactly what the Romans did afterwards and enabled them to put up more of a fight against the Parthians in later battles.
A lorica hamata coupled with a scutum offers excellent protection against arrows, and when in a testudo formation legionaires would be nigh invulnerable to archers. The Parthian general realised this and charged with his cataphracts or just feigned charges, so to force the Romans to break up their testudo because it's a specialised formation that's no good in close combat, let alone warding off cavalry charges. The continuing cycle of charges of heavy cavalry, followed by massive barrages of arrows, proved exhausting to the Roman infantry and destroyed their morale.
I'm not entirely sure what happened after that, I think Crassus accepted a Parthian invitation to negotiate, but it was a trap...the Romans later tried to escape but were rolled over by the Parthian cavalry.

Crassus was a fool trying to fight an enemy that prefers horse archers with an army consisting almost entirely out of heavy infantry. The Armenian king actually tried to warn him I believe, but he ignored his advice. Horse archers are not an invincible force, but you have to bring along the right tools to fight them.

I have no idea why I said Persian archers...

As to Carrhae taking days, that depends on how you look it. It didn't take more than a day for the Romans to give up and begin a retreat, but they were harrassed during their retreat.