Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

to be fair, how lethal are bows, really? I've read one account in Harold Lamb's The Crusades from an arab describing Frankish infantry in mail coats with felt under them walking about with 21 or more arrows in them, and not minding a whole lot.

That was written by Bahā’al-Dīn, Saladin’s biographer. He said that the Frankish crusaders were,
drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them… I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

Source: Bahā’al-Dīn, The Life of Saladin, (Ch. CXVII), in "What Befell Sultan Yusuf," by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi.

It is unclear in the above passage whether the Franks were wearing the felt under their mail or whether it was an additional layer of felt over the top to add more DR against arrows.


Edit
Just found the first anecdote I metioned. It involved a knight named Walter of Châtillon:

…and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again… Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.

Source: The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, (Ch.17). 197-8.

[Verjigorm]

Thanks man. How do you feel about my idea for the Solenerion?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

That was written by Bahā’al-Dīn, Saladin’s biographer. He said that the Frankish crusaders were,
drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them… I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

Source: Bahā’al-Dīn, The Life of Saladin, (Ch. CXVII), in "What Befell Sultan Yusuf," by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi.

It is unclear in the above passage whether the Franks were wearing the felt under their mail or whether it was an additional layer of felt over the top to add more DR against arrows.


Edit
Just found the first anecdote I metioned. It involved a knight named Walter of Châtillon:

…and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again… Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.

Source: The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, (Ch.17). 197-8.

__________________________________________________ __
Bows varied in their effect. A large part of the success of the First Crusade stemed from the fact that the Crusader's objective was a city which couldn't be defended by the "infinite retreat-akido with armies" method of steepe warfare. When there was no fixed target the result was not unlike Napolean's invasion of Russia.
The archery must in fact have caused a number of casualties, despite the armor. What it didn't do was cause enough to make them break ranks which means their discipline was better then is generally credited.
In the Third Crusade Richard managed to lure the Saracens close enough for him to charge them. They recieved a drubbing that apparently made them unwilling to close to effective range for the rest of the campaign.
It may also be that the Saracens were less effective as archers then the "Terrible Tarters" of nightmare. Or had less effective bows. Also note that horses are likly less well armored then men and hiting a horse neutralizes the rider as well. Less well armored or not, the horse wouldn't know and is likly to panic. One of the most important elements in the history of cavalry is the independance of the horses. Thus heavy cavalry may have been easier for horse archers to deal with then footmen.

[Verjigorm]

The Turkish Ghulam cavalry the crusaders fought were not the constant retreating people you describe. Turkish cavalrymen were very proud of their personal combat skills, and would not hesistate to charge. Something that is missed is that the muslim state of the time was extremely fractured, with the Fatamids of egypt opposing the Seljuks sultans of Rum, and who were the guys in charge of the former Sassnian domains?

King Richard also developed a tactic where his army marched in constant support of each of it's constitutient pieces. The Crossbow of the crusaders was a weapon that muslim cavalry was not prepared to deal with. I've read a bit that supports that whenever the crossbowmen fired, the muslims would generally retire. However, for the crossbowmen to load their bows, they were required to pause, which meant the entire army hard to stop. The muslim cavalry would ride up, unleash a few arrows, flee from the counter volley and then repeat.

The leaders of the 1st crusade, for example, were also some of the greatest military leaders at the time. They had been fighting amongst themselves for quite sometime, as well as against the Byzantine empire, Steppe Nomads and the Vikings. You don't get that much practice time in without getting good.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

to be fair, how lethal are bows, really? I've read one account in Harold Lamb's The Crusades from an arab describing Frankish infantry in mail coats with felt under them walking about with 21 or more arrows in them, and not minding a whole lot. And with the average damage of a ST 11 man using a composite bow(1d+2), it seems pretty fair. The armor described would either be Mail(DR 4/2) or Mail with cloth armor underneath(5/3). That means vs DR 4 you have a total damage of 0-6(average of 2-4), and vs DR 5 you are looking at 0-4(average of 0-2).

The effectiveness of bows seems to drop off rapidly as armor is worn.

Right. A man in good mail with proper padding underneath, and possibly another layer of protection over top, is proof against many arrows in the real world. Alan Williams tested two mail samples, backed by replica padding, and found that an arrow needed 120 J of energy to penetrate. The heaviest bows can do that and more (a war longbow might fire arrows with 150 J), but only the heaviest shooting apropriate arrows.

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Anyway, all that aside, what would be appropriate to represent a solenerion? Perhaps:
Solenerion, DAM Thr+1 imp, Acc 5, Range x15/x20, Weight 4/0.08, Shots 1(3), Cost ???, St 10, Bulk -8.

A solenarion is an accessory for a bow not a different weapon, so should modify the stats of the bow it is used with. eg. it might give +1 damage, 60% range, and +1 Acc. I don't know enough about this weapon to have an opinion on what modifiers to use- sorry!

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Range may be too generous, as may accuracy. I've noticed a huge difference in the effectiveness of crossbows and bows(a crossbowmen in my 1091 game lastnight shot our intrepid Holy Roman Knight in the eye, through his great helm. The Knight's ok, thanks to magic.), primarily due to the increase in accuracy, but also due to damage. Rate of fire though, butchers the crossbow's effectiveness.

Crossbow Acc and damage are probably too high in the default rules. I agree that Acc 5 would be too high for a premodern weapon.

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Do you think the solenerion is more of a one dart launched item, or is it perhaps something like a primitive machinegun, capable of firing multiple darts simultaneously?

One shot, I think, since there is only one tube for the arrow.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

The Turkish Ghulam cavalry the crusaders fought were not the constant retreating people you describe. Turkish cavalrymen were very proud of their personal combat skills, and would not hesistate to charge. Something that is missed is that the muslim state of the time was extremely fractured, with the Fatamids of egypt opposing the Seljuks sultans of Rum, and who were the guys in charge of the former Sassnian domains?

King Richard also developed a tactic where his army marched in constant support of each of it's constitutient pieces. The Crossbow of the crusaders was a weapon that muslim cavalry was not prepared to deal with. I've read a bit that supports that whenever the crossbowmen fired, the muslims would generally retire. However, for the crossbowmen to load their bows, they were required to pause, which meant the entire army hard to stop. The muslim cavalry would ride up, unleash a few arrows, flee from the counter volley and then repeat.

The leaders of the 1st crusade, for example, were also some of the greatest military leaders at the time. They had been fighting amongst themselves for quite sometime, as well as against the Byzantine empire, Steppe Nomads and the Vikings. You don't get that much practice time in without getting good.

_______________________________
"constant retreating" as I described is not a comment on their prowess. I am not making a medieval adaptation of a stale anti-French joke. It was a description of a manuever. Done in a tactical level a fake retreat was a highly difficult thing to arrange without causing a panic. On the strategic level, in the manner of Kutusov it required considerable physical hardihood, to endure the stress of the long campaign. Neither of these is a incompatible with "not hesitating to charge". They were quite capable of charging when given an opening-they simply didn't get an opening at that time. The situation is the reverse-Western Knights didn't hesitate to charge often enough and it took them a long time to learn to. It required a ferocious disciplinarian like Richard to keep them from getting there foolish little selves cut off and sliced to pieces.
And yes the fracture in the Moslem states was harmful-though the Crusaders were hardly a shining example of unity.
In any case the "constant retreating" does seem to be the strategy they adopted on that occasion. And in the First Crusade it didn't work for the reason described.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

_______________________________
"constant retreating" as I described is not a comment on their prowess. I am not making a medieval adaptation of a stale anti-French joke. It was a description of a manuever. Done in a tactical level a fake retreat was a highly difficult thing to arrange without causing a panic. On the strategic level, in the manner of Kutusov it required considerable physical hardihood, to endure the stress of the long campaign. Neither of these is a incompatible with "not hesitating to charge". They were quite capable of charging when given an opening-they simply didn't get an opening at that time. The situation is the reverse-Western Knights didn't hesitate to charge often enough and it took them a long time to learn to. It required a ferocious disciplinarian like Richard to keep them from getting there foolish little selves cut off and sliced to pieces.
And yes the fracture in the Moslem states was harmful-though the Crusaders were hardly a shining example of unity.
In any case the "constant retreating" does seem to be the strategy they adopted on that occasion. And in the First Crusade it didn't work for the reason described.

_____________________________________
Avoiding combat was in fact a reasonably sensible strategy for the Saracens during the First Crusade. The Byzantines regularly and successfully used it going the other way(and yes they were less inclined to charge then either Saracens or Crusaders, not because they were cowardly but because they were sensible enough to know there was no need). A city as well fortified as Jerusalem was effectivly impregnable and the fact that the Crusaders breeched it was a fluke. If it had held the Crusaders would have wilted away.
And yes I do realize that there were a lot of "what abouts". The Saracens weren't Tartars and didn't fight exactly like them. They contained a lot of troops from the Middle East and so on. But there is much in there strategy that does resemble steepe war.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The Byzantines regularly and successfully used it going the other way(and yes they were less inclined to charge then either Saracens or Crusaders...

I don't mean to pick on Jason here since many posters do it but my pet peeve is the use of THEN when making a comparison instead of THAN. E.g. the above sentence should read: "they were less inclined to charge THAN either Saracens or Crusaders"
I have no idea why this has become so common except perhaps that people no longer enunciate their words correctly. :-(

A solenarion is an accessory for a bow not a different weapon, so should modify the stats of the bow it is used with.

agreed

eg. it might give +1 damage, 60% range, and +1 Acc.

Agreed with the increase in range but the missiles are much lighter and shorter than regular arrows so damage should be reduced. Perhaps they should be treated as specialised flight arrows.

Edit: Just found this passage in a draft of an upcoming book that I helped to edit:
"According to Latham and Paterson (1970:29), short arrows [darts] lacked the power and strength to penetrate mail or armor but were sufficiently effective as a harassing device, especially against unprotected horses of enemy cavalry. The characteristic feature of this type of arrow is that they were shot at high velocity with low trajectory making them accurate shots at short ranges. They could also be used by masses of archers at longer ranges for shooting a barrage of arrows."

If anyone is interested the book should be available within the next month or so. It will be the definitive work on Iranian/Persian arms and armour.
http://www.arms-and-armor-from-iran.de/

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The Saracens weren't Tartars and didn't fight exactly like them. They contained a lot of troops from the Middle East and so on. But there is much in there strategy that does resemble steepe war.

The Saracens were armed and armoured in a very similar manner to the Europeans and their method of warfare was also very similar except for the fact that they made a greater use of horse archers. However this emphasis by scholars on horse archers has been greatly exaggerated.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Agreed with the increase in range but the missiles are much lighter and shorter than regular arrows so damage should be reduced. Perhaps they should be treated as specialised flight arrows.

OK, I had guessed that they used heavier rather than lighter arrows. Perhaps +1 Acc, 120-140% range, and -1 damage (and possibly pi rather tham imp, since I doubt these arrows have broadheads) would be reasonable, as another wild guess.