Maile and gambeson vs. arrow and sword

[Gaston de Clermont]

This feels like it's partly a commercial for the products used, but it's an interesting test.
http://www.revivalclothing.com/frame.ph ... swords.htm

[sarnac]

I find the results to be comparable to most of the examples I have read of arrows and single handed weapons not faring well against mailled soldiers.

Hence the reason the poleaxe, Bill and Glaive became predominant weapons on the battle field

[SyrRhys]

Hence the reason the poleaxe, Bill and Glaive became predominant weapons on the battle field

Well, that and the wielders wanting to feel a little more... shall we say (trying to be kind, here)... *manly* than a mere archer, yes? After all, what honor is gained plinking away at someone who can't strike back? And when the sword won't do then we come to more grisly and therefore more manly forms! I mean--after all, one might *employ* an archer, but talk to one? Admire one? I hardly think so. It gets one's soul all icky, what?

[Verjigorm]

Let's not forget the Mace, Axe/Hammer or Pick as weapons used against mailed foes. The Kataphracts of the later Byzantine empire rode to war with heavy all iron maces, against primarily mounted, mailled foes. The Persians and Indians have a fine tradition of mailed warriors, and there on-handed maces, picks and axes were common, apparantly being well suit to dealing with mailled foes.

In the case of the pick, it focus an amazing amount of energy into a small space. It punchs through the armor, and penetrate's deeply, capable of breaking bones and even piercing internal organs. That's how we say, no bueno.

The axe and mace are closely related concepts to the pick, but in the Axe's case it's got a broader blade intended for cutting, while the mace has a heavy head intended for concussive impact. Flanged maces are even more destructive, as the flange concentrates the impact. Mail may not be penetrated by this, but the blunt trauma to your body is likely to be signifigant, I would think. It's notable that the mace and axe were widely used by horsemen in regiosn favoring the mounted, mailed cavalrymen.

Archery fire is not useful for it's raw destructive power, but it's ability to demoralize. If you're being shot at i's going to irritate, hurt or scare you. More likely the irritation or fear, but those two emotions are more than enough to break chesion of a unit. This has happened virtually any time heavily armoured horsemen have encounted that marriage of firepower and mobility the horse archer. The shoot at you enough to piss you off, and you charge. They scatted, and then begin to work on isolating you from your fellows.

Archers in general have long been secondary troops, with few armies utilizing them as the decisive arm. It's always a way to control the battlefield, however. A force or archers can exact their power within bowshot, while infantry are limited to what's within their arms reach.

[James B.]

I have loosed bodkins and broadheads into my 15 layer (linen) jack with my GDFB maille under it and also into Wolfs 24 layer (linen) jack at Paston. With a 65 pound bow at 20 yards the broadheads bounced off the shell of the jack and the bodkins stuck but never went all the way through the 24 layers and only the tip of the bodkin would peek out the back of the 15 layers and did nothing to the maille if it even touched it and these are steel arrows not iron so they are harder.

My Jack:



Wolfs:

[Nissan Maxima]

And of course the main reason to utilize archers is that they turn knights into pedestrians. Heavily armoured pedestrians to be sure, but they are walking. Unless the big dead horse carcass squashed em, In which case they are crawling while mewling like a kitten. Also a pain maddened horse does break up the company line.

And Syr Rhys, of course you would talk to em. You'd say " Archer, shoot me that fellow's horse." "Good lad! Here's a shilling."

[SyrRhys]

And of course the main reason to utilize archers is that they turn knights into pedestrians. Heavily armoured pedestrians to be sure, but they are walking. Unless the big dead horse carcass squashed em, In which case they are crawling while mewling like a kitten. Also a pain maddened horse does break up the company line.

And Syr Rhys, of course you would talk to em. You'd say " Archer, shoot me that fellow's horse." "Good lad! Here's a shilling."

Well said. But that's an order and the praise due a competent subordinate--not gentlemanly conversation, which is what I meant.

[Gest]

I'm curious to know...

How does the pull-weight of the bows used in the above experiments (50-lbs and 60-lbs, if I read correctly) compare to the pull-weight of a period bow? And, would that change the results in any significant way?

-- Gest

[James B.]

I'm curious to know...

How does the pull-weight of the bows used in the above experiments (50-lbs and 60-lbs, if I read correctly) compare to the pull-weight of a period bow? And, would that change the results in any significant way?

-- Gest

The mainstream thought on longbows is that in the late Middle Ages they were on average 120 pounds draw with some going higher, I understand a Mary Rose bow was tested at 180.

That said 20 yards is REAL CLOSE; I would have about 1 second before a lance picks me up off the ground if an armored man was charging me on horseback. Archers typically loosed from a distance in mass quantity and were a command and control weapon more that anything else, you used mass loosed arrows to deny your enemy a position.

[Verjigorm]

Note that the Byzantines, Avars, Khazars, many muslims and armies throughout history have utilized barding on their horses to protect against arrow fire.

[SyrRhys]

Note that the Byzantines, Avars, Khazars, many muslims and armies throughout history have utilized barding on their horses to protect against arrow fire.

So did some medieval European men at arms, but note that horse armor is never as comprehensive as it is for a man; consider the armor for a horse on the cover of the Edge & Paddock (it's at the Wallace Museum, I believe)--that harness has *lots* of places an arrow can lodge. It's just the nature of the beast, pun intended.

Nissan is correct: One of the primary purposes of archery is dismounting the enemy.

Well, and helping to make a clear distinction between gentlemen and, well, others...

[SyrRhys]

Note that the Byzantines, Avars, Khazars, many muslims and armies throughout history have utilized barding on their horses to protect against arrow fire.

So did some medieval European men at arms, but note that horse armor is never as comprehensive as it is for a man; consider the armor for a horse on the cover of the Edge & Paddock (it's at the Wallace Museum, I believe)--that harness has *lots* of places an arrow can lodge. It's just the nature of the beast, pun intended.

Nissan is correct: One of the primary purposes of archery is dismounting the enemy.

Well, and helping to make a clear distinction between gentlemen and, well, others...

[B. Fulton]

Maille for horses. Courtesy of the Neuburg museum in Vienna.

[Marshal]

That said 20 yards is REAL CLOSE; I would have about 1 second before a lance picks me up off the ground if an armored man was charging me on horseback.

Indeed. And there is no guarantee that even a dead horse will not smash you down at that distance; one of the few distances of a British cavalry square being broken owed to precisely this, a horse shot dead continuing on momentum into the ranks before collapsing. Without an abatis or other barrier to defend archers they had best be running not shooting if a battle of charging knights is this close...and the impulse to run is just about irresistible anyway.

If archery were so effective in reducing knights to "pedestrians", the age of chivalry would have ended centuries earlier. Each arm must be used to greatest advantage, and the general must arrange it so that circumstances favor its use. None is universally superior to the rest.

[white mountain armoury]

Hence the reason the poleaxe, Bill and Glaive became predominant weapons on the battle field

Well, that and the wielders wanting to feel a little more... shall we say (trying to be kind, here)... *manly* than a mere archer, yes? After all, what honor is gained plinking away at someone who can't strike back? And when the sword won't do then we come to more grisly and therefore more manly forms! I mean--after all, one might *employ* an archer, but talk to one? Admire one? I hardly think so. It gets one's soul all icky, what?

Very true, i am an excellent shot with a firearm, pretty much raised with one being from a farmland type of community, yet i dont care for paintball as i dont get satisfaction from it, shooting with accuracy is a skill, and an admirable one, but it does not generate the same feeling you get slugging it out toe to toe with someone.

[Gaston de Vieuxchamps]

I'm curious to know...

How does the pull-weight of the bows used in the above experiments (50-lbs and 60-lbs, if I read correctly) compare to the pull-weight of a period bow? And, would that change the results in any significant way?

-- Gest

The mainstream thought on longbows is that in the late Middle Ages they were on average 120 pounds draw with some going higher, I understand a Mary Rose bow was tested at 180.

That said 20 yards is REAL CLOSE; I would have about 1 second before a lance picks me up off the ground if an armored man was charging me on horseback. Archers typically loosed from a distance in mass quantity and were a command and control weapon more that anything else, you used mass loosed arrows to deny your enemy a position.

This would seem to imply that you think an arrow from a bow of double the poundage at double the distance would have a similar impact which is not at all true.

Who was it that ordered coats of 14 (?) layers of linen sewn similar to your coat because in all his years at war he had never seen such a coat penetrated by arrow OR by hand weapon? Have you tested your armour vs a sword?

Gaston

[Wolf]

Who was it that ordered coats of 14 (?) layers of linen sewn similar to your coat because in all his years at war he had never seen such a coat penetrated by arrow OR by hand weapon? Have you tested your armour vs a sword?

Gaston

james hit me in my jack pretty good with his blunt lutel. i felt it (cause he did it across my shoulder blades) but it wouldnt have killed me. even if sharp. it would ahve cut the otter layers but not all the wya thru i dont think. hmmm another test james? hehehehe

[Nissan Maxima]

Even in Japanese culture where archers were held in more esteem than in Syr Rhys's idiom indications are that it had limited effectivness against fully armoured foes. There are many beautiful woodblock prints made in period showing dozens of arrows stickig randomly through plates, but not into the squishy bits.

Gentleman were expected to be crack shots, even from horseback though.

[sarnac]

WOW....

Rhys is back?


Couldnt ask for a better thread to return in....

How is the West Coast treating you?

[James B.]

This would seem to imply that you think an arrow from a bow of double the poundage at double the distance would have a similar impact which is not at all true.

Not saying that at all, only pointing out the flaws of my own test. Most arrows would be raining down from a long distance and come from a much higher poundage weapon.

Who was it that ordered coats of 14 (?) layers of linen sewn similar to your coat because in all his years at war he had never seen such a coat penetrated by arrow OR by hand weapon? Have you tested your armour vs a sword?

This is what you are looking for:

From the Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483)

And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."

There is also this:

From the ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves, published October of 1473.

In the section describing the equipment of members of a lance - specifically the mounted archer "The mounted archer must possess a horse worth not less than six francs, and should wear a visorless sallet, a gorget (This may mean a maille standard or bevor), a brigandine, or a sleeveless mail shirt under a ten layer jack"

[SyrRhys]

WOW....

Rhys is back?

Well, only briefly: there was talk of a really accurate tournament at Pennsic that I couldn't resist, but now all they talk about is clothing, so I don't know.

Couldnt ask for a better thread to return in....

How is the West Coast treating you?

Well, let's just say Caid is *very* different from what I'm used to and that after going to a few practices I haven't gone to any events since moving out here.

And how is it that archery is *still* so misunderstood? :::sigh::::

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Sir Rhys, I know your focus is later periods, but do you have, or know of, any data done on maille and tunics/gambesons such as would be worn during the beginnings of the Crusades/Conquest era? I have heard varying reports of how sucessful archery was (both by the Franks and Saracens), and figured that you might be the best bet to have either first-hand knowledge, or know of any accurate tests/reports. The results do not suprise me much, as I have read somewhere (going to go have to dig for the source later, think it was William de Tyre) of Crusaders coming back from fights looking like porcupines/pincushions because of the number of Saracen arrows stuck in them, impeding their movement, BUT not causing damage. Something about having to swing through the arrowshafts made it hard to kill the infidels, or something like that . I would be interested, as I dont think archery was nearly as damaging to maille back then as people seem to attribute to later periods.

[Nissan Maxima]

Tomenohu Blocking arrows with Silk Kimono

[SyrRhys]

Sir Rhys, I know your focus is later periods, but do you have, or know of, any data done on maille and tunics/gambesons such as would be worn during the beginnings of the Crusades/Conquest era? I have heard varying reports of how sucessful archery was (both by the Franks and Saracens), and figured that you might be the best bet to have either first-hand knowledge, or know of any accurate tests/reports. The results do not suprise me much, as I have read somewhere (going to go have to dig for the source later, think it was William de Tyre) of Crusaders coming back from fights looking like porcupines/pincushions because of the number of Saracen arrows stuck in them, impeding their movement, BUT not causing damage. Something about having to swing through the arrowshafts made it hard to kill the infidels, or something like that . I would be interested, as I dont think archery was nearly as damaging to maille back then as people seem to attribute to later periods.

As it happens, Bob Charron did a lot of research into arrow effects against mail during these earlier peiods and once again--no surprise--arrows weren't very effective against fully-armored men at arms then, either.

I will add this caveat, however: One of the primary places arrows *could* have an effect was agaisnt the face if the helmet left the face bare (as we read happened to the Scotts men at arms at Dupplin Moor in the early 14th C who foolishly left their visors off or wore kettle hats). My perception (and I'll admit it's not carefully researched) is that there was a higher proportion of men at arms with open faces during this period which could have resulted in a relatively higher proportion of wounds.

But the arrows of this earlier period were broadheads, not bodkin points--it's my contention that the innovation of the bodkin point, which *could* penetrate some mail--is a large contributing factor that helped to bring about the Age of the Transition.

Anyway, here are some quotes from Bob Charron to show that arrows didn't kill men at arms in the earlier period, either:

This is from The Murder of Charles the Good by Galbert of Bruges- 1127
"And there were many others who on the first and subsequent days of the
siege had gone in for the sake of gain and money; among those was a fiery young fighter named Benkin, expert and swift in shooting arrows. he kept going around the walls in the fighting, running here and there, and though he was only one he seemed like more because from inside the walls he inflicted so many wounds and never stopped. And when he was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound."

Galbert of Bruges on the seige of Bruges (1127-1128)[attack on the gate of the town, protected by archers and infantry]: "By the special grace of God no one died in this multitude which was entering." and "I could not begin to describe the crowd of those who were hit and wounded." and "...as to those wearing an armor, they were exempted from wounds but not from bruises.."

Odo of Douil concerning the ill-fated second crusade (mid-12th century): "During this engagement the King lost his small but renowned royal guard; keeping a stout heart, however, he nimbly and bravely scaled a rock by making use of some tree roots which God had provided for his safety. The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armor protected him from the arrows, and to keep from be captured he defended the crag with his bloody sword.."

From Joinville (mid 13th century), referring to the day following his being wounded in five places and his horse in fifteen by Saracen arrows: "I got up, threw a quilted tunic over my back, clapped a steel cap on my head, and shouted out to our sergeants: 'by Saint Nicholas, they shall not stay here!'. My knights gathered round me, all wounded as they were, and we drove the Saracen sergeants away from our own machines and back toward a great body of mounted Turks who had stationed themselves quite close to the ones we had taken from them. I sent to the king for help, for neither I nor my knights could put on our hauberks because of the wounds we had received." It seems the padded jackets were enough protection in this emergency, and that they could have fared even better against the enemy had they been able to wear their hauberks.

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Thanks for the quotes. Somehow it seems that some people who keep advocating the "Plate as Proof" rule seem to ignore/forget that maille was also quite effective against arrows for a long period of history. Thanks for the face caveat though. I have heard speculation that one of the reasons that ventails were developed was to try and give "some" protection to the face, but still allowing one's coif to be pushed back.

[SyrRhys]

Thanks for the quotes. Somehow it seems that some people who keep advocating the "Plate as Proof" rule seem to ignore/forget that maille was also quite effective against arrows for a long period of history. Thanks for the face caveat though. I have heard speculation that one of the reasons that ventails were developed was to try and give "some" protection to the face, but still allowing one's coif to be pushed back.

I have no doubt that ventails were for just that purpose. They'd help a *little* against a sword, almost not at all against a spear, but would make quite a difference against arrows.

The thing about the face is a real buggaboo on this subject: Many people rely upon older (but still modern) sources for their information, and when they read things that agree with how they want them to be they simply stop looking. Here's a case where such things lead people astray. One of the more important medieval scholars (Sumption) read the account of the battle of Dupplin Moore (to which I allude above) from a primary source and simply wrote that the Dispossessed's archers were very effective, killing many of the Scots men at arms. Later authors used Sumption as their research point, and simply repeated that the arrows killed a lot of men. So then a SCAdian comes along and reads these--admittedly important--works, and naturally he assumes they knew what they were talking about. And since people assume the only *possible* reason you'd shoot hordes of arrows at your foe is because you expected to kill a lot of them, this seems logical. But when you go back to the primary-source material, you see that the chronicler noted that the reason the arrows were so effective is that the Scots removed their visors or fought with kettle hats, so the arrows hit their unprotected faces.

[SyrRhys]

Thanks for the quotes. Somehow it seems that some people who keep advocating the "Plate as Proof" rule seem to ignore/forget that maille was also quite effective against arrows for a long period of history. Thanks for the face caveat though. I have heard speculation that one of the reasons that ventails were developed was to try and give "some" protection to the face, but still allowing one's coif to be pushed back.

I have no doubt that ventails were for just that purpose. They'd help a *little* against a sword, almost not at all against a spear, but would make quite a difference against arrows.

The thing about the face is a real buggaboo on this subject: Many people rely upon older (but still modern) sources for their information, and when they read things that agree with how they want them to be they simply stop looking. Here's a case where such things lead people astray. One of the more important medieval scholars (Sumption) read the account of the battle of Dupplin Moore (to which I allude above) from a primary source and simply wrote that the Dispossessed's archers were very effective, killing many of the Scots men at arms. Later authors used Sumption as their research point, and simply repeated that the arrows killed a lot of men. So then a SCAdian comes along and reads these--admittedly important--works, and naturally he assumes they knew what they were talking about. And since people assume the only *possible* reason you'd shoot hordes of arrows at your foe is because you expected to kill a lot of them, this seems logical. But when you go back to the primary-source material, you see that the chronicler noted that the reason the arrows were so effective is that the Scots removed their visors or fought with kettle hats, so the arrows hit their unprotected faces.

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

And since people assume the only *possible* reason you'd shoot hordes of arrows at your foe is because you expected to kill a lot of them, this seems logical. But when you go back to the primary-source material, you see that the chronicler noted that the reason the arrows were so effective is that the Scots removed their visors or fought with kettle hats, so the arrows hit their unprotected faces.

Just to be a devil's advocate, Sir, technically weren't they shooting arrows in order to kill the Scots? It simply worked due to the Scots ineptitude. I see where you are going with this, and the generalities that resulted leading to the assumption that arrows kill, without the specifications of HOW they killed which was important.

One of the problems with "armour as worn" is that what standard is to be used. Different timeperiods had different ways of making bows, how strong they were, and what types of points were used. Are we staying with the SCA standard armour of maille with boiled leather, or full plate, or tunics? Just another issue with the game we play, and one that has lead to all sorts of discussions.

[SyrRhys]

Just to be a devil's advocate, Sir, technically weren't they shooting arrows in order to kill the Scots? It simply worked due to the Scots ineptitude. I see where you are going with this, and the generalities that resulted leading to the assumption that arrows kill, without the specifications of HOW they killed which was important.

Well, since they saw their opponents coming at them with their faces uncovered then yes, they might (in that specific case) have been shooting to kill. But in general, no, the purpose of archers isn't to kill the men at arms--you've seen it yourself: Arrows *aren't* likely to kill men at arms unless they leave some of their armor off. And yet the Frogs at Agincourt didn't leave their visors off, so why did the English shoot at them? Hey! It must be that there are other reasons for shooting *besides* killing men at arms--and there are.

The first is to dismount the enemy--as we said, relatively few horses were protected even nearly as well as their riders; the second is to demoralize the enemy--after all, while most arrows will have no effect, it's no fun to have them sleeting down onto your armor, and every now and then a few *will* hit vital spots; the third is to pack your enemy together which they do because they want to minimize the wounds I referred to above, which means you get the same effect we in the SCA see in a bridge battle where one side pushes to the end of a bridge, then faces a spread-out enemy in a "cup" shaped formation and gets slaughtered (much as happened at Agincourt); and the fourth is to force your opponents, now on foot, to cross to your position completely covered up, which makes them tired and out of breath when they get there. See? *Lots* of good reasons for shooting at men you know your arrows probably won't kill.

One of the problems with "armour as worn" is that what standard is to be used. Different timeperiods had different ways of making bows, how strong they were, and what types of points were used. Are we staying with the SCA standard armour of maille with boiled leather, or full plate, or tunics? Just another issue with the game we play, and one that has lead to all sorts of discussions.

I think the bigger question is what in the hell filthy peasants with bows are doing on the field of honor in the first place. We've already established that arrows were *never* very effective at killing fully-armored men at arms, and since we're all pretending to be nobility and therefore fully armored, the period of the armor isn't really an issue.

[Vermin]

"I think the bigger question is what in the hell filthy peasants with bows are doing on the field of honor in the first place. "


It's things like that which make me want to buy you beer.
And not just one.


VvS

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

To kill our invisible horses?

To clarify Sir, I understand there were other reasons for shooting, besides trying to kill your opponent. I just was playing devil's advocate, in hopes that someone who doesnt know might learn more by your answer. I had a feeling if I hadnt asked, someone else would have pointed it out, and then you might not have been watching the thread tye brought it up at. Thank you for your explanation, in hopes that more people will become educated in why archery was used, and the effects it had.

[blackbow]

</rant> [and it may not even really be on topic, for which I apologize]

Here's my take on the whole thing:

If bows and arrows and crossbows and bolts weren't any use at killing or injuring people, there woudn't have been THOUSANDS OF THEM AT EVERY BATTLE WHEN IT COULD BE ARRANGED FOR THEM TO BE THERE.

likewise EVERY OTHER WEAPON EVER INVENTED. If it didn't have a use, it wouldn't have seen widespread usage! (Thus the significant lack of records on the Left-Handed Bohemian Can-opener Mark VI.)

Sorry for the rant... I'm just tired of hearing the same old same old arguments over and over and over and over vis-a-vis whether they should be allowed on the field, whether they were any good, any use, chivalric, etc etc etc etc etc...

Now if somebody that was Anti-CA wanted to, oh, I don't know, try a line of argument that "it's not in line with what we want to do on the field," instead of offering up a buttload of "historical evidence that it was useless" which simply causes the other side to offer up the "buttload of evidence that it was useful", there might be something there worth pursuing.

Doesn't really matter though. As long as the CA community keeps changing its rules every 5 minutes they're going to lose by simple attrition.

But you know something? I doubt the English ever gave a DAMN whether archery was chivalric or cool or whatever. All that mattered to them was that they could WIN with it. [thus, by definition, it was EFFECTIVE.]

What's wrong with that? The first thing that goes out the window in a war is the rules, in favor of "win at all costs".

But there's still no really useful way to simulate massed archers on the field when there aren't enough archers to justify a formation. Thus they're reduced to paintball-style sniping. Which is, I suspect, what people REALLY have a problem with, i.e., being reduced to single targets.

</rant off>

[SyrRhys]

If bows and arrows and crossbows and bolts weren't any use at killing or injuring people, there woudn't have been THOUSANDS OF THEM AT EVERY BATTLE WHEN IT COULD BE ARRANGED FOR THEM TO BE THERE.

I took a fair bit of time to list four reasons (to which a fifth, killing people who choose to fight without visors, could be added) why that should be so. Did you read it? Nor am I the only one to so argue:

“…recently two military historians, John Keegan and Claude Gaier, have cast doubt upon the thesis of the English longbow “invincibility.â€

[SyrRhys]

But there's still no really useful way to simulate massed archers on the field when there aren't enough archers to justify a formation. Thus they're reduced to paintball-style sniping. Which is, I suspect, what people REALLY have a problem with, i.e., being reduced to single targets.

On the contrary: What I have a problem with is the simple fact that it's impossible for us to accurately recreate medieval battle, nor the true effects of archery in such even if you *did* have enough archers for massed volleys, whereas it *is* possible to recreate other sorts of deeds of arms in which archery wasn't used. Therefore, it seems clear that archery has no place in what we do. My opinion of archers and their place on the food chain has nothing to do with that.

[Verjigorm]

Certainly the lack of numbers renders archery less effective. The most famed archer based armies on antiquity used very large amounts of archery. The Persians(Achemenid and Sassanid) used large amounts of foot archers(supplemented with the fire from Clibinnari). The primary use of archers in these formations were against lighter armored people, or to shoot horses outfrom under cavalry. The byzantine scutatoi and Kontoratoi were joined by Toxotoi or Psiloi to provide fire from behind the spearmen, so as to drive off harrassing cavalry using javilins or bows.

In the case of the Parthians vs. the romans, the roman legionaires used their Testudo formation to protect against the archers. But when Crassus led a few thousand legionaires to their death, what happened was that heavy cavalry(Kataphraktii) would charge the formation when it was in Testudo, defending against the arrow. The Kataphractoi would kill as many romans as they could, and then retreat when the rmans tried to form a less dense battle line. The horse archers would then precede to pepper the exposed legionaires, forcing them into the testudo again, whence the Kataphracktoi could charge again.

Archery allows one to dictate the course of battle, and it's flow with initiative. This is similar to how ancient cavalry were not shock troops, but killed more soldiers than the infantrymen. When the enemy breaks and runs, throwingdown his shield and spear, it's time for the cavalry to ride out and ride down the routing enemy.