I am not sure what you mean by "shooting at the most protected part". Ignoring the shield (which I should not ignore), a low angle does not predetermine the body part that an arrow is going to hit. Further, with lower angles, the body profile is larger, so you have a better chance of hitting somebody than with high angles, and I do not see how all the vulnerable parts are magically excluded from that. What protects the legs in this scenario in your opinion?
Now, the shield. If the first lines of Roman soldiers raise their shields, their upper bodies are basically hidden behind those. Depending on their distance and the way they are holding their shields, there is more or less of their lower bodies for the arrow to hit. This begins with the legs. Again, what protects the legs in this scenario in your opinion?
Ya, I meant a shield, since they'd generally have those in front, since I'm assuming we're still talking ancient/classical era. Shooting at the legs is not as easy. Most of that area is empty space. You seem to keep missing the point that archers were not supposed to be that close to the front, since it made them vulnerable, and you wanted them behind your infantry. That's like an ideal situation for a cavalry rush. Some of the Romans and hoplites wore shin guards to protect more of their legs than the leather or metal skirts they wore. You can shoot at a low arc, but it would have only been used in a pinch if the archers were exposed and being rushed, it was a situation you didn't want to be in. Parthian horse archers probably would have used a low arc, for their Parthian shot, though. The point being they would goad the enemy into chasing them, and turn and shoot while they had their guard down running after them.
I agree with most of the points you make - though I would assume that missing one soldier's legs (that you did not really aim for anyway) means that the arrow passes through to the second line.
Yes, despite being smaller than a man a shield can cover an entire man, provided the arrows come at a certain angle range. Maybe I should have been more precise in my previous post that "less" can also mean "nothing".
By the time that the low angle and the high angle are so far apart that you can comfortably avoid the shield with your arrows you should begin thinking about running in the other direction. The Roman armor set-up had gaps, but it was by no means inefficient.
But none of that explains your point about "shooting at the most protected part". That makes it sound like the Romans are holding their shields straight, allowing for high or arced shots to bypass them.
the lance comes at a footman at roughly 1/2 * 150kg * (40m/s)² = 120000 Joules
Obviously, horses do not run 40 meters in a second. I meant 40km/h. The difference is dramatic.
1/2 * 150kg * 40 km/h is about 9260 Joules. That is still more powerful than an arrow, but at least now they are comparable.
I agree with most of the points you make - though I would assume that missing one soldier's legs (that you did not really aim for anyway) means that the arrow passes through to the second line.
Yes, despite being smaller than a man a shield can cover an entire man, provided the arrows come at a certain angle range. Maybe I should have been more precise in my previous post that "less" can also mean "nothing".
By the time that the low angle and the high angle are so far apart that you can comfortably avoid the shield with your arrows you should begin thinking about running in the other direction. The Roman armor set-up had gaps, but it was by no means inefficient.
But none of that explains your point about "shooting at the most protected part". That makes it sound like the Romans are holding their shields straight, allowing for high or arced shots to bypass them.
Generally people held their shields in front of them. Sure, during a specific maneuver they'd hold them over head, but normally you held your shield in front of you, or during a charge they might let them sit at their side. Moving to the tortoise maneuver took time too, since if you were densely packed, you couldn't easily lift your shield above you, and took a lot of drilling to pull off right. Most armor was meant to protect their front the most too. But I mainly mean the shield when I said shooting at the most protected part. It's also where people are most expecting to get hit and are braced for the impact to their shield. Hell, even the vikings revived the shield wall. You also have to remember, bow technology varied at different points in history. Persians could get away with wicker shields to stop a lot of arrows. Those ancient world bows were not that great, nothing like the Welsh the lonbow or Mongolian double recurve, and wouldn't have had the same punch against a shield they did during the medieval period.
Interesting point about the shields. That would make the gaps in the Roman armor more pronounced of course.
To my knowledge the vikings did not revive the shield wall. Shield walls were used until armor improvements gave rise to shieldless fighting.
And I do not think that potential bow strength changed all that much throughout the ages. There is not much technology to just making a stronger bow. There is some, of course. But if people satisfied themselves with weaker bows, I would assume that it had more to do with the circumstances under which they were planning to use those bows than a lack of technology.
I do not know why people in an archery-centric culture would use wicker shields. Perhaps these shields were more effective than modern people think, just like the experimentally proven effectiveness of the linothorax came as a surprise to many. Or maybe they could not afford better materials? I just do not know.
Interesting point about the shields. That would make the gaps in the Roman armor more pronounced of course.
To my knowledge the vikings did not revive the shield wall. Shield walls were used until armor improvements gave rise to shieldless fighting.
And I do not think that potential bow strength changed all that much throughout the ages. There is not much technology to just making a stronger bow. There is some, of course. But if people satisfied themselves with weaker bows, I would assume that it had more to do with the circumstances under which they were planning to use those bows than a lack of technology.
I do not know why people in an archery-centric culture would use wicker shields. Perhaps these shields were more effective than modern people think, just like the experimentally proven effectiveness of the linothorax came as a surprise to many. Or maybe they could not afford better materials? I just do not know.
In the middle ages you have a lot of regressions, and hardly ever have big pitched battles, especially in the early middle ages, so a lot of the formation fighting fell out in Western Europe. That's when the vikings picked up on the shield wall technique, and since not many people were fighting in as coordinated manner, it was very effective.
Bows did change and get more powerful over time. It's not until the late classical/early medieval periods you get really good long bows with high draw strength. Technically long bows existed for thousands of years, but didn't have the draw strength of the Welsh long bow. Over in central Asia, during the middle ages, you eventually get what I think is the culmination of bow technology, the Mongolian double recurve. It was a compound bow, made of different layers of wood, animal sinew and horn lamenated together, with additional curves at each end. It was super springy, with massive draw strength, but small enough to fire from horse back. A Mongolian double recurve only lasted about 3 months before it rotted and lost it's spring, but was much more powerful than the bows the Persians and Romans would have used. By the time you get to Welsh long bows and Mongolian double recurves, they're shooting arrows bigger around than your thumb. It might sound counter intuitive, but a heavier arrow can actually travel further, because it loses velocity at a slower rate than a lighter arrow. The techniques of shaping a hunk of yew so it was springy, but still strong, and the various materials and techniques of building the Mongolian bows took a lot of time to refine.
As for wicker shields, they were cheap, material was available and just might save your life. Sure, they're not as good as heavy wood or metal, but they were in financial reach for a lot of men. You wouldn't want to walk into a melee with one, but it was just enough to sometimes snag or deflect the lighter arrows a lot of people still used then. They weren't great, but were better than no shield against the arrows of the time.
Comments
Ya, I meant a shield, since they'd generally have those in front, since I'm assuming we're still talking ancient/classical era. Shooting at the legs is not as easy. Most of that area is empty space. You seem to keep missing the point that archers were not supposed to be that close to the front, since it made them vulnerable, and you wanted them behind your infantry. That's like an ideal situation for a cavalry rush. Some of the Romans and hoplites wore shin guards to protect more of their legs than the leather or metal skirts they wore. You can shoot at a low arc, but it would have only been used in a pinch if the archers were exposed and being rushed, it was a situation you didn't want to be in. Parthian horse archers probably would have used a low arc, for their Parthian shot, though. The point being they would goad the enemy into chasing them, and turn and shoot while they had their guard down running after them.
Yes, despite being smaller than a man a shield can cover an entire man, provided the arrows come at a certain angle range. Maybe I should have been more precise in my previous post that "less" can also mean "nothing".
By the time that the low angle and the high angle are so far apart that you can comfortably avoid the shield with your arrows you should begin thinking about running in the other direction. The Roman armor set-up had gaps, but it was by no means inefficient.
But none of that explains your point about "shooting at the most protected part". That makes it sound like the Romans are holding their shields straight, allowing for high or arced shots to bypass them.
I made another mistake: Obviously, horses do not run 40 meters in a second. I meant 40km/h. The difference is dramatic.
1/2 * 150kg * 40 km/h is about 9260 Joules. That is still more powerful than an arrow, but at least now they are comparable.
Generally people held their shields in front of them. Sure, during a specific maneuver they'd hold them over head, but normally you held your shield in front of you, or during a charge they might let them sit at their side. Moving to the tortoise maneuver took time too, since if you were densely packed, you couldn't easily lift your shield above you, and took a lot of drilling to pull off right. Most armor was meant to protect their front the most too. But I mainly mean the shield when I said shooting at the most protected part. It's also where people are most expecting to get hit and are braced for the impact to their shield. Hell, even the vikings revived the shield wall. You also have to remember, bow technology varied at different points in history. Persians could get away with wicker shields to stop a lot of arrows. Those ancient world bows were not that great, nothing like the Welsh the lonbow or Mongolian double recurve, and wouldn't have had the same punch against a shield they did during the medieval period.
To my knowledge the vikings did not revive the shield wall. Shield walls were used until armor improvements gave rise to shieldless fighting.
And I do not think that potential bow strength changed all that much throughout the ages. There is not much technology to just making a stronger bow. There is some, of course. But if people satisfied themselves with weaker bows, I would assume that it had more to do with the circumstances under which they were planning to use those bows than a lack of technology.
I do not know why people in an archery-centric culture would use wicker shields. Perhaps these shields were more effective than modern people think, just like the experimentally proven effectiveness of the linothorax came as a surprise to many. Or maybe they could not afford better materials? I just do not know.
In the middle ages you have a lot of regressions, and hardly ever have big pitched battles, especially in the early middle ages, so a lot of the formation fighting fell out in Western Europe. That's when the vikings picked up on the shield wall technique, and since not many people were fighting in as coordinated manner, it was very effective.
Bows did change and get more powerful over time. It's not until the late classical/early medieval periods you get really good long bows with high draw strength. Technically long bows existed for thousands of years, but didn't have the draw strength of the Welsh long bow. Over in central Asia, during the middle ages, you eventually get what I think is the culmination of bow technology, the Mongolian double recurve. It was a compound bow, made of different layers of wood, animal sinew and horn lamenated together, with additional curves at each end. It was super springy, with massive draw strength, but small enough to fire from horse back. A Mongolian double recurve only lasted about 3 months before it rotted and lost it's spring, but was much more powerful than the bows the Persians and Romans would have used. By the time you get to Welsh long bows and Mongolian double recurves, they're shooting arrows bigger around than your thumb. It might sound counter intuitive, but a heavier arrow can actually travel further, because it loses velocity at a slower rate than a lighter arrow. The techniques of shaping a hunk of yew so it was springy, but still strong, and the various materials and techniques of building the Mongolian bows took a lot of time to refine.
As for wicker shields, they were cheap, material was available and just might save your life. Sure, they're not as good as heavy wood or metal, but they were in financial reach for a lot of men. You wouldn't want to walk into a melee with one, but it was just enough to sometimes snag or deflect the lighter arrows a lot of people still used then. They weren't great, but were better than no shield against the arrows of the time.