Another interesting find from medievalist.net.
This study (https://digitalcollections.trentu.ca/islandora/object/etd%3A472/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf) examines evidence of Hunnic archery, questions the acceptance and significance of the "Hunnic archer" image, and situates Hunnic archery within the context of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Now, there's a few themes that have proved popular on the forum in the past :)
Figure 21 caused me to snigger and threw the author's whole credibility into doubt. Haven't yet had the time to work out whether that's justified or not.
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 14, 2017, 02:04:04 PM
Figure 21 caused me to snigger and threw the author's whole credibility into doubt. Haven't yet had the time to work out whether that's justified or not.
A quick look suggests he is using it as an example of armour worn ...
"Prokopios describes archers wearing a thorax (Figure 21) and writes of bows so powerful that no armour could withstand them, wielded by expert horsemen who could skillfully deploy missiles to either side, forwards, or backwards at a full gallop (1.1.12-15). Considering this description it is difficult to imagine a soldier in this context being easily able to shoot arrows backwards at a full gallop while wearing such constricting armour."
It maybe that further reading will improve the situation.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2017, 04:22:51 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 14, 2017, 02:04:04 PM
Figure 21 caused me to snigger and threw the author's whole credibility into doubt. Haven't yet had the time to work out whether that's justified or not.
A quick look suggests he is using it as an example of armour worn ...
The author is a she, I believe.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 14, 2017, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2017, 04:22:51 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 14, 2017, 02:04:04 PM
Figure 21 caused me to snigger and threw the author's whole credibility into doubt. Haven't yet had the time to work out whether that's justified or not.
A quick look suggests he is using it as an example of armour worn ...
The author is a she, I believe.
I hadn't even looked at the author's name. No excuse for the gender assumption though - apologies :-[
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2017, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on November 14, 2017, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2017, 04:22:51 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 14, 2017, 02:04:04 PM
Figure 21 caused me to snigger and threw the author's whole credibility into doubt. Haven't yet had the time to work out whether that's justified or not.
A quick look suggests he is using it as an example of armour worn ...
The author is a she, I believe.
I hadn't even looked at the author's name. No excuse for the gender assumption though - apologies :-[
Burn the Heretic.. keeping the punishment in period even if gender assumptions are to be expected when dealing with anything further back in the past than the day before yesterday...
Having given it something of a skim read I have to say for a piece on Hunnic warfare there is very little actually about the Huns in it :P
You might say that there is a high degree of box ticking and relatively little of the informed analysis that we would hope for. To understand the impact of the Huns you have to put them in the context of a previous steppe presence that did not use the bow in battle with the same quantity and frequency. Also, that the Hunnic, certainly Attilanic, control of subordinate tribes was tight and effective...a point Kim makes well.
A point that came up at the Society conference, for example is that the engagement between Gibamund's Vandals and Belisarius' Huns at Ad Decimum has possible tactical meanings, that Syennisius' description of the impact of even a small number of Huns in Africa tells us something, as does the occasional success of Goths and Burgundians against them.
Am I being unfair to suggest that, the author having proved by several comparisons, including that of Anglo Saxon burials, that we are really very hazy on why weapons are buried, we cannot easily make deductions about how Huns are armed or operate from the presence or absence of bows in their graves?
Its a very useful survey of lots of things, but not of Hunnic warfare.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on November 15, 2017, 09:56:20 AM
Am I being unfair to suggest that, the author having proved by several comparisons, including that of Anglo Saxon burials, that we are really very hazy on why weapons are buried, we cannot easily make deductions about how Huns are armed or operate from the presence or absence of bows in their graves?
Haven't more than glanced at the thesis, but as I general thing, I'm in agreement that we should be very cautious in interpreting grave goods. Cf the "shieldmaiden" discussion: I don't think we should automatically assume that everyone (whether male or female) buried with weapons was necessarily a warrior in the sense of a combat veteran. Nor do I think we should assume that burial equipment is necessarily representative of battlefield equipment. We should definitively not throw out plentiful literary evidence of Hunnic archery simply because bows are lacking in Hunnic graves.
Indeed Andreas. A distinguishing characteristic of the Huns in their heday might well be their fierceness. Opponents might expect mounted archers to stand off and shoot and look to the arrows to do their work. The Huns look to have both shot powerfully and attacked savagely. It must be disconcerting if your opponent, even if not well armoured does not care much about being wounded. Grave goods will not tell us much about how aggressive a warrior was.
Roy
Parallel the persians surprise at hoplites charging through the arrows?
The author seems to misread Heather. Also while the composite bow had been around almost forever, the asymmetric composite bow was new and so far as I know a Hunnic innovation - at least as far as Europe was concerned.
A handy list of diverse stuff though.
Its quite difficult to get a firm grip on the relative effectiveness of bows. The Parthians biws are lauded as being able to puerce armour, when the Seljuk Turks are fighting the Armenians the power of the Turkish bows is remarked upon. Procopius thinks it important that Roman bows are stronger, tighter strung and slower firing than Persian arcs and the Strategikon confirms this . Hun bows apparently had extra bone plates to give added stiffness and its asymmetric construction allowed it to develop more power from horseback than an equal armed weapon. Even so I suggest that the idea that Huns had better bows than their opponents ( and they likely did) made a great difference, is wrong. The Huns main opponents in Europe, the Germans and Romans were not dependent upon bow power, for both the bow was an auxiliary weapon. Neither opponent had been used to dealing with massed mobile steppe archery, so I doubt that the Huns needed a better bow, most lijely it was their deployment and tactical useage of the mounted bowmen that unhinged their enemies. It is entirely possible that Ammianus description of bone arrowheads is a misunderstanding of the bone plates used in bow construction, if so the differentiation of the bow is noteable, but it is not crucial.
Roy
I was aware of the comparison between the Sassanian bow and the Roman one. The one shooting faster and the other slower but hitting harder. I'd guess that the armour piercing Parthian bow was the same weapon as the Sassanian one and that the Roman one is that of the Huns. As I understand it pretty much any bow will pierce armour if the range is close enough.
If the various Iranian speaking nomads whom the Romans fought used steppe tactics as we might expect them to then the Hunnic tactical difference seems to have been the better bow. The ferocity of all of the Huns might be another tipping factor. The lighter horse archers of the Parthians and Sarmatians and Alans don't seem to have seen themselves as close fighters.
Having said all that I'm not fully convinced that the Iranian nomads used the same tactics as the Huns. In which case the Huns tactical deployment as well as arms and morale would have been a shock.
The other thing that comes to mind is the strategic mobility of small bands of Huns terrorising a frontier.
Quote from: Anton on November 17, 2017, 12:20:49 PMI'd guess that the armour piercing Parthian bow was the same weapon as the Sassanian one
Probably not, quite (though no doubt both Parthians and Sasanians had access to different types of bow: some bows on Parthian coins just look like old Scythian bows). The surviving Parthian Yrzi bow, for instance, is different from the typical Sasanian bow with its long sharply-angled ears. Not sure how great the difference really was, though.