Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Well, maybe there is a pattern of attributing the origin of the poisoned arrows to other cultures, which implies there is still possibly some cultural opprobrium associated with the practice, but as the article (and others) note, the method for making the poison was published in Latin and Greek and the Romans themselves apparently acknowledged using it. They certainly didn't shy away from any ruthless expedients in warfare. Regarding the efficacy of the poison, we know that poison was used on arrow heads (and crossbow darts) in China and SE Asia in exactly this manner right up to the 20th Century. We know that poison is still in wide use for hunting in South America to this day. No doubt it's difficult and risky to handle, but some people deem the results worth the effort / risk. As for your specific objections, I don't think poison actually has to be in a liquid, a paste or a powder will also work. Nor does it have to be 100% effective every time for it to have a significant effect in aggregate. And no, I don't think it has to disable the target before the battle is over. Wars don't consist of a single battle. I believe the intent is to increase the attrition effect. A bow can be very effective, but used en-masse, most of the injuries are likely to be non-fatal. Particularly if the opposing army is wearing armor. Injuries to leg and arm would typically be recoverable in many cases. Same thing for injuries to horses. But if the wound is poisoned, the rate of recovery is much reduced, and therefore the consequences of the battle far more dire. If, as the article suggests, the poison was effective within hours of a wound, or even days, the effects could be quite telling in a war as the attrition rate would increase swiftly and dramatically. I think this is rather obvious. There would also very likely be a knock-on effect on morale. Even if some people got lucky and the poison on the arrowhead was rubbed off by their clothing, enough wouldn't be so that the effect would still be substantial. This also brings to mind the notion of Arabs and Persians wearing silk garments in battle so that the arrowhead was less likely to pierce (and contact) the skin. At this point I don't think there is any doubt that poisoned arrows, and probably other weapons, were in wide use in the Classical World and into the Migration Era. The question for me at this point is, when exactly did it fall out of use, if it ever really did, and why. |
I am not saying that poisoned weapons didn't exist, but that it isn't so simple as: apply poison to weapon. Poison is such a broad term. Not all poisons are suitable to being applied to weapons. They have to be available in a form that can both be applied to the weapon and be able to enter the body. Then you have to carry it around, either already on the weapon, or wait for the battle to apply it. So it has to be stable. Snake venom apparently lasts a long time, and is potent so that is good. However, you need to milk snakes, and that can't be easy. Europe doesn't have that many venomous snakes.
Maybe disable is the wrong term, but they should have an effect start before the end of the battle. Attrition might make sense in some contexts, but not in all. In most battles, most of the army doesn't actually engage. It is the first line that would get hit with most of the arrows and thus be poisoned, but they would receive most of the unpoisoned strikes as well. So there is the possibility that most of the people who were poisoned were killed through other means before the poison could work, or captured.
Really, the biggest factor in deciding if a weapon is worth adding poison to, is how effective the weapon already is. Apparently in the classical period, arrows were weak, presumably because they were shot from weak bows. If they didn't pierce armour, that wasn't that good compared to later types of armour. I am not sure if they were counting on the arrows piercing the armour just enough to draw blood or to hit exposed flesh (the armour let a lot of areas exposed), but if the arrows were deadly enough without poison, then they wouldn't need it. For example, someone was once shot eight times and the coroner found out that the bullets had cyanide in them. The cyanide was, however, redundant. Presumably, the shooter also wears suspenders with a belt.
In the Middle Ages, the bows get better, being able to pierce mail and cloth armour, and kill. However, against plate covered knights, the arrowhead is not going to reach skin, unless it hits a weak spot or the face.