[Kevin S.]

The longbow power would be 70 -100 lbs or maybe even 120 lbs.

Has there ever been such a test?

[Glen A Cleeton]

[Andrew Pribor]

[Kevin S.]

lol. I understand what you guys mean. However, I am just really curious about it.

[David Wilson]

I think a more valid test would be a Roman scutum against an eastern-style composite bow, or, if you really want more power, a ballista (these are threats that the Roman army actually did face)..... anyway, the scutum is probably more than enough protection against most archery... UNTIL you have lots of archers shooting at you (one's bound to get around there, sooner or later!). But the ballista? At reasonable ranges, it will likely penetrate the shield and the guy behind it....

Anyway, that's IMHO, ymmv, and I don't want to be the guy testing this theory (well, I'll be the archer, someone else can be the legionary...)

[Matthew Amt]

Well, this won't be the reply that you want, but "it depends!" The types of wood used to make the scutum varied, as did the thickness. We're still arguing about what was used to cover the face (felt, leather, rawhide, linen, glue, gesso, paint, etc.). The wood was frequently thicker in the middle than at the edges. The shield is also curved, so the chances of a square hit are lower. There is a metal and/or wooden boss, and there might even be applied metal decoration.

I won't even start on variations in the arrows!

But the bottom line is that the shield itself is not supposed to be "safe" from any weapon. It's supposed to keep YOU safe from the weapon, by taking the force and the damage. I'd much prefer 20 arrows poking half their length through my shield, even if it means a couple holes in my arm, to 20 arrows feathering my corpus!

I can't think of any published tests offhand of more-or-less accurate longbow and medieval-style arrows against a more-or-less accurate Roman scutum. Most serious scholarly tests would stick to weapons and defences from the same era, after all. Probably any number of people have shot various arrows at various scuta, but it's also likely that their conclusions varied from "invincible" to "worthless"!

Like I said, not what you're looking for, but...

Vale,

Matthew

[R.M. Henson]

Try watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZnTCQptWc

It's not a Scutum, but the test involves nothing but a simple shield constructed from a light wood, glue, and sheep hide. It's a very light shield but proved effective in absorbing blows.

In my opinion the Scutum is much more sturdy than the Anglo Saxon flat faced shield, as it was curved for structural strength, and was reinforced with canvas, hide, and iron. I doubt even a English longbow would be able to get through it.

Also, as I recall, there were test done with woven wicker shields covered with tar and canvas that were effective as well, and those are nowhere as sturdy as a scutum.

Apparently the key to it was the hide or canvas that covers it. Without it, the shield was almost worthless.

I'm unsure of the bow poundage in the video, but they are firing at the shield pretty close. Closer than you would normally find an archer in relation to a foot soldier.

[Sean Manning]

[Adam Rudling]

For what its worth we - The Vicus - demonstrate a variety of draw weight bows versus a range of target boards.
The most powerfull bow we have is 115lb eastern style & at 30 meters / yards it doesnt really penetrate a 12mm / 0.5 in flat ply board.
We did have a target made up from lime wood, but a variety of pila & arrows chewed it up pretty quick - mostly the boards split from the pila & javelins.
Am not sure of the heads shot from that bow but we have a variety of replica roman period arrows.

When I get my skills up to the task I'll make some accurate wooden scuta ( we can argue about hte coverings when I get that bit done ) & then test them again.

[Adam Rudling]

Also to point out most of our scuta are the usual 9mm ish thickness & thats plenty to lug around , but will stop the arrows from the 115lb bow most of the time sans 3-5 inches max - mostly ....

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Plutarch wrote that Parthian arrows at Carrhae riveted shields to the arms that held them and nailed feet to the ground.

[Karl Randall]

I just did some testing on this very subject (well, not the longbow, but scuta and protection against missiles) at the beginning of the year.

I was unable to get veneer of any thickness (curse the availability of proper lumber in this country) and so I used high grade birch plywood 2mm thick, both in 2 layers and 3 layers. I also did versions in both curved and flat shapes. Flat shapes tended to be used by the auxiliaries. Also, late imperial shields were thinner, averaging 5-6mm thick verses the comparatively thicker republican shields.

My shields tended to be a bit too thick for their respective period, but the results were basically identical regardless. A couple of caveats regarding my results. First, I did not have access to any high-speed cameras or fancy testing equipment. Second - it is uncertain if scuta were faced with leather or rawhide, but as I simply could not find any rawhide, I was stuck using leather. Linen was used for the backing. If I had to do the whole thing over again with any material I wanted, I would use hardwood veneer (probably oak), rawhide, linen and felt. I would likely use heavier arrow shafts as well (I was stuck using fiberglass, again due to issues with material availability).

Using a 50 pound draw bow and nearly identical arrowheads to those found in the video, arrows penetrated quite easily, even at a distance of 30 meters (anything beyond that and my aim started to go). No deflections, no "point only" penetrations - the arrows were transfixed after having penetrated 15-30cm. A curved shape didn't seem to help. That being said, the arrows were stopped before passing completely through.

A few comments on the video test. First, they don't mention the draw weight of the bow used. Second, the shield seems to remain fixed and is unable to rotate at all after being hit. Now this second point has no bearing on arrow strikes, but if hit with an ax or sword, the shield would naturally tend to rotate in-hand. In my own testing I had kind of prop-stand that was intentionally rather wobbly to mimic shield movement when being hit. For arrow strikes this didn't matter a bit, but when hit with a pilum the shields rotated significantly with the impact.

I would be greatly interested in repeating my tests if rawhide could be found out here in Busan, South Korea but so far I haven't had any luck. Should any of you have enough lying around that won't be used I'll spring for shipping.

Given that a war bow would likely have a 70 pound draw minimum, and there's a good chance an average war bow would have a draw weight of some 120 pounds, there is no way I'd trust a shield - even one of the British chap's, to keep me safe.

In conclusion, my tests and the video are not necessarily contradictory - rawhide might very well make a significant difference, but that the details posted regarding the test are slightly deficient.

[Bill Tsafa]

The limited testing I have shows that a shot fired from a longbow will not go clear through 1/4 inch thick wood. You might get up to 4 inch penetration with a 100+ lb bow at close range. Depends on the wood. What happens is that as the arrow goes through, it is gripped on the sides and the resistance slows it down. It can not go clean through 1/2 inch of foam for the same reason. It might go clean through plate. If you can penetrate the surface of plate armor, you will probably get more penetration then against wood. Once the head of the arrow penetrates plate, there is less resistance on the shaft of the arrow.

The Romans did use very formidable ballistas. A ballista bolt has the mass to build up the momentum so it can go deep enough into a shield to kill the man behind it.

[Dan Howard]

I think the word "penetrate" needs to be clearly explained in these tests. Gerald of Wales described arrows from a Welsh bow penetrating an oak door 4 fingers thick. Later in the passage he says that the tips from the arrows were just visible on the inside of the door. Sure it was "penetrated" but the whole point of these tests is to discover the likelihood of the victim being injured by the arrow. If a soldier is carrying a shield and an arrow only manages to penetrate it by 15cm then he is not going to suffer anything more significant than a forearm injury.

[Kevin S.]

I'm curious about something. I know that people bother to label some bow as "Welsh", "English", etc to disinguish the characteristics and abilility between the bows. However, I can never seem to find out the distinct ability of the "Welsh" longbow.

How much draw-weight can the Welsh Longbow achieve?

[Karl Randall]

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Karl Randall]

Agreed - my bad on that one, four fingers...

Again, as far as a "Welsh bow" we have no idea, and so Dan of course has the best answer possible given current knowledge - a bow used by a Welshman. But that wasn't really the question. Judging by the description it was *probably* a self bow, but beyond that we can't say. In so far as its power, any bow that can penetrate oak four fingers (albeit at an unknown distance) likely packs quite a wallop, which would also make it useful at greater ranges.

[Timo Nieminen]