| Author |
Message |
|
Ryan S.
|
 Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2022 4:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2022 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | And as I said, there are lots of stories about poisoned arrows, but I'm not sure that the trope of poisoned swords and daggers is older than Shakespeare's Hamlet. |
Here is a quote from the link that was already shared:
"The army of Alexander the Great in his conquest of India in 327–325 BC encountered a different snake-venom weapon. According to the historians of his campaigns, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus of Sicily, and others, the defenders of Harmatelia (Mansura, Pakistan) had dipped their arrows and swords in an unknown snake poison. Any man who suffered even a slight wound felt immediately numb and experienced stabbing pains and convulsions. The victim’s skin became pale and cold and he vomited bile. Soon, a black froth exuded from the wound. Purplish-green gangrene spread rapidly, followed by death. Modern historians have assumed that cobra venom was used at Harmatelia, but the very detailed descriptions of the ghastly symptoms and deaths suffered by Alexander’s soldiers points to another snake. Cobra venom would bring a relatively painless death, from respiratory paralysis. But the common Russell’s viper of Pakistan and India causes the very same symptoms suffered by Alexander’s men: numbness, vomiting, severe pain, black blood, gangrene, and death (Mayor, 2009)."
It says swords, but maybe that is a paraphrase of weapon. I have heard translators do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2022 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | 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. |
Open field battles vs attrition warfare
As you are probably aware, pitched battles were fairly unusual in medieval warfare. They only happened with both sides simultaneously believed they had a substantial advantage, or when one side was caught napping (such as say, crossing a river without realizing an enemy army was nearby).
Most medieval warfare consisted of sieges and raids, sometimes both at the same time (besiege one strong point, raid all around the nearby areas). Very much attritional warfare in other words. Often attrition warfare either preceded for followed pitched battles, and when open field battles did happen, they often occurred in series, with several encounters over a relatively short period of time.
For all these reasons, enhanced effects of what might otherwise have been minor wounds which caused more of them to become disabling or fatal wounds would certainly be a worthwhile battlefield effect.
Weaker bows in the Classical World?
As far as bows being weaker or less effective in Antiquity, I don't think we actually know that. Are you saying that all bows used by everyone involved in war in antiquity were weak? From what I've read, the Huns certainly did not use weak bows. I would be surprised to learn that the Scythians or other Central Asian tribes had weak bows either. To say something like that we would really need some substantial evidence. We know that Huns and Parthians were able to wreak havoc on Roman legions which were protected by both armor and shields in some battles, so I suspect this is not the case, at least not universally.
Precedents for rules in war
One obvious parallel when trying to think of how poison weapons may have fallen out of use is the equivalent use of Scorched Earth tactics. I know of one specific case where treaties even between fairly entrenched enemies, Poland vs. the Teutonic Knights, resulted in the at least temporary agreements to curtail certain 'scorched earth tactics'. The Hunger War of 1414 saw crops burned, mills wrecked, farmers slain, wells poisoned and all manner of scorched earth tactics. What followed was a serious and prolonged famine lasting 5 or 6 years and then an outbreak of plague which killed thousands of people including close to a third of the Brother Knights in the Teutonic Order.
After this the Poles and Teutonic Knights agreed to certain limitations to the destruction of infrastructure during their subsequent wars, which they more or less adhered to during the 13 Years War and other conflicts later in the 15th Century. Of course, no such treaty existed between the Poles or Germans and their neighbors in the Steppe Nomad hordes.
Similar rules were enforced by regional treaties called Landfrieden by the Germans, worked out by various powers in a given region, which enforced rules on warfare during feuds, on pain of death.
I suspect something like this may have occurred which could have lead to a diminution in the widespread use of poison in certain regions, if it was perceived as a general problem. If attrition sharply increased during the more or less routine conflicts taking place, it could mean that aggressive neighboring powers, such as say, the Seljuks or the Ottomans, might take advantage of the resulting general weaknesses.
This is purely speculative on my part though as I've yet to find any specific laws relevant to this. I'm counting on Sean to find something  .
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2022 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | As far as bows being weaker or less effective in Antiquity, I don't think we actually know that. Are you saying that all bows used by everyone involved in war in antiquity were weak? From what I've read, the Huns certainly did not use weak bows. I would be surprised to learn that the Scythians or other Central Asian tribes had weak bows either. To say something like that we would really need some substantial evidence. We know that Huns and Parthians were able to wreak havoc on Roman legions which were protected by both armor and shields in some battles, so I suspect this is not the case, at least not universally. |
I actually have a series of blog posts scheduled about the draw weight of bows in the First Millennium BCE. Those Scythian arrows have heads which weigh a few grams, have 6 mm external diameter sockets, and often shot reed arrows with wooden foreshafts. Very different than the giant bows and arrows used in the 16th century in Latin Christendom, the Ottoman Empire, and China!
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Shearlaw
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Without the need to punch thru armour there's little call for a powerfull bow, the rise of the 100lb+ bows was due to there use in warfare.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Depends what you mean by "makes a casualty". we know from various period literary sources (ranging from personal letters to formal records), that wounds of a fairly trivial nature were very common in medieval warfare. Nor does the modern trope that (in the middle ages) any kind of open wound down to a paper cut automatically lead to death by infection hold up to scrutiny. |
I mean the solid incapacitating wound, like an arrow thru an extremity, something that is likely to effect your ability an will to fight.
If poison mean that such a wound is a lingering issue needing more treatment or just the fear of poison means demands preventative actions then it worked.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
2,000 + years of their use in China and elsewhere suggests that it did make a difference.
|
China has access to better poisons, The Chinese cobra is far more deadly then anything in western Europe.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
But there did eventually develop enough of a cultural prohibition against their use that it has certainly diminished. Maybe something like that happened with poison weapons by the medieval period. But maybe it's use did continue here and there in some fashion, much as we see Chlorine and Sarin and so on showing up on modern battlefields. That's what I'm interested in finding out at this point. |
I think that useing poisoned weapons was a bit like being a flame thrower operator, your hated an despised by your foes, you often will not be taken prisoner.
Given how poison is often seen as cowardly and indiscriminate.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Molten glass being dumped over the side of a wall in a siege is extremely risk.
|
That's a new one do you have a source for that?
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | I have always been sceptical of poisoned weapons, because I wondered how it would stay on the weapon. The main way of using poison seems to be dipping the arrowhead in a liquid. The poison, that doesn't drip off before the arrow is shot, must then stay on the arrow while it flies and then not be wiped off by the armour and clothes. The remaining portion of the poison must then be strong enough to disable the target before the battle is over. Of course, the more effective an unpoisoned weapon is, the less advantage there is to adding poison. |
The problem of effectively delivering poison through clothing/armor prompted the development of this sort of arrow/bolt in Ming China.
| Great Ming Military Blog wrote: | | As simply smearing the arrowhead with poison often proved ineffective in warfare because the poison can be easily wiped off if the arrow hit its target through his clothes, Liang Guang Yao Jian has its arrowhead specifically drilled hollow and filled with poison. |
In Cheng Zong You's 17th-century crossbow manual, a considerable amount of poison was soaked into silk floss around the shaft near the head of the bolt. The head was likewise broad enough to allow the poisoned section of the shaft to enter the target & deliver the poison. According to this text, the poison weighed more than the bolt without the poison: 2 maces or 7.38 grams. The bolt itself without the poison weighed 1.6-1.8 maces (5.9-6.64 grams). (This is so light it makes me wonder if there's an error, though some low-power modern crossbows do use even lighter bolts.)
Again, Cheng claimed the poison would act very quickly. While this seems unlikely, we do have purported tests of arrow/dart poison acting rather rapidly on animals from 19th-century authors such as William Gilpin. Cheng mentioned Antiaris toxicaria as one plant to use for poison, & Gilpin recounted tests of such poison. The poison could incapacitate in as little as 1-3 minutes, though it could take as long as 15 minutes or more. Death typically happened in 9-27 minutes in small & medium-sized animals. In one test, an estimated 6 grains of poison caused slow & difficult motions in a Javanese buffalo within 30 minutes & death in 2 hours & 10 minutes. Cheng wanted each dart to have nearly 114 grains of poison if the numbers in the manual translation are correct. So it's conceivable it really could drop a human quickly. Alfred S. Taylor wrote that certain poisons could act within seconds or even instantly based on supposed tests on animals. In any case, even incapacitation within 15+ minutes would be very relevant in most historical battles.
As far as draw weight goes, a replica of a 3,000-year-old Scythian bow from Xinjiang came out to 120lbs.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Tue 12 Jul, 2022 7:19 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | As far as draw weight goes, a replica of a 3,000-year-old Scythian bow from Xinjiang came out to 120lbs. |
As I say in my linked blog post, there are problems with calling the Yanghai bow Scythian or equating it with bows used in eg. the Black Sea Steppes 500 years later. But its a sufficiently complicated topic that I need a series of posts, backed by checked references. Spouting off from memory would not be helpful.
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Graham Shearlaw wrote: | | Without the need to punch thru armour there's little call for a powerfull bow, the rise of the 100lb+ bows was due to there use in warfare. |
I don't agree -
1) A more powerful bow gives you greater range
2) They did wear armor in the Classical World
3) In particular the Roman Legions were very well protected, yet they suffered heavy losses against Hun, Parthian etc. archers
4) Most warriors in say the 14th or 15th Century had armor coverage similar to Roman soldiers, i.e. torso and head. The Romans also had the additional protection of a large well made shield which wasn't so common by the late medieval period (not unheard of though of course, some armies used a lot of pavises, they also had rotella and bucklers etc.).
| Quote: |
I mean the solid incapacitating wound, like an arrow thru an extremity, something that is likely to effect your ability an will to fight. |
And I'm saying that the historical record tells us that for every solid incapacitating wound on the medieval battlefield we saw many fairly insignificant ones.
| Quote: |
If poison mean that such a wound is a lingering issue needing more treatment or just the fear of poison means demands preventative actions then it worked. |
Agreed.
| Quote: |
China has access to better poisons, The Chinese cobra is far more deadly then anything in western Europe. |
China was exporting silk, pepper, cloves, and poisons like orpiment to Europe going back to the Roman Empire, but on a larger scale from at least the 13th Century. If ginger and turmeric were common enough in Europe for peasants to use them in cooking, probably they could import some poisons, though I think they didn't have to go that far. Latin alchemists knew how to make all kinds of stuff by the 14th Century, and they were quite close to Egypt, Libya etc. where there are plenty of highly venomous snakes.
| Quote: | | Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Molten glass being dumped over the side of a wall in a siege is extremely risk.
|
That's a new one do you have a source for that? |
It is mentioned in the 13th Century Konungs skuggsjá, just to mention one source. You can read through the various fiendish siege warfare methods in this translation here
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61264/61264-h/61264-h.htm
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
In Cheng Zong You's 17th-century crossbow manual, a considerable amount of poison was soaked into silk floss around the shaft near the head of the bolt. The head was likewise broad enough to allow the poisoned section of the shaft to enter the target & deliver the poison. According to this text, the poison weighed more than the bolt without the poison: 2 maces or 7.38 grams. The bolt itself without the poison weighed 1.6-1.8 maces (5.9-6.64 grams). (This so light it makes me wonder if there's an error, though some low-power modern crossbow do use even lighter bolts.)
|
Interesting details thanks
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another example of European contact with effective poisoned weapons would be the 17th-century Dutch experience in Makassar. I know about this through Daniel Carey's article "The Political Economy of Poison: The Kingdom of Makassar and the Early Royal Society." Dutch soldiers who faced Makassarese soldiers greatly feared blowpipe darts & other weapons poisoned with Antiaris toxicaria. Makassarese soldiers attached blades smeared with poison to their blowpipes & used them like spears to good effect. Some accounts claimed these poisoned weapons killed instantly or very quickly, while others indicated incapacitation within half an hour & death within an hour. Europeans tried to figure out how this poison worked in the 17th & 18th centuries, but with little success.
The case supports the notion that medieval & Renaissance Europeans made limited use of poisoned weapons in warfare in part because the most potent poisons were difficult if not impossible to produce in Europe (Antiaris toxicaria doesn't grow in Europe, for instance) & that poison production wasn't easy. Places that made effective military use of poisoned weapons seem to have had access to plants or animals with powerful toxins. If only lower-quality poisons were available in Europe, as seems to be the case, that goes a long way toward explaining the limited military use of poisoned weapons. Less potent poisons would be less likely to be worth the trouble to add to military arrows/bolts/darts, which were generally made rather cheaply & in large numbers.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Tue 12 Jul, 2022 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Weaker bows in the Classical World?
As far as bows being weaker or less effective in Antiquity, I don't think we actually know that. Are you saying that all bows used by everyone involved in war in antiquity were weak? From what I've read, the Huns certainly did not use weak bows. I would be surprised to learn that the Scythians or other Central Asian tribes had weak bows either. To say something like that we would really need some substantial evidence. We know that Huns and Parthians were able to wreak havoc on Roman legions which were protected by both armor and shields in some battles, so I suspect this is not the case, at least not universally.
Precedents for rules in war
One obvious parallel when trying to think of how poison weapons may have fallen out of use is the equivalent use of Scorched Earth tactics. I know of one specific case where treaties even between fairly entrenched enemies, Poland vs. the Teutonic Knights, resulted in the at least temporary agreements to curtail certain 'scorched earth tactics'. The Hunger War of 1414 saw crops burned, mills wrecked, farmers slain, wells poisoned and all manner of scorched earth tactics. What followed was a serious and prolonged famine lasting 5 or 6 years and then an outbreak of plague which killed thousands of people including close to a third of the Brother Knights in the Teutonic Order.
After this the Poles and Teutonic Knights agreed to certain limitations to the destruction of infrastructure during their subsequent wars, which they more or less adhered to during the 13 Years War and other conflicts later in the 15th Century. Of course, no such treaty existed between the Poles or Germans and their neighbors in the Steppe Nomad hordes.
Similar rules were enforced by regional treaties called Landfrieden by the Germans, worked out by various powers in a given region, which enforced rules on warfare during feuds, on pain of death.
I suspect something like this may have occurred which could have lead to a diminution in the widespread use of poison in certain regions, if it was perceived as a general problem. If attrition sharply increased during the more or less routine conflicts taking place, it could mean that aggressive neighboring powers, such as say, the Seljuks or the Ottomans, might take advantage of the resulting general weaknesses.
This is purely speculative on my part though as I've yet to find any specific laws relevant to this. I'm counting on Sean to find something . |
I honestly don't know much about the strength of pre-mediveal bows, but it has been said on this forum several times that bows back then were weaker. Roman legionaries have bare arms in most of the pictures I have seen. As opposed to a knight in plate armour...
I don't think that using poison arrows is comparable to scorched earth tactics, because scorched earth tactics can really come back and hurt you. Sometimes, defenders scorched their own land, in order to deprive invaders of sustenance. It is really a desperate move, and hurts both sides. The Landsfrieden angle is interesting, but I couldn't find anything on it.
I tried to find out which poisons Europeans would be using and the only thing I have found is Monk's Hood/Wolfsbane (same plant) it is the most poisonous plant in Europe, and is toxic through contact. Most of the references to its use on arrows, that I found, had to do with hunting. It is a garden plant, though, so one could grow it easily. I am not sure how stable it is, though. I think you are underestimating the costs of logistics of carrying around extra poison. It would be interesting to learn how the Chinese did it.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: |
I honestly don't know much about the strength of pre-mediveal bows, but it has been said on this forum several times that bows back then were weaker. Roman legionaries have bare arms in most of the pictures I have seen. As opposed to a knight in plate armour... |
Yes, but what percentage of soldiers, militia, or warriors on a medieval battlefield do you figure were knights in full cap-a-pied harness?
| Quote: |
I don't think that using poison arrows is comparable to scorched earth tactics, because scorched earth tactics can really come back and hurt you. Sometimes, defenders scorched their own land, in order to deprive invaders of sustenance. It is really a desperate move, and hurts both sides. The Landsfrieden angle is interesting, but I couldn't find anything on it. |
You couldn't find out anything about Landfrieden? The English language Wiki is of marginal value but covers the basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfrieden
There were also Czech and Polish versions of the landfrieden. The Czech word is Landfrýdy.
I cited the Landfrieden as a very common and widespread example of imposing general rules of war, among and between people who routinely clashed militarily, due to some kind of perceived general public benefit or harm reduction. They did not limit themselves to rules related specifically to scorched earth tactics. I made no other claim beyond that.
| Quote: |
I tried to find out which poisons Europeans would be using and the only thing I have found is Monk's Hood/Wolfsbane (same plant) it is the most poisonous plant in Europe, and is toxic through contact. Most of the references to its use on arrows, that I found, had to do with hunting. It is a garden plant, though, so one could grow it easily. I am not sure how stable it is, though. |
Well, they also had minerals like arsenic widely available, they had venomous snakes and scorpions, and other poisonous plants (castor beans for example, and various mushrooms) in Europe, and nobody had to take anything 'as is' in it's raw form - they knew various very well established methods for concentrating substances, or to produce compounds which greatly enhanced potency for many drugs, acids, and other chemicals. They were doing this on an industrial scale since the 12th Century.
We also know that poison was by no means rare in medieval Europe. They were using rat poison, poisoning various other animals for different reasons, and using poison to commit murders routinely, though this was ingested, typically,
| Quote: |
I think you are underestimating the costs of logistics of carrying around extra poison. It would be interesting to learn how the Chinese did it. |
I think you are grossly underestimating the quantity and scale of imports from outside of Europe, for all purposes but in particular for anything to do with warfare. They imported sulfur from Iceland to make gunpowder. They imported crucible steel from Sri Lanka. Just to make food taste better they imported pepper and a thousand other spices all the way from China, as well as enough silk to make hundreds of thousands of garments every year, and medicines and drugs of all kinds. I'm sure poison too.
They imported frankincense and storax from Yemen and if they wanted cobra venom I'm sure they imported that as well. Or got it from somewhere a lot closer. Easily.
I think by the 17th Century the interest in something like poison frogs etc. for blowgun darts was diminished because as effective as it was, it's still not as potent as a firearm.
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the case of Antiaris toxicaria, according to Carey's article, 17th-century Europeans who investigated the poison failed to even successfully use it in Europe. The Royal Society of London repeatedly conducted experiments that showed little or no effect but couldn't but sure they were getting real or effective Makassarese poison; Charles Howard, who'd been to Makassar, said the poison only remained potent for a month. Thus, the samples shipped to England had already lost their power by the time they arrived.
While it's theoretically possible the British Empire or some other European power could have employed poisoned weapons imported from Makassar in Europe in 17th century, they certainly didn't demonstrate the ability to do so in practice. The care required in preserving the poison apparently made transportation over thousands of miles tricky. Presumably there would have been some way to transport the materials & prepare the poison in Europe, but this didn't happen in the 17th century. There were lots of bogus & fanciful tales about the poison & how to cure it.
Jean-Baptiste Leschenault dispeled the myths & provided more accurate information about Antiaris toxicaria in 1810.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if I follow your point here.
This is just one very specific poison from one specific, and very remote place. I believe they had similar problems trying to figure out some of the poisons used in the Amazon, derived from frogs. So what?
Makassar is 11,000 km from Rome. Tunis, by contrast, is a much more convenient 1,200 km. In Tunisia one can find Egyptian cobras and 6 different types of poisonous vipers, plus poisonous scorpions.
Many poisons were very common in Europe through the medieval and Early Modern period. This includes arsenic which I've mentioned several times, and has a very long history of widespread use in Europe ...
https://sites.dartmouth.edu/toxmetal/arsenic/arsenic-a-murderous-history/
... to many other types including other minerals like cinnabar, malachite, and chalcanthite, other well known natural poisons such as hemlock, foxglove, cyanide (which can be derived from cherry pits among other common sources), various mushroom derived poisons, and so forth.
The seeds of this strychnine producing tree from India were apparently specifically used to make poisons for arrows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strychnos_nux-vomica
The seeds are apparently stable and remain potent for a long time.
So the idea that poisons were in any way rare in Europe is ridiculous.
The only question is regarding the use of poisons specifically with weapons, which was apparently done by the Romans. It may or may not have fallen out of use, though I've not seen any evidence either way at this point.
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antiaris toxicaria is example of dart/arrow poison that proved effective for military use in large numbers, both in Southeast Asia & in China. A number of historical & more recent tests confirm its potency, as I've gone over a bit. It seems to be able to incapacitate in a reasonably short amount of time, depending on the dose.
Europeans indeed had some access to & familiarity with projectile poisons, particularly for hunting, but that doesn't necessarily mean these would have been as useful for warfare or that it would have been economical to add poison to military arrows in sufficient numbers. Snake venom was used on projectiles in various contexts, from South Asia to North America, but importing enough venom from Tunisia (or whatever) seems prohibitively expensive at best. Renaissance England, at least, made arrows relatively cheaply & didn't give each archer all that many of them, according to available records. (Roger Ascham complained about the wood choice for common military arrows.)
European ingested poisons weren't always effective; Antonio Pérez poisoned Juan de Escobedo two or three times without the desired fatal effect. Pérez & the Spanish king ended up just having Escobedo killed by the sword.
Cheng Zong You's crossbow manual presents itself as offering a relatively cheap & easy away to equip & train farmers to fight. He mentioned that the crossbow with a bamboo prod was economical & average people could use it. So apparently he considered making poison from Antiaris toxicaria & Anconitum ferox cheap enough for ordinary farmers turned soldiers.
Even in China, where Cheng's manual suggests very potent poison was cheap enough for farmer soldiers to use, poisoned projectiles probably weren't standard. Mention of poison projectiles does seem to appear in the context of ones they wouldn't be effective otherwise, such as Cheng's explicitly weak crossbows & the famous repeating crossbow. If Cheng's claims are true, it seems every projectile should have been poisoned, but I'm not aware of evidence for that. Perhaps it was more expensive &/or less effective than Cheng asserted.
I guess there are multiple possible explanations for the lack of sources on weapon poison in medieval Europe. Perhaps it saw more use than the sources indicate. Perhaps cultural factors & agreements on how to fight limited it. Perhaps economics limited it, including lack of access to cheap & effective weapon poisons. Perhaps it was some combination of these.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2022 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Almost no poison is 100% effective. Even modern Russian attacks with radioactive poisons haven't always worked.
I have said this already a couple of times in this thread, so I am probably getting tedious, but I'll say it again, I think given the volume of all kinds of merchandise imported from China, Persia, India, Central Asia, and the Middle East, not all of it immensely valuable, from dyes to incense to weapons textiles and food stuffs down to pet animals and pastries, it's absurd to think they couldn't have imported anything they needed for poisons if they wanted to. In fact we do know that they imported orpiment and realgar (both arsenic ores) which were used as tints in painting and as medicines. In greater concentrations of course they make strong poisons and the Chinese in fact coated arrows with them, apparently.
As an example, I'll list some of the merchandize discussed in the Pratica della Mercatura, written by a Florentine merchant named Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, who worked for the Florentine trading firm of Bardi. Goods listed as being traded to the Chinese: wax, tin, copper, cotton, madder, cheese, flax, and oil, honey, saffron, raw amber, amber beads, vair-skins, ermines, foxes, sables, fitches and martens, wolf skins, deerskins, and all cloths of silk or gold, pearls, wheat, Greek wine and all Latin wines “sold by the cask”. Malmsey and wines of Triglia and Candia “sold by the measure”. Caviar “sold by the fusco, and a fusco is the tail-half of the fish's skin, full of fish's roe”. Suet “in jars”, iron “of every kind”, tin, lead, zibibbo “or raisins of every kind, and the mats go as raisins, with no allowance for tare unless they be raisins of Syria. In that case the baskets or hampers are allowed for as tare, and remain with the buyer into the bargain”. Soap of Venice, soap of Ancona, and soap of Apulia “in wooden cases. They make tare of the cases, and then these go to the buyer for nothing. But the soap of Cyprus and of Rhodes is in sacks, and the sacks go as soap with no tare allowance”.
The goods purchased in China include raw silk, silk-gauze, dressed silk, ginger, cubebs, lign-aloes, rhubarb; mace, long pepper, ladanum, galangal, broken camphor; nutmegs; spike , cardamoms, scam-mony, pounding pearls, manna, borax, gum Arabic, dragon's blood, camel's bay, turbit, sweet-meats, gold wire.
I would say if they can bring cheap soap from Cyprus, and suet and raisins to China, and bring back gun Arabic, rhubarb, ginger in sufficient quantity that practically all of Germany made gingerbread cakes in December, then they could bring back some venom if they needed to.
As I noted (again, sorry to repeat myself) they brought sulfur all the way from Iceland to make gunpowder. Tunisia is an easy trip by comparison (dozens of ships from Tunis arrived in multiple ports in Italy almost every day unless there was an active war preventing it).
I am not saying anything about the large scale, systematic use of poisoned arrows or any other special chemical or biological weapons in Europe in the middle ages. I don't know of any evidence pro or con on this past the era of Imperial Rome. I am just pointing out the possibility can't be dismissed out of hand on the basis of simplistic claims like "they couldn't afford it" or 'they didn't have poisonous snakes" or "it was too hard".
And for that matter, I'm not sure there is any lack of written evidence in the sources. Literal tons of medieval manuscripts haven't been even read yet let alone transcribed or translated, and many that have been transcribed and analyzed are still unknown as the papers about them remain obscure. All we can say is that the summaries in the 19th and early 20th Centuries don't seem to say much about their use in Europe after the Roman period. But they skipped and omitted a lot of stuff, like the existence of martial arts in Europe.
There were all kinds of special ammunition used with bows, crossbows and firearms. And some weapon types which for a long time people have speculated may have been intended for use with poison, like the so called balestrino.
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Shearlaw
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jul, 2022 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Graham Shearlaw wrote: | | Without the need to punch thru armour there's little call for a powerfull bow, the rise of the 100lb+ bows was due to there use in warfare. |
I don't agree -
1) A more powerful bow gives you greater range
2) They did wear armor in the Classical World
3) In particular the Roman Legions were very well protected, yet they suffered heavy losses against Hun, Parthian etc. archers
4) Most warriors in say the 14th or 15th Century had armor coverage similar to Roman soldiers, i.e. torso and head. The Romans also had the additional protection of a large well made shield which wasn't so common by the late medieval period (not unheard of though of course, some armies used a lot of pavises, they also had rotella and bucklers etc.).
|
More power does mean more range up to a point, a powerfull bow needs a larger stronger and heavier arrow.
But what limits the usefull range is flight time for point targets, shooting at the sky an dropping arrows on people was rare.
Yes the Classical World has armour, but its quality and coverage was typically lower then the best of later armour.
If we compare a Linothorax with a late 1200's mail suit, you have to go thru the mail while you can get around the Linothorax.
While legionary's where well protected so where later's kights in full plate harness but they got wound too, in battle no armour is perfect.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Molten glass being dumped over the side of a wall in a siege is extremely risk.
|
That's a new one do you have a source for that?[/quote]
It is mentioned in the 13th Century Konungs skuggsjá, just to mention one source. You can read through the various fiendish siege warfare methods in this translation here
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61264/61264-h/61264-h.htm
J[/quote]
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jul, 2022 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
One late-medieval source that shows at least familiarity with poisoned weapons is a surgery manual by Hieronymus Brunschwig. In the 1525 English translation, the text mentions poisoned arrows & similar & how to treat a patient wounded by such. I'm not sure exactly when the original was published, but Brunschwig died in 1512, so at least the majority of his life & practice was at the end of the medieval period.
Edit: The original was published in 1497. The 1525 English isn't too clear to me, so checking out the original might be useful if anyone has access.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Sun 17 Jul, 2022 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jul, 2022 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | One late-medieval source that shows at least familiarity with poisoned weapons is a surgery manual by Hieronymus Brunschwig. In the 1525 English translation, the text mentions poisoned arrows & similar & how to treat a patient wounded by such. I'm not sure exactly when the original was published, but Brunschwig died in 1512, so at least the majority of his life & practice was at the end of the medieval period. |
Very interesting thanks. That guy and his manual sound worth checking out as a source regardless.
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jul, 2022 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Graham Shearlaw wrote: |
More power does mean more range up to a point, a powerfull bow needs a larger stronger and heavier arrow. |
Not necessarily. 13th-15th Century archers from the Golden Horde used quite powerful bows, but typically shot arrows weighing about 40 grams, with flight arrows as light as 20 grams. Ottoman arrows could be even lighter at around 35 grams / 17 grams.
By comparison, English and Burgundian longbow arrows weighed in the range of 50-60 grams depending on type, from what I understand (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) and Central European crossbow bolts were around 80 grams typically.
We know that the Mongols and Ottomans used some quite powerful bows. But of course, so did the Huns 600 years earlier.
| Quote: |
But what limits the usefull range is flight time for point targets, shooting at the sky an dropping arrows on people was rare. |
If you mean area shooting / clout shooting I don't think it was so rare, to the contrary it was very common. It was the main way bows were used in warfare. Direct shots were used too but only for shorter range.
| Quote: |
Yes the Classical World has armour, but its quality and coverage was typically lower then the best of later armour.
If we compare a Linothorax with a late 1200's mail suit, you have to go thru the mail while you can get around the Linothorax. |
There was about the same mix of textile and metal armors worn between the Classical and Medieval periods. After the Marian reform almost the whole core of the Roman army (all the Legions) was equipped with mail shirts with reinforced shoulders (lorica hamata) , metal helmets and large shields (scuta).
After the fall of Rome mail became a lot more rare. Mail was still fairly rare and expensive in the Migration Era and into the Carolingian period. It became fairly ubiquitous in Europe again by the 10th-11th Centuries as iron production increased. By the Late Medieval period (the era of 'peak armor use') plate armor was far more the norm, and it was indeed of better quality than Classical armor very generally speaking, but was not usually worn head to toe.
Medieval infantry very rarely wore armor on their legs, especially their lower legs, for the same reason the Roman Legions didn't: because it inhibited marching. Many did not wear armor on their arms either. Typical coverage was on the upper body, shoulders, and head. Sometimes the arms.
Even light and medium cavalry did not usually wear armor over their whole body, only the heavy cavalry did. In a High to Late Medieval army this was usually the leader of a unit of 4-8 riders called a helm or gleve or lance.
Heavy cavalry also, by the way, existed in the Classical world too, in the form of Cataphracti / Clibinarii.
Take a look at period portrayals of period armies and battles. Some examples:
Medieval army on the march, Von Wolfegg Housebook ~1480
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_51v_52r1_Heerzug.jpg
Battle of Dornach 1499
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Schlacht_bei_Dorneck.jpg
Most bows are not likely to pierce either mail or plate armor at long range. But plate armor over the whole body remained rare for a variety of reasons, it was expensive and had to be custom fit, and though it became lighter toward the later 15th Century, it was generally not ideal for long marching stints, so it was mostly worn by people who either fought on horseback or who could travel on a horse.
| Quote: |
While legionary's where well protected so where later's kights in full plate harness but they got wound too, in battle no armour is perfect. |
We know from the nearly endless debates and subsequent tests of longbow vs. plate armor that plate armor protected very well against arrows, even at close range, but not everyone wore armor over their entire bodies, as I pointed out, and not everyone had armor completely covering their horses (if at all).
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
That's a new one do you have a source for that? |
It is mentioned in the 13th Century Konungs skuggsjá, just to mention one source. You can read through the various fiendish siege warfare methods in this translation here
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61264/61264-h/61264-h.htm
J |
Thank you. |
You are welcome
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic