Shields vs arrows in real life and in M&B

[kittehs]

In this game shields are main way to defend against arrows. But how does it compare to real world ? Is it possible to march on archers while using shields ?

 

[FrisianDude]

For a while, yes. I'm not gonna claim your shield won't get mighty heavy, though. Also, you might not be able to stop all arrows.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

Just ask the Romans. In turtle formation anything short of arrow barrages from every available direction they could shrug off.

隐藏

Not the case in Carrhae, if only because the Parthians did exactly that. They still managed to withstand in square formation doing practically nothing for around a day while being barraged.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

I think part of the issue in that battle is that the Persians attacked the Roman troops with their cavalry when they began using Testudo or similar formations.  They could either be in a good defensive posture against archers or cavalry, but not both...and the Persians were smart enough to attack with the type of troops that the Romans were not in formation to defend against (this was later in the battle anyway).

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

You mean the cataphracts? What I read happened was that at the beginning of the battle the Parthian cataphracts charged the Roman lines but did not break them. Casualties for this move was unknown, but they were forced to withdraw. And then Surena changed tactics and started (trying to) shoot the Romans full of holes with his infinite ammo cheat, while the Romans stayed in turtle/square formation in the hope they'd run out of arrows, which they didn't. And yet they held out for like half a day.

Moral of this story is, shields can withstand quite a bit of arrows if large and thick enough. But it wouldn't protect you forever if you're flanked.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

I think it is more complex than that.  If I recall, the Parthians used the cataphracts later to break up such shield walls.  The horse archers also feigned retreating, which drew the Romans into a trap as well (same method that was famous for the Huns and Mongols later).  You are right about the arrows though, the Parthian leader's foresight meant that he had a supply train of arrows for his troops, essentially proving limitless for the battle.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

I think it is more complex than that.  If I recall, the Parthians used the cataphracts later to break up such shield walls.  The horse archers also feigned retreating, which drew the Romans into a trap as well (same method that was famous for the Huns and Mongols later).  You are right about the arrows though, the Parthian leader's foresight meant that he had a supply train of arrows for his troops, essentially proving limitless for the battle.

That was the Roman cavalry last time I checked, which understandably got routed. In the meantime Crassus' order for his infantry was along the lines of "Hold your ground and hope they run out of ammo".

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

So you assume they only charged once, despite the Romans providing such an enticing target? Steppe tactics, which the Parthians were using, were about cooperation between bow&lance. If they spread out - charge them. If they close up - shoot at them. If they put up a stupid siege formation on open field - charge again.

 

[Oskatat]

In this game shields are main way to defend against arrows. But how does it compare to real world ? Is it possible to march on archers while using shields ?

well, consider all the alternatives. Stand and be shot at with shield, stand and be shot at without shield, charge and be shot at without shield or charge and be shot at with shield. Or stand out of range, with or without shield, not get shot at but executed for disobeying orders/deserting

Unless you're using special formations like the testudo, it's not a perfect situation, but still better than many alternatives. Also note that you march on other infantry and charge archers. That is why, traditionally, you tried to charge the archers with your cavalry; make sure they don't have much time to shoot and hope your horse takes a few arrows instead of you. People will come now with longbows and who knows what which kils horses in one shot, but remember, those were exceptions, remembered because they were specifically used by a certain people. Those bows were not standard or average.

so while advancing on archers with a shield was dangerous and not without risk, it was better than standing still or disobeying orders or doing so without shield - again, unless you use special formations, which usually requires a special shield and quite some training.

In vanilla M&B you can actually hit someones head over the shield if it's a small shield, the wielder has low shield skill and you're a great shot. I don't remember ever doing so, but I do remember getting hit a few times in a situation like that, it kind of sticks to mind (I had the shield up, dammit!). Easier is to aim for the legs. Both of these are pretty much historically correct. And to repeat again, if your alternatives are worse it's what you go with, even if it isn't perfect.

 

[NikeBG]

People will come now with longbows and who knows what which kils horses in one shot, but remember, those were exceptions, remembered because they were specifically used by a certain people. Those bows were not standard or average.

All bows can kill an (unarmoured) horse with one shot. Just as all bows can kill an (unarmoured) man with one shot. Of course, they don't necessarily kill those targets with every single shot, but then again - they don't need to. A wounded, incapacitated soldier/horse is pretty much as good as dead as far as the battle is concerned.

Though, I should remind (I think it was mentioned before) that it's quite possible to advance against the enemy (with shields raised) while being under fire, but you won't be able to advance as quickly as you would if you weren't under fire. That's not only because your shield gets rather heavy when it looks like a pincushion, but also because you have to be more careful when walking, especially since the shield would block some (or much, depending on the size of the shield) of your sight. And charging with raised shields is even harder (or unlikely), which is why you'd try to charge only when you're close enough, after the enemy has just shot and preferably before they could get another shot. Obviously, I'm talking about infantry here, especially about one in formation (not "a bunch of naked barbarian berserkers, charging head on, not caring if they die or not" image).

 

[Oskatat]

if shooting an arrow was as lethal as you almost make it sound, try hunting boars, or deer, with it. They're smaller and less sturdy than a battle bred horse, so you should have no trouble at all. Unless you hit a horse at the right spot, it can go on for quite some time before bloodloss/internall bleeding/ muscle tearing becomes an issue, just like in humans

And again, the alternatives are not adressed. While charging with a shield isn't good, it may beat the alternatives, like charging without shield, or getting executed for disobeying a charge order.

 

[NikeBG]

if shooting an arrow was as lethal as you almost make it sound, try hunting boars, or deer, with it. They're smaller and less sturdy than a battle bred horse, so you should have no trouble at all. Unless you hit a horse at the right spot, it can go on for quite some time before bloodloss/internall bleeding/ muscle tearing becomes an issue, just like in humans

And what do you think deers were hunted with in those times? Arrows and throwing spears. But boars are a whole different matter. Though, as I said, you wont one-shot-kill them (horses) every time (or even most of the time), but then again - you don't need to - a single wound can decrease their speed and stamina. And even if "it can go on for quite some time", it won't be battle-useful, especially if we're talking about formation charges. Horses, even "battle bred" ones (which were rather rare anyway), aren't some invincible monsters who can absorb arrows and wounds in great amount (which is why, just like with humans, armour is very useful for their defense).

And again, the alternatives are not adressed. While charging with a shield isn't good, it may beat the alternatives, like charging without shield, or getting executed for disobeying a charge order.

I don't need to address the alternatives, considering I'm simply mentioning another factor to be taken into consideration.

 

[Oskatat]

Don't mind me. It's just that I was annoyed and amused at the same time that someone picked on that line about different bows. I put it in because otherwise people would discus wether or not an arrow could go through a shield etc. The whole point is completely peripheral to my central point and I just *knew* people would pick it up to start an irrelevant discussion.

My central point remains; while a shield isn't perfect against arrows, it sure beats going without a shield

 

[diavel]

For me M&B is pretty realistic in this regard, but everything is scaled down (just as in Total War games). One warrior represents tens or hundreds of similar troops. If you look at the game this way: 5 archers shooting at 5 shielders represent intense barrage of arrows on a few squads/legions/lances of shield infantry. Shields wouldn't break like it shows in M&B. They also wouldn't cover warriors' bodies that well. Instead, a percentage of warriors would be hit in legs, hands, heads, etc. and will break formations a bit.

 

[Night Ninja]

Arrows don't need to kill a horse to put it out of action. Horses are pretty timid animals and getting wounded will generally send one into a panic.

 

[Oskatat]

For me M&B is pretty realistic in this regard, but everything is scaled down (just as in Total War games). One warrior represents tens or hundreds of similar troops. If you look at the game this way: 5 archers shooting at 5 shielders represent intense barrage of arrows on a few squads/legions/lances of shield infantry. Shields wouldn't break like it shows in M&B. They also wouldn't cover warriors' bodies that well. Instead, a percentage of warriors would be hit in legs, hands, heads, etc. and will break formations a bit.

like I said, while hands are less represented, you can viably shoot enemy legs in m&b in a shield wall charge, but the archer/crossbowman AI doesn't try that untill they are very close. And consider shield skill also a skill that lets you move it somewhat, creating a larger area of coverage (probably modified by the speed rating) you can cover your head too. The only unrealistic thing is tht you can do so without being aware of the arrow. That would probably have made te game too difficult.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Arrows don't need to kill a horse to put it out of action. Horses are pretty timid animals and getting wounded will generally send one into a panic.

Which is why chargers were so expensive - they were trained not to panic, although they obviously still might do just that from time to time. They were also very big and aggressive, though.

 

[mjrlong]

Firstly, not all shields where made equal, your basic Scuta is a damn solid piece of kit.

At Carrhae, the evidence available leads us to believe that the legionaries held out initially but where eventually worn down by constant arrow barrages (the testudo is a great ace in the hole against archers, but not invunerable to them) and repeated charges against the testudos, which is not the most effective method of recieving cavalry. When the Romans started to break formation and run, thats when the butchery would have happened just with most ancient battles.

Different bows where better at getting through shields as well, tests conducted by the royal artillary college proved that an english longbow would punch through a Scuta and a lot of other shields at a hundred yards, maybe not far, but enough to wound the arm that supported it in some cases, possibly putting the soldier out of the fight.

Horses are difficult. A horses skull is very thick, and most arrows unless fired from very close range won't penetrate. A trained horse, not even a warhorse can continue to run forwards with arrows in non-vital areas, such as the leg muscles, much as people can, but horses actually have much higher pain thresholds than people, so then can go further than men with a similar wound. The best way of putting the horse down with a bow, is to fire up and onto the top of its head and back. The thinner skull, more exposed spinal cord, and exposed heart are the best places to shoot. As the English longbowmen did at Agincourt to great effect.

Moral of the story, deffinately carry a shield, its better than nothing.

And I like the way the shields work in game, but they should last a little longer, a steel sheild braking after a handfull of blows kinda knocks the immersion a bit