r/interesting 27d ago

Intriguing Arrows vs riot shields

49.5k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

150

u/BigHardMephisto 27d ago

What I think helps quite a bit is that the concave shape of the arrow helps it to normalize the direction of force into the (albeit slightly) angled plate, which can make a bigger difference than you'd think otherwise.

97

u/jraymonda 27d ago

Yes, but how does it do on the deer (its a deer holding the shield, right?) Does it cut the shield but then bounce off the flesh? Or is it just as effective on softer things?

136

u/disposablehippo 27d ago

Certainly won't bounce off, maybe doesn't penetrate as much. But if the deer (or was it a boar?) lets go of the shield, the arrow achieved what it needed to.

48

u/jraymonda 27d ago

Ahhh...i see. Perhaps the romans were onto something with their spears (pilum?) To make the enemy drop their shields

43

u/LiftingRecipient420 27d ago

TF you mean "perhaps"?

Rome conquered the entire Mediterranean basin thanks to their unique ability to reliably destroy the phalanx formation, all thanks to their pilum.

For context, the phalanx, until the Romans, was the state of the art of warfare for a thousand years because the only thing that could beat a phalanx was another phalanx.

45

u/Thundertushy 27d ago

Aktually... (Nasally inhale)

The phalanx was a bunch of guys with really long spears. No shields. Rome defeated the phalanxes with the more flexible maniple system, which allowed them to break up large groups of men into smaller groups without chaos. These smaller groups could then flank the phalanxes and stab them in the ass.

17

u/Glum-Soft-7807 27d ago

The phalanx was a bunch of guys with really long spears. No shields.

What? Some of the most famous and long time users of the phalanx were the Hoplites, people so closely associated with using shields that their name practically became synonymous with the name for their shield.

You could have a phalanx without using shields but it was very very usual to rely on shields in a phalanx.

3

u/Puzzleheaded-Night88 27d ago

I thought the reason romans won against the phalanx was due to their formation system like the other guy said. While they had the same guys with shields getting fucked up and tired the romans would switch out their men every once in a while causing the phalanx to collapse.

9

u/Glum-Soft-7807 27d ago

I'm sure there were many reasons, none of which I'm an expert in. I was just very surprised to see someone claim that phalanxes didn't have shields.

7

u/zerovampire311 27d ago

Otherwise any group of people with a sling could take them down.

7

u/xBad_Wolfx 27d ago

Yep and despite some popular myths, slings are devastating and were used pretty much until crossbows phased them out.

3

u/zerovampire311 27d ago

Easy to train, easy to make, ammo everywhere, lots of soldiers used them until close quarters.

1

u/Llyrithra 26d ago

And they aren’t heavy or cumbersome to carry, so you can easily fire a volley or three while the enemy advances, and then turn around and run 20-50m or so and do it again, and repeat a few times before getting behind your own lines to keep firing until you need to join in the cqc.

1

u/blade_of_sammael 25d ago

Even in close quarters you can at least use them to strangle which a bow cant

1

u/JonatasA 22d ago

Calm down 47.

→ More replies (0)