Well look, I know a lot of people have very strong feelings about bows, draw weights, ranges and so on. I personally don't have strong feelings on these matters. I started this thread to see if anyone here knew anything about the use of poison, so far two people did provide some useful data.

This debate about the power of bows is something which I guess will go on forever. I am limiting my involvement in it to pointing out the obvious fallacies to claims posted into this thread. Namely:

*That bows in Antiquity didn't need to be that strong because soldiers didn't have armor then. False. First because piercing armor isn't the only reason for a powerful bow, second, because they certainly did have armor. Roman Legions had particularly good and ubiquitous armor, and yet were done-in by archers more than once.

*That bows in Antiquity weren't that powerful. I say, I've read enough Roman history to gather that this is almost the opposite of the truth when it came to the Huns and the Parthians among others. So again, I say that is a false claim.

I never said anything about 100 lbs this or 120 lbs that. I have seen draw-weights quoted for Mongol and Ottoman and Mughal bows, and for English and Burgundian, but I know these are all estimates. Estimates change as new data becomes available and better analysis are done. I'm not very concerned with the precise numbers. I have also read many accounts of battles on sea and land and have gleaned a sense of the effective range and potency of these weapons in warfare, enough to gather that they were indeed fairly formidable during the periods we are discussing.

What all this has to do with poison, I fear I'm losing track of, so maybe if you are very interested in debating the power of bows in different eras you could start another thread on that.

I should say that my starting point is that there seems to be no evidence of medieval use of poison in battle. So either poison wasn't used, or it was rarely used. If it wasn't used, then I assume that the costs (not only material cost, but also the effort etc.) outweighed the benefits. I don’t think of effectiveness, as a binary absolute, effective/ineffective, but rather a spectrum. I don't find the idea of a ban on poison very convincing. If one existed, it would probably be cited in the history of chemical weapon bans.

Jean Henri Chandler wrote:

Yes, but what percentage of soldiers, militia, or warriors on a medieval battlefield do you figure were knights in full cap-a-pied harness?

I don't know, but my hypothesis is that a light armoured soldier would probably be significantly injured by an arrow without poison. An enemy doesn't need to be killed, and I am not sure what sort of arrow injuries were typical. I think in many situations, people shot with an arrow enough to bleed would stop fighting. That is just speculation. If the typical arrow wound was a scratch, or pierced the armour just enough to draw blood, then a poison would offer an improvement.

Quote:

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.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant that I couldn't find anything about poisoned weapons in Landfrieden. Landfriedens seemed to mostly have to do with feuds, because in the Middle Ages there wasn't the state monopoly on legitimate violence. Feuds often seemed to involve innocent third parties, such as merchants trading with one of the people involved in the feud. The bans mostly had to do with destroying bridges and churches etc. Even if they did ban poison weapons, that wouldn't apply to war between states.

Quote:

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,

I am not a toxicologist, so I don't know if arsenic would work on an arrow. The dose size is important, because of the additional weight on the arrow.

Quote:

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.

Yes, they imported a lot of things, and we have records of that, but did they import poison? And if so, then they are the right kind of poison. It isn't like a European King could just say, "I want Chinese poison!" and then order some. Rather, a Chinese merchant has to say, "I will export poison," and then sell it to an Indian merchant, who sells it to an Arab merchant etc.

Also, spices and incense and silk are rather simple things to work with. No one needs to send an instruction manual. Sure, the Europeans were smart enough to figure out how to extract poison from seeds, but it is a lot easier to run experiments on something that isn’t rare and imported. Poison is also hard to transport and regulated (the Romans eventually banned Wolfsbane in gardens).

Obviously, they could have used poison arrows, but did they? It seems like you are asking, why didn't Medieval Europeans use poison weapons, and when presented with plausible arguments, you argue that it was possible.

Also, I have not said that bows in the classical period (a long time anyway) were weak, rather that they were weaker. It makes sense that over time they were improved, as well as armour. The idea that stringing a bow or pulling one was a feat of strength occurs most famously in the Odyssey. So at least some bows were heavy. Of course, pull strength is not equal to power.

So forgive me for being blunt, I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Do you reject the references in the articles posted above to the use of hellebore, wolfsbane, henbane, rhododendron etc. for use (among other purposes) as arrow poisons?

And you feel certain that snake venom was not used by Greek or Roman soldiers?

Yes I briefly brought up Filipino use of poisons, but I am not prepared to expand the discussion into six directions and debate it ad nauseum. I really don't know sources for military history in the Pacific and that isn't what I am trying to figure out here. I think the use of poisoned weapons in the Philippines is pretty well established.

I may not be parsing your posts correctly, but you seem to want to challenge the notion that anybody, anywhere used poisoned weapons, outside of a few very specific cases in remote areas, which by all means, you can feel free to do, but that isn't an argument to me, as far as I'm concerned that's settled. In fact I'd call that an outlier position if that is what you are trying to argue.

Nor is there any doubt in my mind at this point that poisoned weapons (at least arrows, and probably other projectiles) were in fairly wide use in Europe in Antiquity. I'm not convinced that all the Classical sources who mention it were making up tropes either, that seems to be a very common but weak argument made against anything people don't understand in Classical sources.

Ok the following are a few excerpts from Pliny's Naturalis Historia

BOOK XI.

CHAP. 20.—THE YEW.

There are authors, also, who assert that the poisons which we call at the present day “toxica,” and in which arrows are dipped, were formerly called taxica, from this tree.

CHAP. 115. (53.)—RESPIRATION AND NUTRIMENT.

The Scythians dip their arrows in the poison of serpents and human blood: against this frightful composition there is no remedy, for with the slightest touch it is productive of instant death.

BOOK XVIII.

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF GRAIN.
CHAP. 1. (1.)—TASTE OF THE ANCIENTS FOR AGRICULTURE.

The elephant, we find, and the urus, know how to2 sharpen2 and renovate their teeth against the trunks of trees, and the rhinoceros against rocks; wild boars, again, point their tusks like so many poniards by the aid of both rocks and trees; and all animals, in fact, are aware how to prepare themselves for the infliction of injury upon others; but still, which is there among them all, with the exception of man, that dips his weapons in poison? As for ourselves, we envenom the point of the arrow,3 and we contrive to add to the destructive powers of iron itself; by the aid of poisons we taint the waters of the stream, and we infect the various elements of Nature; indeed, the very air even, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life.

CHAP. 81. (20.)—PORCILLACA OR PURSLAIN, OTHERWISE CALLED PEPLIS: TWENTY-FIVE REMEDIES.

There is a wild purslain,1672 too, called “peplis,” not much superior in its virtues to the cultivated1673 kind, of which such remarkable properties are mentioned. It neutralizes the effects, it is said, of poisoned arrows,

BOOK XXIV

CHAP. 25.—TO WHAT PERSONS HELLEBORE SHOULD NEVER BE ADMINISTERED.

The people of Gaul, when hunting, tip their arrows with hellebore, taking care to cut away the parts about the wound in the animal so slain: the flesh, they say, is all the more tender for it. Flies are destroyed with white hellebore, bruised and sprinkled about a place with milk: phthiriasis is also cured by the use of this mixture.

CHAP. 30.—FOUR REMEDIES DERIVED FROM THE SCINCUS.

According to Apelles, the flesh of the scincus is good for wounds inflicted by poisoned arrows, whether taken before or after the wound is inflicted: it is used as an ingredient, also, in the most celebrated antidotes.

CHAP. 76.—THE LIMEUM: ONE REMEDY.

Limeum is the name given by the Gauls to a plant, in a preparation of which, known to them as “deer’s poison,” they dip their arrows when hunting. To three modii of salivating mixture1931 they put as much of the plant as is used for poisoning a single arrow; and a mess of it is passed down the throat, in cases where oxen are suffering from disease, due care being taken to keep them fastened to the manger till they have been purged, as they are generally rendered frantic by the dose. In case perspiration supervenes, they are drenched all over with cold water.


So from the above I conclude:

1) Pliny describes not just foreigners like Scythians and Gauls using poison, but also "we" and "us" - i.e. the Greeks themselves.
2) Remedies are discussed several times, presumably indicating an ongoing hazard
3) At least two distinct types of poison made from specific plants are mentioned as being used for hunting. In a way which seems very specific and does apparently correlate with the analysis of modern experts on toxicology (at least in the case of hellebore).

Conclusion? yes they did use poison arrows in Antiquity, both for warfare and, apparently, hunting.

Thank you for the additional evidence, I believe I have provided enough to settle the issue of the use of poisoned weapons in Antiquity (and I think Pliny is a pretty good source, sedan chair or no). I don't consider that a controversial matter, your (implicit) claim that it was not used seems to be the outlier to me.

Apparently Strabo and Aristotle mention it as well.

I suppose Procopius on Justinians wars would be a good source to look at as well. I don't have time to troll through all that right now though. I admit I'm a little tempted.... but I can't really spare the time today. Maybe later.

What I'm really interested in at this point is medieval usage, such as this incident in (Grenada?) in 1483 and / or why did the practice end, if it did. But it doesn't look like we will get there in this thread...

Jean might find some sources in treatises on hunting or scholarly books on crime and violence. Or on the steppes zone. But I would be surprised if he finds strong evidence that poisoned weapons were commonly used for murder or war in Latin Christendom or Greek Christendom.

I have not read the book by Adrienne Mayor, but I don't find it hard to believe that around 500 or 300 BCE, some people towards the western end of the Eurasian steppes poisoned their arrows and Greek writers had a vague idea of how they made the poison. And we definitely have ancient writers who say they did.

The 1525 translation of that 1497 surgery manual by Hieronymus Brunschwig has a passage that includes a description of a person who tried to poison arrows & other weapons: "hauyng in mynde that daye to poyson arrowes and other wepẽs." The context confuses me. Here's the text from Early English Books Online:

Quote:

¶ Of wou~dis that be shot with poyseneth arrow hedis and many other thynges. Ca. xvii. A Man shotien with a  poysoned arrow or ony other wepe~. and you haue take~ out the arrowe in suche maner & for|me as is afore wri+te~. For yt which ve+nym shot the same person hath greate harme that the same ve|nyme cometh from one ioynte to another, for faute of takynge hede betyme. ¶ I ihero+nymus brou~swyk born in strae soorow ha+ue sene one was bytte~ in his thombe which he wolde a reested / & he had etyn in ye night som what / hauyng in mynde that daye to poyson arrowes and other wepe~s / and as he wolde a reested that man he cast hym on the grou~de and so cam his thombe in ye ma~|nys mouth & he booted the thome and wold not leue his bythynge vnto to the tyme his mouth was full of blode / wherby he was almoost choked with the sayd bloode / tha~ he opened his mouth and let hym goo / and sayd he had ynoughe to saue his lyfe / for as moche as the thome was so fore it must be cut of / and after that was ye hande cut of / & after that was cut of the arme / and ye body was swolle~ so byg that they cowde skante saue his lyf. therfore it is nede to take heed with the fyrst to gyue hym tryacle magna one dragne medled withe wyne / therein must be soden tormentyll dyptan & master roote and rew wat{er} as moche as is ye wyne eche an ounce. And that shalbe gyue~ hym at euery. xxiiii. ouris. In ye wou~de ther as the arrow is puld out / put warme violet oyle made of lynneseed oyle / and in ye same wou~de shall ye put a tent depe in the sayd oyle / and that wyll draw out the venym / and put the same oyle to the salue wherwt ye wyll heele ye wou~de. and do in lyke wyse to them yt is shot wt a go~ne / for that taketh ut the ey[...] & that fyre / and bryngeth the wou~det fayre matter into helynge.

This person was bitten in the thumb, presumably by something venomous, & apparently wanted to use the wound to poison arrows & other weapons. Perhaps the original text from Brunschwig makes more sense, if anyone has access & the necessary language proficiency.

Arrived a bit late to this very interesting thread.

At least for hunting, Spanish texts explain Heleborus Niger, Aconitus or Luparia (Those are the same! You didn't hear Snape? ;) ) but those were probably used too by Muslim Spanish during the Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1568–1571):
https://books.google.es/books?id=acHQ23o-IpkC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=aconito&f=false


And in some late medieval regional nobility fights (Bienandanzas e fortunas, by Lope García de Salazar -not Slytherin!-), poisoned crossbow bolts were sometimes allegedly used. Sadly, most times are vague, just saying "yerbas" (herbs).

Jean, I see that you are making subtle ad hominem arguments and that it is really difficult to have a good faith conversation with you. Especially, because you make more of an effort to prove people wrong than to understand their points. You construct strawmen from exaggerating points that people make and get all excited about it, and then claim other people have strong feelings...

You suggest that it is absurd to think that Europeans couldn't import Chinese cobra venom because they imported spices and other dry goods. However, you fail to google how long snake venom lasts, a key factor in the viability of transporting it. Your argument against the existence of weak bows in the past is that the Parthians and the Huns beat the Romans. Although, there is no law that one needs strong bows to beat Romans, or claiming that they used poison.

You are also extremely dismissive of any economic consideration, as well as technical and logistical problems that must exist. You have a very low standard of what counts as a military effective poison, and at the same time do not consider any trade-offs that might be involved.

As far as snakes, the existence of a species or number of species in Europe doesn't mean that the Europeans had them always at hand. If they got the snakes from the wild, they would have to go out looking for them, and snakes aren't easy to find. The same goes with plants.

As far as common sense, common sense is what tells me that burying a dead snake in a pile of dung, isn't going to preserve its venom. Maybe it does, but that would be counterintuitive.

And as far as the Pliny quote, he means what I say he means.

Quote:

which is there among them all, with the exception of man, that dips his weapons in poison?

It is man that dips his weapons in poison as contrasted with animals. He is talking about species, not people groups.

Also, the Parthian and Hunnish bows are quite different than western Scythian bows. I can't comment on the details, because my ancient research focuses on the period 700-300 BCE and those types of bow are later. My understanding is that the Greek and Roman texts about Scythians poisoning arrows probably derive from sources in the 500-300 BCE era and later writers are reworking their material.

I made some mistakes early in this thread from reading too quickly, so I want to make sure we keep sources straight.

The name luparia / wolf's bane sounds like aconite was used to poison wolves. I would love to learn more about how (spikes in a pit? poisoned bait? smeared on arrowheads and spearheads?)