Tod and Co's Arrows vs. Armour Test

[Jonathan Dean]

Who can say for sure without visual or archaeological evidence? Personally, I'd say a Jessop M2 or M3, combined with a weak barreled profile akin to the Westminster Arrow that reduces drag while not substantially weakening the front of the shaft.

[Jonathan Dean]

I don't agree with Toby's claim that the archers employed direct fire rather than volley fire. Look at the number of arrows they shot. The English had approx. 5,000 archers shooting 60 arrows each, which amounts to 300,000 arrows. We are told that they ran out of arrows during the battle so all 300,000 were shot, and more in addition as runners retrieved some from the battlefield. French casualties during the actual fighting numbered around 4,000 and the vast majority of those were killed in hand to hand. The number of French incapacitated by arrows would have been less than a thousand. That's a hit ratio of 0.3% or three hundred arrows for every French casualty. If the English were shooting directly at the French, they would have needed far less than 300,000 arrows to take out a thousand men. The explanation that makes more sense is that they employed indirect volley fire for the majority of the engagement and only employed direct fire for a short period before dropping their bows and fighting hand-to-hand.

I think it's worth considering that there are two distinct traditions about the role of the archers in the battle. One, confined to the Gesta and two version of the Brut has the English archers only engaging in the melee after running out of the arrows. The second tradition is most obvious in the Burgundian chroniclers (Monstrelet, Le Fevre and Waurin) where, although they note that the archers shot with all their might "as long as they could pull the bow", they say say that it was the English archers, not the English men-at-arms, who first engaged the French vanguard in melee, rushing out from behind the stakes in the wake of the fleeing cavalry in order to penetrate the French lines and take advantage of the disruption caused by the cavalry ploughing through the vanguard.

Although the second version is at odds with the account of the Gesta, the Burgundians weren't the first or the last to mention the account, just the only ones to specifically attribute the first melee attack to the archers. The Mémoires de Pierre de Fenin and the Chronique de Ruisseauville, both written at about the same period (the 1430s for Pierre and the 1420s or 1430s for the Chronique), state that the English followed up after the failed cavalry charge and attacked before the French had fully put themselves back in order. This account is largely supported by the Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, which says that the vanguard had difficulty putting itself back together while the English were closing on them. As some additional notes, the Monk of St-Denis credits the English archers with breaking the French line and opening it in several places, while an succession dispute in the 1460s records an interesting little tidbit in that it claims that the vanguard "had been broken up and those who were in it were not see alive for some time before the main force engaged".

Interestingly, the two different traditions also have implications for understanding the battle. In the Gesta, the French only have a vanguard, wings and a rearguard, something echoed by Elmham, but the other English accounts fail to mention anything other than the vanguard (if they mention it at all). On the other hand, there are two French traditions of how the battle went down, one saying that only the vanguard engage and the other saying that the main battle at the very least was engaged as well.

The first version, first found in the Monk of St-Denis and echoed in the Mémoires de Pierre de Fenin, is that the defeat of the vanguard caused the leaderless main battle and vanguard to flee. The second, first found in the Chronique de Ruisseauville and then echoed by the Burgundians and the inheritance dispute, is that the English broke up the vanguard and then the main battle, before putting the rearguard to flight. The Burgundians also make it clear that the archers defeated the vanguard, but the men-at-arms defeated the main battle.

I'm not convinced that the current tradition of assuming that the Gesta didn't mention the French main battle because the main battle came up on the rear of the vanguard in the course of the fighting is the correct one. The French sources, for all the areas in which the disagree with each other, are unanimous on this point: the vanguard, the main battle and the rearguard were separate, distinct, formations and remained so on the battlefield. The inheritance dispute is particularly useful, since it's quite possibly independent of the chronicles. As the Gesta omits important elements, such as the mud and the discussions with the French heralds before the battle, and as it most likely had a propaganda purpose to glorify Henry V, I think there's a very real possibility that the archers being responsible for the destruction of the vanguard was omitted entirely.

This throws the whole question of whether the archers actually used up all their arrows before getting into close quarters with the French. The Burgundian chronicler's use of the phrase "as long as they could pull the bow" should also be more closely examined. How many shots could the English archers actually have made with their bows? The Gesta notes that supplies were running out on the 14th of October and, even if the supplies blackmailed from towns up to this point managed to stretch the English food stocks out to 10 days, they would have been out of their supplies by the 18th. After at least 6 days of little food, how many arrows could an archer shoot? Is it even plausible that they could shoot a full sheaf of arrows, let alone two and a half, during the battle?

I think there's a very good argument to be made that the archers didn't run out of arrows and that a combination of opportunistic exploitation of French disorder and English physical weakness meant that archery played a smaller role in the battle than traditionally suggested.

[Indianer]

I had to read this twice. Thank you for the contribution. It makes me wonder a few more things, if I may...and I´m kinda sorry this isn´t remotely as scholastic a level as the one you hover at.

In an earlier post I referred to an investigation documented on youtube. Therein is stated that the shape of the battlefield would have corralled the french into a funnel, causing massive disturbence of their ranks. This investigation now seems rather crude in that it assumed that the french did, as a bulk, close in on the english. Instead your post makes me picture the french just sending a knightly vanguard and then receiving an english charge onto their main force in the centre, which diminishes a compression effect of the battlefield. Am I right to assume my earlier thinking was incorrect then?

Getting back to the arrows...

Tod's test should have included type 16 arrowheads, not just type 10s. This is cut and pasted from an earlier thread. Consider the following:

[...]
5. There have been a few experiments that show that the compact broadhead (MoL Type 16) is just as good at penetrating armour as the bodkin (MoL Type 10) and we have extant examples of these made of hardened steel but no steel bodkins.
[...]
7. There were no arrowheads found on the Mary Rose. All that remains is a rusty outline on the surface on which they were resting. But the rust pattern was analysed and the general shape could be determined with a lot of them. Out of these, around a quarter were bodkin-shaped and the rest were broadhead-shaped, which is the same ratio mentioned by Smythe.
[...]

Here is the letter that came from Dr. Starley, which was originally posted here on the ArmourArchive back in 2004.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38251&start=35

"By contrast it would appear that other types of arrowheads: the compact tanged and barbed (London Museums Type 16), did indeed have steel edges/points welded to them and these were quenched and tempered."

This then would be an example of a supposedly armor-piercing specimen?
Royal Armouries Military M16 type

[Dan Howard]

This then would be an example of a supposedly armor-piercing specimen?
Royal Armouries Military M16 type

Yep.

[Jonathan Dean]

I had to read this twice. Thank you for the contribution. It makes me wonder a few more things, if I may...and I´m kinda sorry this isn´t remotely as scholastic a level as the one you hover at.

I'm not exactly at a scholastic level myself, so don't sweat it!

In an earlier post I referred to an investigation documented on youtube. Therein is stated that the shape of the battlefield would have corralled the french into a funnel, causing massive disturbence of their ranks.

I had to rewatch the documentary, and it's interesting to see the big mistake they've made. Their assumption has been that the ground slopes away steeply from to contour lines doesn't pan out when you look at hillshaded terrain maps, such as Google Maps or https://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/donnees/carte-ign. While some parts might be as narrow as 500 meters, they're all well behind the traditional location of the battle. The funneling into a ~300 meter wide space doesn't really hold up to closer scrutiny.

This investigation now seems rather crude in that it assumed that the french did, as a bulk, close in on the english. Instead your post makes me picture the french just sending a knightly vanguard and then receiving an english charge onto their main force in the centre, which diminishes a compression effect of the battlefield. Am I right to assume my earlier thinking was incorrect then?

That's a fair description of things. Clifford J. Rogers, in his chapter on Agincourt in *The Hundred Years' War (II): Different Vistas*, has made a strong argument that the vanguard didn't extend right across the field but was only a little wider than the line of English men-at-arms. This fits quite well with the primary sources, as the Chronique anonyme du règne de Charles VI places the French vanguard "between" the English wings, while the Gesta) says that the French vangaurd was drawn up with the cavalry on either side. Even the Burgundians, when they mention that there was only room for the men-at-arms suggest this, since they don't specify that there was only room for the dismounted men-at-arms. Even at the narrowest point, the dismounted men-at-arms shouldn't have compressed.

And, if you look at the primary sources, there's no suggestion that the narrowness of the field caused problems for the dismounted men-at-arms. The Gesta might record the French lines disappearing off into the treeline, but it says the same thing about the English, while the assessment of the Burgundians is not that the field was so narrow that it funneled the French, but that it prevented them from placing crossbowmen on the wings as was proper military practice.

This does, however, raise the interesting possibility that the French cavalry might have run into the vanguard because the sides of the battlefield were too steep and they went through a narrow area that made it hard for them to get around the vanguard. I've been toying with the idea that the battle occurred at the Maisoncelle end of the battlefield, and this is an interesting tidbit to add to the mix.

[Indianer]

Thanks again, it is fun talking about battles

the French cavalry might have run into the vanguard because the sides of the battlefield were too steep and they went through a narrow area that made it hard for them to get around the vanguard

You are referring to this: ...?

The second tradition is most obvious in the Burgundian chroniclers (Monstrelet, Le Fevre and Waurin) where [...] the English archers [...] first engaged the French vanguard in melee, rushing out from behind the stakes in the wake of the fleeing cavalry in order to penetrate the French lines and take advantage of the disruption caused by the cavalry ploughing through the vanguard.

[Jonathan Dean]

Yes, in part. More specifically, the Monk of St-Denis' description of their flight suggests that the French cavalry headed for the middle of the vanguard:

"They piled up in great haste towards the centre of the French army and, as if they had fled before a tempest, spread terror and confusion amongst their companions."

In most parts of the field, the cavalry would have had a couple of hundred meters to flee to on either side of the dismounted men-at-arms. However, if the men-at-arms had advanced to the point where the ground was narrowed to 500 meters or so, that would greatly reduce the space to the sides of the vanguard and mean that more would be forced toward the center of the vanguard.

[Sean M]

Tod has published another test of bolts against mail and soft armour. He has the usual sorts of results: edged arrows can pierce fabric armour but bounce off mail, bodkins have some effect on mail but bounce off soft armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoz0eggQen8

The Chronicon Colmariense from c. 1298 says that no arrow from a bow can harm a man through an iron shirt and a gambeson.

I would like to talk to him about sources for his 13th/14th century crossbows sometime since I think he did a lot of research. Maybe some of it is in his Osprey but they don't let you have proper footnotes.

[Sean M]

From Gaukler and Tom B.: Tod is crowdfunding Arrows vs. Armour 2: The Head and Neck on Kickstarter

[Sean M]

Well, arrows vs. armour 2 is out! Any thoughts? https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=ds-Ev5msyzo

I'm totally confused by the archery side of things, I know there are people who think that the square-sectioned arrows were the flight arrows while bladed arrows were the killing arrows. It seems like they are estimating arrow properties from surviving arrowheads then choosing a bow to shoot them not using Kooi's physics model? And then there is all the stuff about "what wood were arrow shafts made of?"

They say something about having no steeled arrowheads from medieval England, but Dan Howard cites examples of barbed arrowheads with steeled edges above!

I like the shape of this breastplate better than the shape of the previous breastplate.

Still thinking about the poor performance of their mail against arrows. We know from sources like the Chronicon Colmariensis that some mail paired with linen armour was arrowproof.

[Indianer]

Hi, I have not yet watched the video, but I'd like to comment on the arrows. I have noted these Type 16 here as armor-piercing arrows (Royal Archives).

I sent them an email inquiring about the makeup. I asked whether they knew of the tips, were they iron, steel, dressed with a steel blade...? Sad to say they have ignored me so far. If anyone knows more or has a reliable source please let me know.

[Sean M]

A book on Roman shields which I am reading says that Andrew Halpin cites a study where arrows with bodkin heads fly farther than arrows with equally heavy bladed heads. The article which they cite is free to download from https://deremilitari.org/articles/

Apparently David Starley published an article in 2005 which looks at the metallurgy of six medieval arrowheads (four type 16 broadheads and two bodkins)

[Indianer]

Thanks Sean! I'll see if I can't dig up the 2nd one too.