Mythbusters request made - arrows / bolts / armor

[blackbow]

FYI, I was reading in Naval Warfare Under Oars - 4th to 16th Centuries and there's an appendix that deals with the killing power of arrows and bolts vs. armor. Since I know we're all very, very tired of the Argument Eternal (is that anything like the Eternal Champion? LOL) I went to the Discovery Channel and put in a request with the MythBusters crew to take a 90 lb (standard according to Naval Warfare) longbow and shoot a broadhead point at leather, chain over leather, and plate, and to do the same thing with a crossbow, and do it at different ranges. It sounded to me like something they'd fall all over themselves to do.

If anybody else is interested in plugging the idea with the Mythbusters guys, I'd suggest you head over to discoverychannel.com, register, and add your commentary to the forum.

It may not SOLVE the argument but it'd sure give us more hard data than we have now.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[Egfroth]

You'd better also specify the quality, hardness, thickness and shaping of the steel armour, plus the quality of the mail (destroying the Indian stuff is no test at all of the real stuff). And the quality of the steel/iron of the arrowheads.

Otherwise it will be just another unreliable test, like so many we've seen on TV (and elsewhere) already.

[sebastian]

My only question is....

What do Navel Oars have to do with Archers and Armour?!

I doubt Mythbusters will help us much with this arguement.

They are not going to shell out the money to have all period gear made. They will substitute something and someone will cry "Foul" and we will be right back where we started. People will say the data is not accurate. or whatever.

However I will go to thier site and encourage this. (that they do it.)

[Templar Bob/De Tyre]

This was discussed to death several months ago, regarding what would be required for such a test to make absolutely everyone happy. The conclusion was the for some people, no amount of preparation would please some people with their own pet theories. To date, none of us amatuers would be willing to pay Erik D. Schmid to build a hauberk for the purpose of destruction, let alone what would serve as appropriate padding, arrow heads, the proper metals withthe correct crystaline structure, etc.

Even should people agree to all of these things (and money be found to pay for them), someone would find something wrong with the data, or the premise of the test.

Seems that writing Mythbusters won't prove anything, even if they take you up on your wager.

[Frederich Von Teufel]

Mythbusters has shelled out a substantial amount of money on some of their segments (just recently I saw the episode where they spent approximately $30,000 on pingpong balls, and another where they must have shelled out close to $1000 disproving that a bunch of ballons wouldn't lift a child off the ground.)

I think it's reasonable to expect them to spend maybe $5000 to set up this experiment.


Frederich

[blackbow]

My only question is....

What do Navel Oars have to do with Archers and Armour?!

I doubt Mythbusters will help us much with this arguement.

They are not going to shell out the money to have all period gear made. They will substitute something and someone will cry "Foul" and we will be right back where we started. People will say the data is not accurate. or whatever.

However I will go to thier site and encourage this. (that they do it.)

Sebastian:

you'd be surprised. During the 4th to 16th centuries, gunpowder hadn't been invented, and combat on sea took place pretty much identically to combat on land. I was researching ranks for a group that wanted to recreate "period marines" and found out that Marines, in period, didn't exist; they were just another part of the ship's company.

Here's what I quoted at the group:

If it's going to be educating, it's got to be right...

In short, privateers in period didn't have sabers and pistols; they
had swords and armor, just like heavy fighters.

But to summarize in one sentence: Marines didn't exist in period.
Documentation:

*Naval Warfare Under Oars: 4th to 16th Centuries*, by Vice Admiral W.L.
Rodgers, USN (ret.), Published by Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland,
(c)1940,1967,reprint 1983, ISBN 0-87021-487-X, pp. 88-179

p 98-99

"The important difference was in the armament. The French fleet seems to have
been manned almost wholly by seamen armed chiefly with swords and pikes, and
little good armor. There were few good crossbowmen. The British had many
archers and men-at-arms, the latter with good armor."

p 100

"This combination of weapons King Edward repeated at (the battle of) Sluys. He
put his best ships in the front line adn between every two ships with archers he
placed another with men-at-arms. The archer ships were to engage at long range
and then the men-at-arms would close and board. A second line of archers' ships
in rear of the first provided reserves for those in the first line who became
exhausted. The king told off a guard of 300 men-at-arms for the protection of
the transports which carried a number of ladies who were going to join Queen
Philippa in Ghent where she had been left as a hostage for the King's return."

p. 100

We must not suppose, however, that the archers boarded the Christopher (ship's
proper name-JB) or the other ships. That was work for well armored men-at-arms
with swords and lances, who came up in the other ships when the arrows had
weakened the French resistance.

p. 101 (here's the kicker, y'all)

The interesting tactical point about this action is its similarity to army
formation and the very evident application of the newest English army practice,
as to combining archery with close fight. ...In short, this victory gave
England control of the Narrow Seas for the next 20 years and facilitated the
commerce with Flanders, which was so important to both countries.

p. 102

...King Edward listed, as available (as mentioned on p.96) a force of 738 ships
manned by 15,000 men, but as I understand the account given by Nicolas, only 120
ships, each manned by 60 mariners and 20 skillful archers, were actually called
out and assembled early in April. Twelve galleys were chartered from Genoese
shipping men.

p. 105

The battle of Winchelsea shows no grand tactical effort, only hard individual
fighting and, although gunpowder had been in use for 25 years, Froissart does
not mention it in this battle. In all these battles of the period in the
English Channel we see no such attempts, as were the rule in the Mediterranean
at the same time, to maneuver ships as a body and to overcome the enemy by attck
in the rear and envelopment of the flanks. Knights in armor fought as they knew
how to fight on land. Battles were won with weapons rather than ships as was
the tradition of the Mediterranean. It is also noteworthy that in the British
Black Book of the time (a book of what now would be called Admiralty
Instructions and Regulations) the tactical rules regard landing and raiding on
shore rather than ship handling.

p. 114-115 (Italian naval wars)

Commanders of ships were at first called padroni (from Dominus, patronus) and
this word lasted after the word comito (comitus) came into use in the thirteenth
century to indicate captains of galleys and other rowing ships. At the end of
the fourteenth century the word comito began to change its meaning to indicate
the master of the rowers and captain began to be applied to the ship master,
although Venice called the latter sopracomito. In Southern Italy the comiti
seem to have held their commands as a hereditary feudal obligation and it is
possible they had to maintain their ships at their own expense.

The rowers were freemen who at first gave obligatory free service for a limited
time, two to six weeks; later, they began to get payment which varied according
to circumstances, but even then the duty was obligatory. ....

Captains dressed in tunic and trousers of silk and carried a whistle with a
purse, inkstand and pen and tablets for writing. In Genoa there was a clear
line between those who served by the roster, or without pay, and those who were
paid; that is, between those whose service was feudal and those who were
mercenary. Besides the rowers there were a number of soldiers, among whom the
crossbowmen were the chief. Even the rowers were all armed and after the ships
closed in battle most of them left their oars to use their swords. The captains
of sailing ships employed in the fleet were always called "padrone." They had a
crew of sailors, all bearing arms, besides the soldiers who were divided into
crossbowmen and bellatores, which I take to mean swordsmen and pikemen.

p. 178

Besides all these rowing ships, the 24 nefs (type of ship - JB) with 3,000
soldiers on board, and crews of 1,000 sailors, under the command of Don Cesar
Davalos, were to accompany the fleet with supplies of all kinds, including field
and siege guns for use if the soldiers should land for operations on short. In
battle, the nefs were to join battle where it would be most advantageous if the
wind permitted, but, if it was calm, Davalos was to put his soldiers in boats
and send them to report at the sterns of the galleys, who would tell them what
to do.

******

So, have we got all that? there weren't any marines. Everybody sailed,
everybody fought. Alternatively, a very select crew sailed, and they
transported the guys who did the fighting, depending on the nationality of the
ship in question. This continued until the advent of gunpowder, which rendered
knights and armor obsolete.

The only word I found that was ever used to describe a soldier who was also a
sailor is "mariner".

[blackbow]

You'd better also specify the quality, hardness, thickness and shaping of the steel armour, plus the quality of the mail (destroying the Indian stuff is no test at all of the real stuff). And the quality of the steel/iron of the arrowheads.

Otherwise it will be just another unreliable test, like so many we've seen on TV (and elsewhere) already.

Actually, Egfroth, since I don't *know* the quality, hardness, etc., I'd probably go onto a forum where people who DO know the quality, hardness, etc., can contribute their knowledge.

Oh, wait, I just did.

Feel free to contribute whatever you know, or find somebody who does, et cetera, and sit back and wait.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[blackbow]

This was discussed to death several months ago, regarding what would be required for such a test to make absolutely everyone happy. The conclusion was the for some people, no amount of preparation would please some people with their own pet theories. To date, none of us amatuers would be willing to pay Erik D. Schmid to build a hauberk for the purpose of destruction, let alone what would serve as appropriate padding, arrow heads, the proper metals withthe correct crystaline structure, etc.

Even should people agree to all of these things (and money be found to pay for them), someone would find something wrong with the data, or the premise of the test.

Seems that writing Mythbusters won't prove anything, even if they take you up on your wager.

What kind of wacko do you think I am? It's not POSSIBLE to make all of the people happy..."It's a known fact that you can't make all of the people happy all of the time. It's been postulated that you can make all of the people happy some of the time, and some of the people happy all of the time, but in practice, I've generally found that you can't do anything without getting someone hacked off at you."

I'm not interested in making ALL of the people happy ALL of the time...I'm just trying to satisfy one more than 50% of the masses.

[Rhoetus]

They have done a lot with dead pigs... burying and digging up... leaving in a car, etc....
I think putting some 1300's armor on one and going at it with bows would be a blast for those guys.... after all, its Agincourt we are really concerned with, isn't it?
And anything they would do would beat putting some armor on a stump and shooting it like they did on 'Conquest'.

[Sir Daniel]

I think the only fair thing to do would be to test 6-7 different armour examples (2-3 of plate, 2-3 of chain and a boiled leather jack as a 'control') against 3-4 different bows (longbows, recurves of 2-3 different weight pulls) and 4-5 different arrows (Broadheads, bodkins and... i dunno, some other type, maybe frog arrows ).

I think if you did a bunch of tests, instead of talking about one single test that no one can agree on, you could eventually arrive at some truth.

[Galvyn Lockhart]

I've thought for a while that the Mythbusters guys might like to take a crack at this question.

My idea to replicate Agincourt type conditions would be to set up a device that would launch a multi-arrow flight all at once to replicate volley fire. This is of course assuming that you couldn't get 10-20 archers w/ appropriate poundage longbows.

The target would be one of their ballistic's dummies in appropriate armour w/ padding and helm.

In short, instead of firing at a stationary target, my idea to replicate the conditions of charging cavalry, the "knight" s/b mounted on top of a track moving a the speed of canter or gallop towards the "archers". Getting the timing down would be essential in order to get the arrows and the knight to be in the same area at the same time. Wind would be a factor.

Anyway, that's how I'd do it if I had the money.

[blackbow]

I've thought for a while that the Mythbusters guys might like to take a crack at this question.

My idea to replicate Agincourt type conditions would be to set up a device that would launch a multi-arrow flight all at once to replicate volley fire. This is of course assuming that you couldn't get 10-20 archers w/ appropriate poundage longbows.

The target would be one of their ballistic's dummies in appropriate armour w/ padding and helm.

In short, instead of firing at a stationary target, my idea to replicate the conditions of charging cavalry, the "knight" s/b mounted on top of a track moving a the speed of canter or gallop towards the "archers". Getting the timing down would be essential in order to get the arrows and the knight to be in the same area at the same time. Wind would be a factor.

Anyway, that's how I'd do it if I had the money.

Sir Galvyn, Sir Daniel: I hope you crossposted exactly what you just said to the Mythbusters forum. LOL...this might end up being the first Mythbusters episode to be a two- or three-parter!

FYI Sir Galvyn: the chapter I read already had statistics listed for injury rate vs. arrow amount, if that's what you were interested in.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[Galvyn Lockhart]

[quote/]FYI Sir Galvyn: the chapter I read already had statistics listed for injury rate vs. arrow amount, if that's what you were interested in.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow[/quote]


Hmm. My understanding was that the average French knight faced flights of arrows from the English longbows. Not one aimed straight at him like a crossbow bolt. Whereas armour of the period should defend against the lone arrow, the numbers of arrows the armour faced in the field was certainly more extreme. To better replicate the conditions, my target would need to face more than one arrow. More arrows in a flight also increase the chance of a arrow on armour strike.

Perhaps I am just biased against the idea of a magic bullet or nuclear arrow.

I'll look around for the Mythbusters site and post my ideas as you've requested.

[blackbow]

[quote/]FYI Sir Galvyn: the chapter I read already had statistics listed for injury rate vs. arrow amount, if that's what you were interested in.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

Hmm. My understanding was that the average French knight faced flights of arrows from the English longbows. Not one aimed straight at him like a crossbow bolt. Whereas armour of the period should defend against the lone arrow, the numbers of arrows the armour faced in the field was certainly more extreme. To better replicate the conditions, my target would need to face more than one arrow. More arrows in a flight also increase the chance of a arrow on armour strike.

Perhaps I am just biased against the idea of a magic bullet or nuclear arrow.

I'll look around for the Mythbusters site and post my ideas as you've requested.[/quote]

here's the info from Naval Warfare, distilled:

"In England the long bow was considered the national weapon, yet it was never able entirely to supplant the crossbow. English kings hired foreign crossbowmen even when the reputation of the long bow was at its highest. It is therefore worth while to compare the two weapons."

"From old bows in existence, it seems that a long bow was 6 feet or more in length and shot an arrow a cloth yard (37 inches) long. When at rest the string was 7 inches from the middle of the bow and the length of the draw was 28 to 29 inches. The strain on the bow necessary to draw it to the full was technically known as the "weight" and was 60 pounds or more. Only very strong men could draw a bow exceeding 90 pounds. The range of the arrow varied with its own weight and the strength of the bow. From the best information which has come to us, target practice at 200 yards was habitual and the ordinary arrow could attain a range of 250 to 300 yards, according to the strength and skill of the archer. About one-third or one-fourth of each man's supply for war were "flight arrows." These were lighter than the ordinary ones and could attain a range greater by 50 to 60 yards, but had less striking force at all ranges. In popular language the term "bowshot" meant 400 yards and this range could probably be reached by the very best archers, using flight arrows."

"As to the accuracy of archery, it was not very great in spite of the wonderful tales of Robin Hood and William Tell. We may be sure of this, for the records of target practice in recent years preserved by the Archery Association of Great Britain show that the best winning score in a long series of annual shooting matches at 100 yards at 4-foot circular targets was 72 per cent of hits. The same champion won in another year with 45 per cent. The lowest winning annual score was 20 per cent of hits. We may therefore believe that 1 hit out of 4 on a target of a man's size (7 square feet) at a measured range of 100 yards would be most remarkable target practice, and at an unknown range of about the same distance under war conditions 3 or 4 per cent of hits would be very high. Of course, the shooting in war would be at a line of men instead of at individuals, but the full allowance of two sheaves of 24 arrows each probably averaged scarcely as much as one enemy casualty."

"The arrow of the long-bow was able to pierce the infantryman's leather coat or "jack," but was not effective against metal armor. So about the twelfth century the crossbow came into use to give heavier blows. At first the crossbow was no more than a heavy wooden bow mounted on a stock at right angles to the length of the bow, making a cross. To draw this bow the archer placed the center of the bow under both feet and drew the string with both hands by the strength of his back muscles, until he could catch the string by a sear and trigger at the rear of the stock. Then the bow was liften, a bolt was placed in a groove running the length of the stock, and the weapon was ready for discharge. In the course of time crossbows were built stronger; until in the sixteenth century they were of steel, weighing, with the stock, as much as 25 pounds. A heavy bow at the Metropolitan Museum, which I was permitted to examine, had a span of 33 inches with a draw of 5.5 inches and a "weight" if 1,640 pounds. Such bows needed a ratchet or winch to wind them up. This was a great addition to the burden the crossbowman had to carry. The work accumulated in drawing this crossbow is about 263 foot-pounds, but the machine is not efficient because the bow is heavy and its draw is very short, requiring a very stout bowstring. Thus much of the work is absorbed in the bow and the string. A flight bolt weighing 1.5 ounces is good for a velocity of under 200 foot-seconds and a range of 280 yards. The heads of crossbow bolts at the Metropolitan Museum are of a great variety of shapes to bite on inclined plate armor, to cut ships' rigging, and for other special purposes. Many offer great resistance to the air. A 5-ounce bolt with a 4-pronged head in the above-mentioned crossbow would have a velocity of no more than 160 f.s and a range of 160 yards. In spite of the comparatively short range of the crossbow, its advantage was that it struck such a hard blow that knights had to wear heavy armor for adequate protection. As a new weapon it was opposed as inhumane and in 1139 the Pope is alleged to have forbidden its use against Christians. Another advantage of the crossbow was that any one could wind it up and weak men were as efficient with it as strong men. It was also more accurate. Its disadvantages were that it was heavy and slow in rewinding."



Galvyn: I don't think, based on these #'s, that crossbows were used to pick off individuals unless the crossbowman was safe behind a castle wall or otherwise had plenty of time to pick and fire, or something similar. I'd be willing to bet that crossbowmen were drawn up in lines 3 deep, just like musketry troops, and the front rank was told to fire, the second rank was told to prep to fire, and the third rank was told to reload or stand ready. Then the front rank was told to kneel (and reload), second rank was told to fire, and the third rank was told to make ready to fire. Second rank fired, knelt, third rank fired, and then MAYBE the first rank would get off one more volley, by which time even a footslogger can make 160 yards. Then the crossbowmen would probably retreat behind the infantry and set up again, or discard their crossbows and pull out their backup weapons and get to work.

regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[blackbow]

Discovery Channel, Mythbusters-specific:

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythb ... sters.html

[Murdock]

They did Agincourt on Battle Field Detictives

(i was fighting to stay awake when it was on)

The gist of it afaik was thet the arrows killed the horses and not the armoured men and that the field conditions and where the English choose to fight from won the day for them.

This was while i was fighting to stay awake so i missed about half of it.

[rameymj]

They did Agincourt on Battle Field Detectives

(i was fighting to stay awake when it was on)

The gist of it afaik was thet the arrows killed the horses and not the armoured men and that the field conditions and where the English choose to fight from won the day for them.

This was while i was fighting to stay awake so i missed about half of it.

BFD Summary:

King Henry took archers rather than men at arms because they were 1/2 the price, and he was broke. The archers were equipped with secondary weapons that probably caused the most damage.

Their arrows were ineffective against the French armored calvary and men at arms (fighting on foot), however, they were effective against their horses. Some of the French lords (i.e. calvary) didn't show up for the fight.

The battle field may have given the English a distinct advantage because a) drop offs on either side caused the French to be funneled into the English and b) the rain saturated soil/mud would impede horses & armoured men at arms (i.e. the French footman)

The French may not have used their crossbowmen.

Finally, the Fench prisoners were slaughtered/murdered by the archers because Henry was unsure of his victory and couldn't afford to take so many prisoners with him or leave them behind to regroup. The nobles probably refused to do the killing because they would not be able to ransom them if they were dead.

They got a specialist in crowd control (or something similar) to do a simulation. His explaination is that the French calvary and men at arms would have been in disarray instead of their battle lines because sides of the battle field had a drop off. This is like a busy 4-lane highway merging into 2 lanes.*

Further, the soil at Agincourt is somewaht unique. When saturated with rain it forms a thinish mud. An armored foot will sink into it, create suction, and the men at arms/dismounted knights are at a movement disadvantage against colth/leather shoed archers. The moving archers could then kill the relatively immobile armoured French. (humm ... not sure why those French put metal on the bottom of their feet)

The mud can also reconcile the contemporary accounts of men falling down (because of the funnelling effect) and drowning in the mud because they could not get up (i.e the suction again, not because his buddies were standing on his back).

These are the producers theories; not mine.

If we wish to "discuss" these theories, I'd suggest creating a separate thread.

MJRamey

* My analogy, not theirs

[James B.]

Leeds Museum has already done better tests on the longbow than Myth busters will. Conclusion, just maille sucks, maille over padded armour very effective, and plate never penetrated do to many reason including that plate is hardened and arrows are soft iron, properly shaped armor surfaces are rounded and cause arrows to mostly glance off.

For 14th to 15th century armours there is tons of text written about arrows and armour. Biggest problem is lifting a visor and taking an arrow in the face. Areas were there is no plate are also vulnerable. In the 14th century some people wrote that arrows crack the plate and sometimes the tip penetrated but never harmed the wearer. In the Paston Letters one of the sons, I believe John Jr. is injured by and arrow that penetrated into the split in the vambrace scratching him so he request money for medical treatment to prevent an infection. An ordinance for jacks in the 15th century states that a 25 plus layered jack with a stag’s skin on the outside is nearly impenetrable by swords or arrows and other writings speak of men in jacks walking around with so many arrows they look like a porcupine.

[blackbow]

Leeds Museum has already done better tests on the longbow than Myth busters will. Conclusion, just maille sucks, maille over padded armour very effective, and plate never penetrated do to many reason including that plate is hardened and arrows are soft iron, properly shaped armor surfaces are rounded and cause arrows to mostly glance off.

For 14th to 15th century armours there is tons of text written about arrows and armour. Biggest problem is lifting a visor and taking an arrow in the face. Areas were there is no plate are also vulnerable. In the 14th century some people wrote that arrows crack the plate and sometimes the tip penetrated but never harmed the wearer. In the Paston Letters one of the sons, I believe John Jr. is injured by and arrow that penetrated into the split in the vambrace scratching him so he request money for medical treatment to prevent an infection. An ordinance for jacks in the 15th century states that a 25 plus layered jack with a stag’s skin on the outside is nearly impenetrable by swords or arrows and other writings speak of men in jacks walking around with so many arrows they look like a porcupine.

James: it's entirely possible that Leeds has already done a better job than Mythbusters would. The point of using Mythbusters was that it was a nationally recognized group of people that would shoot a TV episode about it that would then be available to everybody, everywhere, and not be subject to interpretation.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[Karl]

I have a 75 lb. self longbow from Avalon Longbows.

I use ash arrows with random heads bought from Historic Enterprises and bodkins I've had custom made out of 1050. The broadheads I had sharpened professionally.

I've shot point-blank and at 50' at a 16 gauge elbow cop and an old (we're talking 10 years of rust) 18 gauge helm.

I'm willing to concede that there is simply no way I can put any of my arrows through this armour using anything but the bodkins and only then do I make a hole that looks like it was punched with an awl.

Small dents and possibility of scratching someone - yes.
Arrow able to make a fatal wound (3" penetration past the steel) - one in a million.
Straight through and out the other side "Robin Hood" style - lol.

Some of my arrows actually broke from the impact.

What this practical experience leads me to believe is that James B. is right and that Bernard Cornwell should be burned at the stake for ever writing anything as ridiculous as The Archer's Tale.

Hope this helps,
Karl

[Aidan Cambel]

My thought..

It doesn't have to be a complete suit of Eric D. Schmidt armour, it only has to be a piece of metal roughly shaped as a breast plate with the correct metal composition to cover a pig. We are most interested in the bows ability to pierce a breast plate, correct? I don't see the pig really needing articulated arms,legs, helm, etc.

If i had a steady job, I would volunteer a few pieces for them to test. As far as maille -

I can almost hear it now - the announcer saying "in order to get some quality maille, we went to Montgomery Alabama and contacted Steven of Forth Castle"

[blackbow]

My thought..

It doesn't have to be a complete suit of Eric D. Schmidt armour, it only has to be a piece of metal roughly shaped as a breast plate with the correct metal composition to cover a pig. We are most interested in the bows ability to pierce a breast plate, correct? I don't see the pig really needing articulated arms,legs, helm, etc.

If i had a steady job, I would volunteer a few pieces for them to test. As far as maille -

I can almost hear it now - the announcer saying "in order to get some quality maille, we went to Montgomery Alabama and contacted Steven of Forth Castle"

Actually, I'm most interested in the arrow's ability to penetrate mail over leather. I think even the most pro-archery person out there would have to agree that arrows weren't much use against plate. I'd run tests with riveted mail and butted mail, and I'm guessing 8 oz cuir bouilli leather.

Maybe we should look at changing the archery rule to say that if you're a knight, you're wearing plate, and therefore only subject to face shots? Lord knows they get targeted more than anybody else, which isn't realistic. If they were considered to be wearing plate, they'd receive the perk of their position, and not just the problem of being a more visible target. It's reasonable to assume a knight would be wearing plate and his squires would be wearing chain over leather.

I guess maybe we should put it differently: it's not reasonable to assume a knight would be wearing chain over leather in a melee.

Just tryin' to solve a problem-

regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[Chris Gilman]

At the "Armour in" we did here at the shop a few months back, I did this test for people. A strong (60#) yew long bow from Yumi, shot point blank with an iron bodkin pointed arrow into a slightly hardened, cupped piece of metal (towards me, so no glancing surface) and no penetration. Heavy cross bow (150#), point blank, minor penetration of maybe 1/8th of an inch.
Even with variable in extreme directions (much stronger bow, weaker metal) the results I got where so pathetic, that there is no way an arrow was going to go deep enough to hurt you, let alone kill you.

Arrows, no go through plate folks.

This Myth is BUSTED!

[DarkApprentice]

Can you make an MPeg movie of those tests and put them on line? That would be sooooooo cool.

Thanks in advance.

The Darke One

[Wil]

This has been stated a few times, so I've got to ask- what's the rationale for layering mail over leather? Aside from the Roman subarmalis, I don't know of it being done. Mail over fabric seems to have been the standard, if this is incorrect please share your info.

~Wil

[Russ Mitchell]

to have been the standard where and when? It's a big continent, amigo, with a lot of unknowns and a lot of variations. Leather over mail, hardened, too....

this way lies madness. the True Believers are going to start coming out of the woodwork any second.

[x]

this way lies madness. the True Believers are going to start coming out of the woodwork any second.

You rang?

Seriously, though, I would be interested in establishing a continum of what was how effective, which could possibly then be implemented into the ruleset easily for greater realism and (potentially) balance in some experimental scenarios.

Everyone here (I assume) agrees that any arrow would have no issues whatsoever skewering a naked man.

Everyone here (I assume) agrees that any arrow would *NOT* penetrate late 16th Century full Tourney Plate Armor, except in fluky circumstances or finding a gap.

Somewhere between those two extremes (99.9% penetration and .1%) lies a curve of expected probablilities of significant injury from an arrow strike. Some armor sets would be on the "likely to penetrate" side, some would be on the "not terribly likely to penetrate" side. Some would be a 50/50 chance.

The ones on the "likely" or "not likely" side is easy...if you're wearing a reasonable implementation of one of those sets of armor, arrows are either good or not good, depending on which you're wearing. No math, no dice, just a "Okay, you're wearing 4 in 1 mail over a tunic...arrows kill you" vs "Okay, you're wearing Gothic Plate with an open face helm, arrows don't kill you unless they strike your faceplate", etc.

Again, NO MATH, NO DICE, still on the honor of the fighter to accept the good shot. Just an acknowledgement that some folks had armors that were better than others.

The 50/50 ones...well...I don't have a good solution there...maybe "The first arrow doesn't kill you, but the second one does"...yeah, it violates my NO MATH rule, but in about as minor a way as possible.

Likewise, rate the bows. Assume a fiberglass "kiddie bow" to be an early period thing (therefore *presumably* less effective) and tell the archer "You may not target folks in metal armor, because your arrows would be ineffective, you can only kill the folks in plastic or leather". If someone walks onto the field with a reasonable reproduction of an English Longbow, they can kill someone in maille.

Something like that at least...the critical thing would be trying to keep it reasonably simple, avoid as much math as possible and avoid as many discrepancies as possible that aren't at least semi-justified by history.

Decent "Arrow vs Armor" experiments would be a necessary first step to developing this knowledge. Mythbusters is as good a place as any to start, I think.

I don't think this would be a welcome change to the "standard" rules...but for a special scenario done on occasion...sure, why not? Might even learn something.

[James B.]

This has been stated a few times, so I've got to ask- what's the rationale for layering mail over leather? Aside from the Roman subarmalis, I don't know of it being done. Mail over fabric seems to have been the standard, if this is incorrect please share your info.

~Wil

I was thinking the same thing, there is so little in the way of boiled leather worn in history and tons of cloth with maille combos straight through the 17th century (as far as I know).

[blackbow]

This has been stated a few times, so I've got to ask- what's the rationale for layering mail over leather? Aside from the Roman subarmalis, I don't know of it being done. Mail over fabric seems to have been the standard, if this is incorrect please share your info.

~Wil

I was thinking the same thing, there is so little in the way of boiled leather worn in history and tons of cloth with maille combos straight through the 17th century (as far as I know).

I can't remember which show it was, but it was either on the Discovery Channel or History Channel, but it had footage of a mannequin wearing mail over padding being shot with a broadhead arrow from maybe 40 feet, and the damn thing bounced off. In slow motion.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[Turalyon Gilnea]

Gorm, a good idea, but then also, A sword blow to someone in full plate will in no way slice through the plate armor, and unlikely damage any flesh beneath. A sword thrust is even unlikely to pierce effectivley through plate. A sword slash against chain is unlikely to cut through, though somewhat possible to damage the body beneath. If archers are to be regulated based on armor then so should swords, polearms and the rest. I actually think this is a good idea and why im part of a group that plays the game in that method, certain weapons are ineffective against certain armors.

[St. George]

Gorm, a good idea, but then also, A sword blow to someone in full plate will in no way slice through the plate armor, and unlikely damage any flesh beneath. A sword thrust is even unlikely to pierce effectivley through plate. A sword slash against chain is unlikely to cut through, though somewhat possible to damage the body beneath. If archers are to be regulated based on armor then so should swords, polearms and the rest. I actually think this is a good idea and why im part of a group that plays the game in that method, certain weapons are ineffective against certain armors.

There is a huge difference between arrows and melee weapons. That being that people in the SCA can be stunned by even rattan weapons- while arrows don't even get noticed. While I agree that the average sword cut might not "kill" on a single stroke, there are plenty that are either hard enough, or in the right spots (like a butt wrap from Cuan) that it just doesn't matter if the sword is rattan or real- the fighter is incapacitated.

Archers shold be regulated on armor- shots to "open faces" should be kills- anywhere else they just shouldn't count (not that people notice they even got hit somewhere else half the time anyway). However a rattan sword or mace "smack" to the right part of the body- even though armored- can elicit enough of a momentary incapacitation that the individual could easily be overcome with the next few blows and effectively rendering him/her "dead."

Just because a sword thrust or slash might not immediately "kill" they can still effective remove someone from a fight. Arrows are just an annoyance.

Alaric

[Wil]

It's a big continent, amigo, with a lot of unknowns and a lot of variations. Leather over mail, hardened, too....

C'mon Russ, you've been published and you're wife is a PhD, you know better

Cite please.

Seems to me that wearing mail over cuir bollei or even a layer of thick, untreated leather was not done. Those who are insisting on this as the armour test standard are weighing the scales in favour of the armour by utilizing ahistorical (or at best atypical) combinations.

Prove me wrong

~Wil

[Russ Mitchell]

Why?

I said leather over mail... besides which, depending on how you count the proto-buff coats that the Cumans wore, mail over leather may be perfectly reasonable. Try to find an image for some of the St. Ladislas frescoes. (St. Ladislas and the Cuman) There may be a couple online, and it hurts nothing to obtain a series of comparative data just in case something comes up...

But, you see, I could give two squats about establishing a standard. BECAUSE I do research, that's precisely the point: things were NOT uniform across the medieval world. Now, if you want to reduce this back to "I will establish experimental data with which I can club the other half of the Great Beaten Zombie Equine..." well, why bother trying to get some t.v. show to spend 30k on that?

[James B.]

I can't remember which show it was, but it was either on the Discovery Channel or History Channel, but it had footage of a mannequin wearing mail over padding being shot with a broadhead arrow from maybe 40 feet, and the damn thing bounced off. In slow motion.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

That is the Leeds test. The padding was linen, silk, and raw cotton if I recall correctly.

[Russ Mitchell]

and the thousand-dollar question: what was the mannequin made of?
I've put arrows right through the same shirt that was bulletproof mounted on a mannequin...