The Armour Archive

Well, the war-Ansteorra list is discussion archery and how "the arrow would easily penetrate" chain, and I remembered some post regarding armoured knights in the crusades getting shot by multiple arrows and living. Can anyone help me out with a link, book , or something?

JP

I got a little book for Christmas that has references to this. "A Knight in Battle" 2nd Ed., Ewart Oakeshott, ISBN 0-8123-1322-1.
The author covers the battles of Arsuf(1191), Lincoln(1217), Mauron(1325), and Marignano(1515).
The battle of interest would be the battle of Arsuf, were King Richard leads the crusader army on to Jerusalem after being sieged at Acre. The author offers accounts from both sides.
Boha-ed Din, a Saracen gentleman-soldier, wrote on August 31, 1191, "The enemy moved in order of battle: their infantry marched between us and their cavalry, keeping as level and firm as a wall. Each foot soldier had a thick cassock of felt, and under it a mail shirt so strong that our arrows made no impression on them. They, meanwhile, shot at us with crossbows, which struck down horse and man among the Muslims. I noted among them men who had from one to ten shafts sticking in their back, yet trudged on at their ordinary pace and did not fall out of their ranks."

I've read this passage before. I can see where the "thick cassocks of felt" could break up the energy of an arrow to the point where it wouldn't spread the maille when it got that far. An arrow's effect on maille depends a lot on the head. This passage makes me wonder what type of head the Saracens were shooting. A bodkin will spread maille and penetrate. One of the swallow-tailed type heads will do some blunt force damage and hurt like hell but won't be as likely to penetrate. I guess the answer to the question of maille penetration would be "It Depends".

------------------
Emm aye sea kayee why. Emm ohyou essee.

Oddly, I can think of several references which would seem to indicate that the gambeson or padded coat was more effective against arrows than mail alone. The references during Richard I's march stress the padded coats (I think the thick 'felt' previously mentioned might be subject to a differing interpretation.) As late as the Soto expedition into the American Deep South, this seems constant. Accounts from that expedition mention how stone tipped arrows easily shot through fine coats of mail worn by the upper class. It also mentions the effectiveness of thick, loosely filled cotton coats. Soto's secretary and narrative writer Rodruigo Ranjel says 30 arrows were drawn from his cotton armor at the battle of Mauvilla (Mobile). Gerry Embleton and Clive Bartlett performed tests with period bodkins against period mail. They discovered that the mail always gave way at the riveted joint EXCEPT when the arrow struck the space between rings. Several times, arrows seen to miss the ring, but strike the underlying gambeson were seen to "bounce off"! You may notice that the first mention of gambesons in English assizes is from 1187, in time for Richard's experience, and that during the late 14th century, padded jupons were frequently worn with bascinet, camail, and hourglass gauntlets. If other body armor was worn, it was beneath the padded jupon. This coincides neatly with the increasing success of archery in the Hundred Years War. Even the Maciejowski Bible shows gambesons being worn over mail, but not underneath. Perhaps these padded armors were found to be more efficient versus arrows than mail alone.

This makes perfect sense for the 9-11th century Magyars, whose success with the bow seemed to be so difficult to replicate later, and the campaigns of Robert Guiscard, whose Saracen crossbowmen, not using late medieval siege arbalests, were nevertheless extremely effective. Maurice's strategikon also mentions the use of felt "cloaks," after the Avar fashion, both providing protection for the mail from rain, and also providing some protection against arrows.

In a set-piece battle, defense against hand weapons is crucial, but in the sieges that occupy most of Europe's military history, one can make an argument that protection from missile weapons was far more important, and may have been the primary, rather than secondary, spur for armour development.

I'd imagine a lot would depend on the bow's draw weight, the distance from bow to maille, and the type of head on the arrow.



------------------
<><><> <><><> <><><>
Baldurstrand

AFAIK, the bodkin was specially designed to open/cut chainmail, and could do so with a relatively 'light' bow - say 45lbs. I have a few of them lying around (I never quite found a use for them, other than enjoying the way they look? )

I'm not absolutely positive how long they've been around, but I'm willing to bet they were developed sometime shortly after chainmail came into use. It just makes sense.

I've seen reference somewhere (I'll have to think about where..) about them being in existence in the 2nd C. and used by the Romans, but I can't absolutely vouch for that until I get my hands on the material I read that in.

Any other archers/bowyers around who know anything about bodkins?

I have heard that a jack of plates of common foot soldiers was useful against arrows but leaves much to be desired against blades.

Hi Rustysickle,

A Jack of plates is more of a mid 16th century defense. The Medieval defence worn was a jack - plain old multi-layered linen, up to 30 layers of it in spots. Some were indeed "stuffed" with things like mail or horn, but the Jack of plates is a unique defense consisting of essentially a number of octagonal washers laced into a padded peascod doublet (nowhere near as thick and stiff a defense as the Medieval jack). They were never intended to withstand archery (muskets and claviers were the primary missle weapons when at the hieght of their being worn as a defense), they were primarily intended to turn the cut of a sword.

------------------
Bob R.

Oopsie, thank you for the info, I was wondering if they are of any use against arrows. Maybe the ones stuffed with mail might work. Oh well, can't expect much from just good enough grunt armor.

Hi Rustysickle,

Actually, the late Medieval jack (not a jack of plates), when worn with mail is extremely effective at keeping out arrows (mail under the jack). Unfortunately, the torso & upper arms are well protected, but the average infantryman tended to be a "soft target" regarding the rest of his limbs, and an arrow through the forearm, lower thigh, or calf has a tendancy to slow a fellow down.

------------------
Bob R.

That is entirely true chef. Medieval warfare wasn't really gunned to kill more than is was gunned to mame. Why only eliminate one with death, when two can beachieved my your buddy getting you off the field because you can't do it your self due to an arrow in each leg?

------------------
Torr O'Neal
The Irish, Norwegian Merc

Hi Torr,

The fellows in the Towton grave or the Wisby burial pits might take issue with you, could they speak....

------------------
Bob R.

I think that the wound vs kill idea is almost an entirely modern concept. If you are engaged in hand-to-hand concept, you want the other fellow to stop NOW, not in a little while. The only way to ensure that is to kill him, or to give him such a massive wound that he goes into shock almost immediately. If he still looks/acts like a combatant, you or your buddies hit him again.

Oh, I was reading an article on Xenophon and the 10k mercenaries fighting with the Persians, it mentioned one fellow by name who was killed by an arrow that penetrated both his bronze covered shield, and his bronze breastplate.

The Xenephon exerpt I believe referred to an engine - like a Roman scorpion - not a hand-held bow.

I have to break these out about once every two months on some list

Here are some chronicle exerpts I posted elsewhere on arrows and armor in Medieval battles:

********

Galbert of Bruges on the seige of Bruges (1127-1128)[attack on the gate of the town, protected by archers and infantry]:

"By the special grace of God no one died in this multitude which was entering." and "I could not begin to describe the crowd of those who were hit and wounded." and "...as to those wearing an armor, they were exempted from wounds but not from bruises.."

Odo of Douil concerning the ill-fated second crusade (mid-12th century):

"During this engagement the King lost his small but renowned royal guard; keeping a stout heart, however, he nimbly and bravely scaled a rock by making use of some tree roots which God had provided for his safety. The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armor protected him from the arrows, and to keep from be captured he defended the crag with his bloody sword.."

From Joinville (mid 13th century), referring to the day following his being struck in five places and his horse in fifteen by Saracen darts:

"I got up, threw a quilted tunic over my back, clapped a steel cap on my head, and shouted out to our sergeants: 'by Saint Nicholas, they shall not stay here!'. My knights gathered round me, all wounded as they were, and we drove the Saracen sergeants away from our own machines and back toward a great body of mounted Turks who had stationed themselves quite close to the ones we had taken from them. I sent to the king for help, for neither I nor my knights could put on our hauberks because of the wounds we had received."

It seems the padded jackets were enough protection in this emergency, and that they could have fared even better against the enemy had they been able to wear their hauberks.

From an English chronicle of the Battle of Poitiers :

"Our bowmen of the vanguard stood safely in the marsh, lest the horsemen should attack them, yet even so those did prevail there somewhat. For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards.."

This is the evidence I'm talking about.

I don't find anyone in an armor dying from arrows going through it. And this is just a small sample of what's available from the chronicles.

We really must understand that armor worked very well. It wasn't just protection from incidental contact or the partially parried blow. It was real protection against powerful blows. Cleaving armor was not the rule, but the infrequent exception. The chronicles written by those present during battles does not support it. Spears were much more a threat than swords, and given a powerful thrust, were the greatest threat to the mailled combatant. Yet even these were commonly turned. See Usamah Ibn Munquidh's memoirs for several examples.

I welcome chronicles of battles from those who were present (as the above chroniclers all were) who testify otherwise.

Anyone have any they'd like to share?



------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

I finally got around to looking up the Xenophon reference (Xeonophon and the Persian campaign or something like that). It clearly stated that the Carducians were armed with bows and slings.

Xenophon and the rest of the group were fighting a rear-guard action, and fell behind the rest of the army, they couldn't keep up. This would tend to indicate that they may have been more heavily armed and armored than those ahead of them. I think it is reasonable to assume this since if they were wearing light leather, they could have moved faster that someone covered head to toe in heavy bronze.

Leonymus the Laconian was killed when an arrow penetrated his shield and breastplate (according to the magazine article). This translation said the arrow went through the jerkin on his side. It is the only translation I found so far, so I don't know whether the this translation indicates a leather jerkin, or a bronze breastplate. Or whether the arrow entered a gap between the breast and backplate.

"They marched so far that day, sometimes fighting and sometimes resting; (15) but next day came a heavy storm, yet they must go on for want of provisions. Cheirisophos led the way, Xenophon guarded the rear. (16) The enemy attacked them vigorously, and in those narrow places they came close and shot arrows and slingstones, so the Hellenes were compelled to go slow what with chasing and coming back. Often Xenophon sent word for a halt, when the enemy attacked vigorously; (17) sometimes Cheirisophos halted when the word came, but the last time he would not halt-he went on quickly and sent word to follow, so that it was clear something was up, but there was no time to go and see why he was in a hurry. So it became very much like a flight for the rearguard. (18) There died a good man, Leonymos, a Laconian, shot with an arrow through shield and corselet into the ribs, and Basias, an Arcadian, right through the head."
This online translation says corslet.

Basias the Arcadian took an arrow clean through his head, but he may have been looking at it when it hit.