Mail Call: Archery claim?

[RandallMoffett]

About the amount of armor on the field. I would have to say according to all the research that I have done getting a definate idea is close to impossible. I would assume that most local or levied troops most likely were not heavily armed, perhaps a looted item here and there or a token gift from the town/local lord but weapons come first, armor 2nd if at all. I also think that David Nicolle puts it well that what the infantry wears today was the knights armor 50 years ago, (Not directly quoted but close I think). Also the cost of armor would have most of the nobility of only moderate wealth in some hard times and would have varied to amount and quality. Cost is a key factor and having thousands leaves alot of space for a fairly 'motley' crew. Also skirmishing seems to be fairly common past time for young nobles looking for glory and honor, and (loot) further uping possibility of armored men in such activities.
As for the armor tests, I assume at this time period that a high carbon steel armor would have been fairly rare also, at least I figure that from TOMAR and other readings it seems that the low carbon steels were mostly used for armor and high to medium for other projects (weapons). and the fact chain mail was still largely used also is a factor that would have to be thrown in. These factors woudl greatly variate the damage caused by a long bow.
Also a number of the quotes about the damage of bows are previous are from before the age of the longbow. I think Edward the I was the first monarch to actually have a organized unit of them as soldiers toward the very end og the 13th century and it looks like the LB is more or less in only wales and england still as I have found no sources to indicate the contrary. Also having 300 or even 1000 heavily armored knights is still small compared to the 10's of thousands of soldiers on the french side in that battle, so amount of armor is still an issue. The fact is the english won so the Longbow had to have killed alot of people.
Just a few random thoughts
RPM

[Bob Charron]

Any conclusions that are based on the reading of the primary sources are the most sound. I wouldn't ever be upset if a preponderous number of primary sources proved me wrong - I welcome it.

Secondary sources, such as a book written about knights in the 20th century by an author who has a fetish for their success, or likewise a book about archery written by someone who really likes archery in the 20th century cannot be counted on as sound sources.

Read what was written at the time, by the people who are there.

All else is in doubt, and some of the primary sources are as well (i.e. Gerald of Wales - the National Enquirer of the Period - who is in fact a secondary source as he didn't witness many of the events he reports).

So caveat emptor and seek the primary sources.

[James B.]

2a. Medieval Wales, The Medieval Archer, and Bowmen of England all claim the average pull of a trained bowman's longbow to be 120 - 180 lbs. All tests that I am aware of have failed to take this into account.

Problem is there is no proff of anything more than #104 from the Mary Rose 150 plus years later.

If noble armor was essentially 'proof', and the only danger to horses, than someone must explain why all armies did not very quickly evolve into completely mounted infantry forces - ride to the battle, get off, attack. No horses to kill, everyone is immune to arrows, and the armoured boys can get to the killing. This obviously did not happen. Why bring along 5,000 archers who sole use is to kill the other guy's archers, when everyone not an archer is immune?

Actully this is kind of the way the English faught each other in the War of the Roses. The armored men left the horses behind and advanced.

Bob has the best quotes on the subject I have seen in the 100 times we have argued about this yet.

Flonzy

[kass]

Everything you say is the best advice I could give, Bob, except this:

All else is in doubt, and some of the primary sources are as well (i.e. Gerald of Wales - the National Enquirer of the Period - who is in fact a secondary source as he didn't witness many of the events he reports).

Gerald of Wales would not be a primary source even if he were there. He would be a secondary source. The only primary sources are extant objects. All first-hand accounts, no matter how substantiatable, are by definition secondary sources. If you can hold it in your hand, it's primary. If someone is describing something you can hold in your hand, it's secondary, no matter if he was really there at the time or not. Those who base their descriptions on the descriptions of others are tertiary.

Kass

[RandallMoffett]

I agree its important to read writing from the period. In fact thats how to determine the quality of a good book, Yet there are a number of accounts from the time period in question that have not been mentioned, both french and english that claim that the arrows were piercing the french helm, a pretty good feat and as thick or thicker than most of their armor. I will look if I can find it but I think its not in english. But beware what you read, writers tend to have big biases, I spent a whole six months reading all sort of mixed accounts about Edward III.
RPM

[Maredudd]

Just another idea to throw in...
I own arrows of three different "spine" weights: 35, 50 and 100 lbs. The lightest ones in terms of actual weight are the 100 lb spine ones. They are poplar as are some of the war arrows from the Mary Rose whilst the others are Ash. I wonder how the wood of the arrows affects the flight characteristics and armour penetration potential?
Any ideas?
Maredudd

[kass]

But beware what you read, writers tend to have big biases, I spent a whole six months reading all sort of mixed accounts about Edward III.

Precisely, Randal! Which is the big reason why first-hand accounts are not considered primary source material. A person can exaggerate or misconstrue or even lie. An arrow cannot.

[Maeryk]

Just another idea to throw in...
I own arrows of three different "spine" weights: 35, 50 and 100 lbs. The lightest ones in terms of actual weight are the 100 lb spine ones. They are poplar as are some of the war arrows from the Mary Rose whilst the others are Ash. I wonder how the wood of the arrows affects the flight characteristics and armour penetration potential?
Any ideas?
Maredudd

You are getting into kinetics and transfer of energy here.. I played with an atl-atl once that was basically a 36 inch long pine dowel with fletches on one end and a field point on the other.. it flew SLOOOOOWWWW.. but it buried itself a good 1/4-1/2 inch into the pressure treated 4x4 it hit when it went wide of the butt. Now, for something with that big a diameter (nearly the diameter of a .45 slug) it had a very impressive penetration.

The stiffer the spine (and poplar is stiffer than cedar, in that diameter) the more direct energy is going to be transferred at the tip. The less stiff, the more the "wiggle" someone quoted earlier is going to happen, and its going to be more of a later (not much, but later) "punch" behind the arrowhead.

It also, I would imagine, would make one heck of a difference between penetration on a shiny smooth metal piece. Think about drilling without a pilot hole.. if you get the bit on and dont back off, you can drill in, but if you get it on then release pressure even a little bit, its gonna skiff off to the side.

that said, I have NO idea if they will penetrate armor or not.. and am not weighing in on that discussion.

(The opinions presented above are formed from my reading of projectiles, how bows and arrows work, and playing with various projectiles. I am not to be quoted as an authority, and if you spot somewhere I'm wrong, PLEASE let me know!)

Maeryk

[Maeryk]

Just another idea to throw in...
I own arrows of three different "spine" weights: 35, 50 and 100 lbs. The lightest ones in terms of actual weight are the 100 lb spine ones. They are poplar as are some of the war arrows from the Mary Rose whilst the others are Ash. I wonder how the wood of the arrows affects the flight characteristics and armour penetration potential?
Any ideas?
Maredudd

You are getting into kinetics and transfer of energy here.. I played with an atl-atl once that was basically a 36 inch long pine dowel with fletches on one end and a field point on the other.. it flew SLOOOOOWWWW.. but it buried itself a good 1/4-1/2 inch into the pressure treated 4x4 it hit when it went wide of the butt. Now, for something with that big a diameter (nearly the diameter of a .45 slug) it had a very impressive penetration.

The stiffer the spine (and poplar is stiffer than cedar, in that diameter) the more direct energy is going to be transferred at the tip. The less stiff, the more the "wiggle" someone quoted earlier is going to happen, and its going to be more of a later (not much, but later) "punch" behind the arrowhead.

It also, I would imagine, would make one heck of a difference between penetration on a shiny smooth metal piece. Think about drilling without a pilot hole.. if you get the bit on and dont back off, you can drill in, but if you get it on then release pressure even a little bit, its gonna skiff off to the side.

that said, I have NO idea if they will penetrate armor or not.. and am not weighing in on that discussion.

(The opinions presented above are formed from my reading of projectiles, how bows and arrows work, and playing with various projectiles. I am not to be quoted as an authority, and if you spot somewhere I'm wrong, PLEASE let me know!)

Maeryk

[RandallMoffett]

What people get out of reading period sources is also a debate in itself. I figure that since the majority of what I read says that Edward was an OK gent was because he was but what if the other writers were right? The bias of the writers is at times less than clear. Some frnech writers during the 100 years war say that Edward III was a true Christian King and appears to be a positive source. Since he was french I can assume any number of things, He was pro-english, being sarcastic or perhaps admired him as a rival? Who knows. But It just goes to show to have a care when reading, and our related Ideas. Not saying we cannot make a judgement but in the end sources are relative to how we view them.
RPM

[chef de chambre]

Posts like these are why I took a 3 month hiatus from the R&A board, and why I resigned as moderator of the Armour forum on Sword Forum - they are almost painful to read, and to no surprise, I see the same names dredging up the sam speculation, based on a belief in the superiority on one weapon as a matter of faith (and even in past have suggested a mystical ability to said archers).

Firstly, please provide a *single* documented example of a completely armoured knight, armed cap-a-pie (in plate, to handle one hurdle at a time - Bob and others can handle the mail end), who was killed by having a plate of his armour penetrated by a longbow arrow - just *one* example will suffice. I can provide you with several examples of lightly wounded people, who were either struck in a thin limb plate, or who were struck where the plate was not.

Secondly, Gabriel le Noir - I do not think so - your finding different arguments, if the people in question on said board were scholars of Arms & Armour. Suffice it to Say, the RA and others who have undertaken the tests against armour were suprised at how effective the armour was - they did not approach it with a predisposed bias, or if they did have a bias, it was an assumption that the longbow would have done much better - after all, they were raised with the cherished myth, intrinsicly wrapped in English Nationalisim, and brought into full glory during the Victorian era of the warbow as a superweapon.

Regarding your commentary on the crossbow - it is quite easy to prove that a majority of military crossbows across europe throughout the middle ages had a greater draw strength, and greater penetrative power than any military self bow contemprary in use - that is the principle reason the weapons were used. In comparison, if a warbow of high strength drew 150 lbs (to push the upper limit of what is known), one can compare militaary crossbows drawn by cranquin, and used as skirmishers in most continental armies - these average 300 lbs draw weight (and this without considering windlass drawn steel stave arbalasts, with upwards of 1000 lb draw weight). The crossbow bolt or quarrel was shorter, and *heavier* than the military arrows used. Even vitreons existed, with spiral fletching to impart a spin to a projectile - made intentionaly to defeat armour.

The advantages of the longbow were 1. ease of production 2. ease of maintenance 3. a high rate of fire 4. and last, but most certainly not least, a weapon allowing a far denser proportion of archers and a crossbow.

The rate of fire of the bow made it able to be used as a rapid fire, indirect fire area denial weapon, in a way a crossbow never could be.

While Bob Charron is correct that very few armies would have large components of 'naked' men (unarmoured, in late medieval parlance), even a well armoured infantryman would not be completely armoured - most infantrymen would be wearing jack and mail, or brigandine, and a helmet. The believers in the myth won't like this, but there is every indication that these armours, worn in combination, would render the wearer likely to be proof, or nearly proof to archery on the areas covered. Unfortunately for the average infantryman, he could still be shit down in the unarmoured face, the thigh, the calf, the arm - a yard long arrow through a mans arm or leg is most likely to render them completely out of a fight, and if they did not bleed to death, or they were not cracked open like over-ripe melons by the victors with everything from mallets to maces and bills, they were highly likely to be killed by infection - puncture wounds being particularly unforgiving of anything but the most rigerous sanitation, and septicimia causing 100 % mortality before the early 20th century (just imageine dying of gas gangrene in a shithole of a hovel, after having a yard long arrow taken out of you - isn't that a delightful thought).

The point being, that an army of archers could convievably reap down typical infantrymen like a happy Boche machinegunner on the first day at the Somme 1916 - concievably, an army of bowmen could inflict 80% casualties on a typical medieval army without ever killing a fully armoured man. Some of the fully armoured chaps would go down because they had their visors lifted, or a lucky shot hit them where the armour was not, or ditto to an occularum penetration, ect.

The warbow was a highly effective weapon - largely because it enabled the English to employ an entire class of people armed that few if any continental powers could match - because the English could trust an armed yeomanry, and no European Monarch had any compatable weapon or class of people to match. It enabled the English to field far larger armies than they could have had they been forced to rely solely on the aristocracy and mercenaries. Just by being reasonably effective, it was an equalizer on the battlefield. Please note that the great battles won of the longbow were principly defensive fights from prepared positions, and the times the English were forced to fight in other circumstances, the battles tended to go badly for them.

This will probably be my last reply on this post - one can never convince the true believers in the Zen of the archer-mystic.

All I can say is that scholars of arms and armour believe 2 basic truths.

1. armour never imparted complete invulnerability to the wearer

2. complete suits of armour of quality of any era were likely to be the nearest thing to proof against most archery of the day - such suits never being a commonplace.

[Gabriel Morgan]

Any conclusions that are based on the reading of the primary sources are the most sound. I wouldn't ever be upset if a preponderous number of primary sources proved me wrong - I welcome it.

So caveat emptor and seek the primary sources.

I agree with the above, with the caveat that the primary human sources of the day had their own biases, not the least of which was that of class. The longbow was a peasant/yeoman weapon, and it would probably be a mistake to say that its framing by contemporary sources was not colored by this fact.

As for what Kass is calling 'true' primary sources, archaeological evidence, they are often so few and far between that it is hard to say an absence of solif fact that bodkin points penetrated plate in the age of the longbow means much of anything. Look at the few examples of falchions we have, for example, a weapon that was reportedly prolific in the middle ages. Now imagine demanding archaelogical proof that required finding a certain type of falchion, and you see the trouble.

I myself suspect plate was mostly-proof against volleyed arrowfire in the 100 years war. I suspect that it was much less so against the last round of directed arrowfire before the archers retreated or picked up axes and bills. I'd love to see tests done with a longbow of weight - 150 lbs, perhaps.

[Jehan de Pelham]

As EDIT (Cripes, me too!) Chef says on this matter, so also do I believe, and have read. All of the things which he wrote, I have no argument to the contrary.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

[Abaddon]

Once the arrow leaves the bow, nothing is accelerating it! So point blank is the most energy that arrow will ever have. Because once it is not being propelled by the bow, air resistance is slowing it down.

That is not entirely true.
Ask a fletcher.
The arrow flexes as it leaves the bow, because the back end is actually traveling faster than the front end for a split second.
That's a fact.
Arrows do this, but most crossbow bolts do not because they are too short and thick, hence the greater power of a crossbow at close range versus a longbow, (assuming a comparison with a mechanism of the same thusting force as the bow in question.) Because a crossbow bolt does not flex as much, the crossbow imparts more total energy towards its forward velocity. But as such it begins to lose that energy immediately after launching. An arrow, on the other hand, absorbs much of the force of the bow when the arrow flexes as it leaves the bowstring, and then it expells that stored energy in both directions as it straightens out in flight, adding to its total speed after release.

Depending on exit velocity of the arrow, and its length, it can take as much as twenty-five feet for the arrow to reach equilibrium with itself and straighten out. Which means that the front end of the arrow continues to accelerate up to the same speed as the back end of the arrow, and only reaches top speed at the point when both are in equilibirum, and the flex has been absorbed into the forward velocity of the missile. Granted the speed of the arrow as a whole (meaning its net velocity) may start decreasing the second it leaves the bow, and is slightly lower than it would be if the arrow did not flex at all, but the differential velocity imparted to the front of the arrow due to the re-flex of the imparted kinetic energy, especially of a long and powerful arrow, is enough to offset the initial loss of net velocity due to air friction.
You understand that I am talking about the difference in velocity of the front and back ends of an arrow, as it pertains to the precise moment the arrowhead itself reaches its maximum velocity?
Since that is the measure we are going by here; i.e., impact force.

There is more than one law of physics that applies here, you see, and it is not as simple as determining when force was last applied to the missile. We are also dealing with stored up kinetic energy, and the true measure is in determining when and how it is released.
Not when the arrow was released.

And of course the arrow has more drag on it when it first leaves the bow, until it gets up to full rotational speed due to wind resistance with the fletchings, which does not happen right away. It, too, takes maybe a dozen to two dozen feet to get up to full rotational speed.
Then the arrow starts to really cut through the air. As well it might, since it is no longer cavitating and flexing, but has settled down into its intended flight-path.

Which means that, yes, an arrow does continue to accelerate after it leaves the bow (the arrowHEAD at any rate)...at least for about twenty-five feet.
Assuming we are talking about a medieval longbow with a yard-long+ arrow. Modern bows, and modern arrows, especially aluminum arrows, have much different properties. They flex too, but they do not cavitate as much in flight, and they are so much lighter that their forward motion through the air allows their fletchings to spin the arrow almost immediately. Less mass to try to get moving.

The flex in any arrow is built in. If they did not flex, they would not work very well. An arrow has to flex to be accurate, because as it fires the ends actually try to go in two separate directions. The flexibility of an arrow is what allows it to curve around the bow and resume its intended course without veering off to one side or snapping in two.

[Chris Gilman]

Abaddon,
Until I see a modern test which shows beyond a doubt that an arrow can increase velocity because of it wagging it's tail like a fish, I must consider your post an ill-informed bunch of Star Trek inspired physics.
Not to say it isn't true, but
Even if there is some shred of truth, I would imagine a flux in the earths gravitational field would have as much of an effect on velocity as the arrow wriggling it’s tail feathers. I’m sorry; I don’t buy it, not even with free money.

Maeryk,
I have no Idea what you are trying to say. Velocity and mass equal impact. Increase either one and it gives you a bigger boom. Increase either one and you need more power to do so. I cannot see where drill bits and arrow penetration are related in any way to the question at hand. PSI is the factor. Velocity, mass gives you the pounds per square inch. The smaller the impact point the higher the PSI.
Given enough velocity you can put a #2 pencil trough a 2X4 with out hurting the soft graphite tip.
Given enough velocity and enough mass you can vaporize 8 inches of hardened plate steel armor with a metal rod the diameter of a sharpie.
Drop a 2â€Â

[Gabriel Morgan]

[quote="Sir Gaston"]
Bob,
Your on the mark. Thank you for an answer based in reason and scholarly research.
Had I known the silliness of the responses I would have never posed the question.
Silly of me to expect much real historical and sciencentific data to rear it’s ugly head on the “medieval fan boy chat groupâ€Â

[James C]

Abaddon,
Until I see a modern test which shows beyond a doubt that an arrow can increase velocity because of it wagging it's tail like a fish, I must consider your post an ill-informed bunch of Star Trek inspired physics.
Not to say it isn't true, but
Even if there is some shred of truth, I would imagine a flux in the earths gravitational field would have as much of an effect on velocity as the arrow wriggling it’s tail feathers. I’m sorry; I don’t buy it, not even with free money.

What specifically do you disagree with Abaddon's post? I didn't read anywhere in his post about 'wagging it's tail like a fish'. Maybe i'm missing something. I'd really like to know.

[Chris Gilman]

) strike "BOB" insert Chef de chambre
Sorry about that.
Warning Bozo on the keyboard.

James C,
Arrow flexes back and forth after release "wagging it's tail"

[chef de chambre]

Everything you say is the best advice I could give, Bob, except this:

All else is in doubt, and some of the primary sources are as well (i.e. Gerald of Wales - the National Enquirer of the Period - who is in fact a secondary source as he didn't witness many of the events he reports).

Gerald of Wales would not be a primary source even if he were there. He would be a secondary source. The only primary sources are extant objects. All first-hand accounts, no matter how substantiatable, are by definition secondary sources. If you can hold it in your hand, it's primary. If someone is describing something you can hold in your hand, it's secondary, no matter if he was really there at the time or not. Those who base their descriptions on the descriptions of others are tertiary.

Kass

Uhhh, Kass?

Not to quibble, but according to my Prof. in Historical Methodology, and eyewitness account is most certainly considered primary documentation, and treated as such in footnoting papers, and working up thesis. One must consider the bias of the source if one is a good historian, but primary documentation it is.

Gerald of Wales is a teritiary source, because he is repeating a story he got second or third hand, some decades after the event occured.

Oh, and Gabriel,

Kindly show me an actual arms & armour scholar who actively participates on boards like this, in discussions like this. They do not - I know from repeated conversations with them they think it is a waste of time.

Of course, if I was touting myself as a scholar, you might have a point - my disgust at seeing these pointless debates year after year since the founding of this board has nothing to do with 'an assumed sense of superiority', but frustration at completley fruitless debate that is pointless, because the side you see as not "snotty" rejects any direct evidence contrary to their possition, be it a scientific test, or a primary source of documentation.

Accolades given out by oneself are always worthless, I'll always consider myself a student rather than a scholar, but I'll take the opinion of professionals I respect in the subject over people hiding under a nom de plume on an eboard, most of whom have never seen an actual piece of Medieval or Renaissance armour outside of a photograph.

Again - I am better off writing and researching on the topic, than trying to convince some fellow who believes in the 'TRVTH' of this specific topic like a devout catholic believes in transubstantiation.

[Gabriel Morgan]

Oh, and Gabriel,

Kindly show me an actual arms & armour scholar who actively participates on boards like this, in discussions like this. They do not - I know from repeated conversations with them they think it is a waste of time.

Of course this is true. I stay away from message boards in my own area precisely because little good can come from it, and it is frusterating in the extreme. That this frusteration can boil over into message boards posts is very understandable.

That's an explanation, though, not an excuse, and it is plain to me that the comments I noted were dismissive and rude. My only point.

As an aside, the practice of internet 'handles' dates back to nearly the inception of the internet itsself. Combine that with the fact that this is not an academic board, and the fact that the board is heavily frequented by people in the SCA, and complaining about people not using their real names in discussions seems a bit churlish.

<edited due to Profile wackiness>

[Ernst]

chef,

My only question is this:

Are interminable archery threads migratory?

[Bob Charron]

Chef,

Excellent post. Certainly there were vulnerable men and vulnerable areas of men on the field of battle for which archery could prove devastating. You have put forward a well-considered and moderated position. I agree.

My biggest concern is that there is too much outright speculation without consulting the original sources. Are those sources victims of bias and other factors? Certainly they are, and again we must be educated consumers. The danger is in seeking the sources, finding they disagree with our already-formed opinion, and then criticizing them as inherantly flawed because they don't agree and keeping a position based on nothing, because you feel nothing disproves your position.

Yet as you put forward, I too have had a challenge out for years for a single account of a person in proper armour being killed by an arrow through the armour. If arrows were killing armoured individuals in the numbers claimed by some, there would be not only individual records, but long lists of those killed in this manner.

I am certain there were some, but if we can only find a couple of instances in the long historical record, then it was not the norm, or even common. As Chef has said before, we are not looking to make the exception the norm in recreation or re-enactment. That would be to flaw our portrayal and take all the spectators and demonstration goers with us.



I give archers and archery their due for being effective, it just may not be in the exact way many people believe they were effective.

[Stacy Elliott]

Abaddon,

Please give a location that I can read more about your position on the arrow increasing its speed after leaving the bow.

Stacy

[Gabriel Morgan]

Bob,

A very reasonable response. I can find little to respond to, save your conclusion that we should have long lists of 'armoured deaths by arrow' if it were commonplace. Often, the most commonplace things are not documented. On another forum, someone mentioned the statement 'No WWII servicemen in Europe died via automobile accident.', then demonstrated how difficult that was to disprove via written primary sources, stemming from the prosaic nature of the thing.

I also view the archaeological record as rather amazingly spotty in almost every area - again, see the falchion as one example.

Note, I am not arguing that lack of proof is proof of the opposite - only that we really don't know much about this, and that reasoned debate must continue - by my betters, in point of fact.

[Owen]

However given the results of my test I doubt that even a solid steel arrow with a soft iron point would penetrate the steel. If it did, I don’t believe it would get very far.

Ever seen a water saw? Water isn't very hard, but at high enough velocity and a fine enough stream (point), it cuts steel quite well. "Soft" iron is a relative term, and a fast moving arrow can hit hard enough to penetrate before it has time to deform. It also does not need to penetrate deeply to wound.

[kass]

Uhhh, Kass? Not to quibble, but according to my Prof. in Historical Methodology, and eyewitness account is most certainly considered primary documentation, and treated as such in footnoting papers, and working up thesis. One must consider the bias of the source if one is a good historian, but primary documentation it is.

Then your professor and my professor disagree. A first hand account can be primary documentation only for things not affected by bias, such as the writing style of the period or period orthography. Because a person can lie, it is not considered a primary source. We were not allowed to use these sources as primary documentation.

Perhaps it is different in different arenas. In textile circles, the only primary source is an extant textile. Everything else -- a contemporary description of the textile or a painting of it as worn -- is secondary. A painting of a textile can be considered a primary source for the painting style and for the pigments used, but it isn't a primary source for the textile in the picture.

But I won't quibble with you, Chef. I just wanted to further explain how I was taught. Although it baffles me that it would be different in two different disciplines.

Kass

[Gabriel Morgan]

Then your professor and my professor disagree. A first hand account can be primary documentation only for things not affected by bias, such as the writing style of the period or period orthography. Because a person can lie, it is not considered a primary source. We were not allowed to use these sources as primary documentation.

Perhaps it is different in different arenas. In textile circles, the only primary source is an extant textile. Everything else -- a contemporary description of the textile or a painting of it as worn -- is secondary. A painting of a textile can be considered a primary source for the painting style and for the pigments used, but it isn't a primary source for the textile in the picture.

But I won't quibble with you, Chef. I just wanted to further explain how I was taught. Although it baffles me that it would be different in two different disciplines.

Kass

As a further datapoint, eyewitness accounts are certainly considered primary documentation in Cultural Anthropology. If we didn't consider them so, all we'd have left is material culture, and while I love the study of latter, I'm not certain I want to restrict myself to it.

[Owen]

Kass- if a witness account of an event were not a primary source, how could there ever be a primary source for a historical event?

[FrauHirsch]

Frau Hirsch,

The number of armoured horses on a field at a given battle is often a difficult thing to get our finger on. However, there are a few examples at random that should make us consider if maybe there weren't many more than we might have previously believed.

Richard I captured 70 fully armoured horses from his enemies during a *small skirmish* in the South of France.

At Agincourt, the commander of the French was able to identify 300 knights with fully armoured horses who he assigned to the first charge at the English archers. They lost three men during the charge and the return, and these were thrown over the necks of their horses at the surprisingly revealed stakes and were beaten with mallets among the ranks of the archers.

Bob,

I wonder about this as well. From the period iconography, the percentage of fully armored horses is fairly low. If there were 300 armored horses at Agincourt amongst the French, do you know how many were not? 300 would not be all that many among thousands. Aren't there at least 600 French knights heraldiclly identified? That would not count additional mounted men-at-arms in their entourages, probably several times their number. I would expect a percentage of "heavy cavalry", fully armored knights with fully armored horses, and some percentage of an army to be light cavalry. I've read varied accounts of number on the French side, but many hit in the 30-50,000 thousand range, but how many were on horseback? Probably most of the "Knights" and many of their men-at-arms, which accounts sometimes mention in the thousands.

Without knowing what a "small skirmish" consisted of, its impossible to know if there were 200 knights on a side or just that 70.

The use of archery to bunch your opponent up so these heavily armored cavalry can wade in, would make a lot of sense. It seems like they tried to have the heavy cavalry run over the archers en masse at Agincourt.

It would take a small percentage of wild or loose horses to disrupt a battle plan. From the accounts, the fallen horses made a big difference in Agincourt, whether it was just from the mud or if archers played a role would be interesting.

I think those numbers prove there about as many fully armoured knights as I was expecting.

-J

[kass]

Kass- if a witness account of an event were not a primary source, how could there ever be a primary source for a historical event?

That was rather my point. By the definition I learned in graduate school, there cannot be a primary source for a historical event because writers are affected by bias. Case in point, one of the battles during the Irish Wars in the late 16th/early 17th century. We have both an Irish and an English account of this battle. They are in fact such polar opposites that one wonders if the two writers were at the same event! And yet according to the accounts, they were. They even differ on the size and description of the fortress being besieged. The Irish account call it a fort with a great rampart. The English call it a building surrounded by a ditch. Who is right? Both? Neither?

Kass

[Russ Mitchell]

Maeryk...

Your suggestion regarding velocity vs. mass was the central feature of my presentation on this topic to De Re Militari at last your's medieval conference in Kalamazoo: I present part two this year. Email me if you want more info.

[RandallMoffett]

I really do not want to contradict or debate anyone since it is very much a matter of opinion as you can find an account to back up any side of your ideas if you look hard enough but hear are some I quickly looked up before latin as someone asked a while back if anyone could give an account of any heavily armed men shot down by archers, (both knights and men at arms?). Well Froissart, which is one of the better know historians of the time said,

Poitiers, Jean Froissart

"As soon as the men of arms entered, the archers began to shoot on both sides and did slay and hurt horses and knights,....

whereof the earl of Sarrebruck, the earl Nassau and the earl Nidau were captains, but in a short space they were put to flight: the archers shot so wholly together that none durst come in their dangers: they slew many a man that could not come to no ransom: these three earls was there slain, and divers other knights and squires of their company,"

I am pretty sure an earl would be well armed so there are three people and two accounts. I tend to think that the bow had to be able to piece plate or at the least kill very well as the english kicked the french down and had a high percent or archers which varies from historian to historian but at such a disadvantage there has to be some factor at work that shifted the balance. Just some more to look at. It is alittle hard to find Froissart but there are some translated books of his so feel free to take a look.
RPM

[Jehan de Pelham]

I don't know that any of us would be willing to stand still a hundred and fifty yards from ten archers and let them shoot at us, no matter how well armored we were.

I ain't interested, I can tell you.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

[chef de chambre]

I really do not want to contradict or debate anyone since it is very much a matter of opinion as you can find an account to back up any side of your ideas if you look hard enough but hear are some I quickly looked up before latin as someone asked a while back if anyone could give an account of any heavily armed men shot down by archers, (both knights and men at arms?). Well Froissart, which is one of the better know historians of the time said,

Poitiers, Jean Froissart

"As soon as the men of arms entered, the archers began to shoot on both sides and did slay and hurt horses and knights,....

whereof the earl of Sarrebruck, the earl Nassau and the earl Nidau were captains, but in a short space they were put to flight: the archers shot so wholly together that none durst come in their dangers: they slew many a man that could not come to no ransom: these three earls was there slain, and divers other knights and squires of their company,"

I am pretty sure an earl would be well armed so there are three people and two accounts. I tend to think that the bow had to be able to piece plate or at the least kill very well as the english kicked the french down and had a high percent or archers which varies from historian to historian but at such a disadvantage there has to be some factor at work that shifted the balance. Just some more to look at. It is alittle hard to find Froissart but there are some translated books of his so feel free to take a look.
RPM

Randall,

The question was not 'any accounts of fully armoured men being shot down by archers', but accounts of armour penetration by arrows - these are two completely different things. For instance, Lord Clifford (a fully armoured man) was shot down at Ferrybridge (1461) by an arrow, but we very specifically know his armour itself was not penetrated - he had lifted his vosor to shout orders to his men, and recieved an arrow through the open visor, and this open mouth, thus being the first 'brain-stem boy' known in recorded history. He died nearly instantly according to the account.

Firstly, Froissart isn't a primary source for those accounts, because he was not present, and heard his information second-hand, and in the case of Edward III early battles, many decades after the events occured. The account itself does not specify that the men were killed by having their armour itself defeated - it could have gotten them through an open visor, or where their armour was not. It doesn't even specify the Earls having been slain by archery - for all we know, they could have been killed when their dead horse fell on them and crushed them (obliquely killed by archery, rather than directly - and this is far more likely than a non-equestrian, who has never had the misfortune to be on, or see a horse fall with a rider who could not get off it's back before it fell might realize). For those reasons alone, it isn't very good evidence for armour itself being penetrated.

Secondly, full harness of plate was not developed during Crecy, and it was very much a new development even during Poitiers (most armour scholars date the development to the 1360's and '70's in it's nascent full form). Furthermore, many effigys from precisely that era show men of rank still depicted in less than complete plate harness.

I would continue at greater length, but I have to leave for the museum. I'll try to pick up the thread later.

[Abaddon]

Abaddon,
Until I see a modern test which shows beyond a doubt that an arrow can increase velocity because of it wagging it's tail like a fish, I must consider your post an ill-informed bunch of Star Trek inspired physics.

I have already seen such a test, dipsh*t.
That's why I posted this.
If you haven't seen that particular demonstration on the Discovery Channel, then I guess it is YOU who is the less informed.
You can't get around the physics of it.
The arrow flexes, and that is stored energy.
And that energy has to go somewhere.
Unless you want to argue that it DOESN'T flex; I have you cold.
And you are too dim to read my entire post apparently, or you simply didn't understand it, since it is not really the arrow that continues to accelerate, but the tip of the arrow....duh...as it straightens out. When it leaves the bow, the tip of the arrow is going slower than the rear of the arrow. At some point the flex that has been imparted to the arrow upon its launching re-flexes, and the front and back of the arrow are then both going the same speed.
At the moment it straightens out in flight, and by that I do not mean its flight path, but when the arrow itself snaps back into its normal shape, you get differential variations in the relative velocity of the arrow all along its length. As physics demands, the release of energy happens in both directions along the length of the arrow. The back end slows down relative to the arrow's forward velocity, and the front end speeds up. It may take less than a second for this to occur, but in a powerful bow, or with a longer arrow that flexes more, this can mean several yards before the tip of the arrow reaches its maximum velocity.
Not eight feet.
And until the arrow resumes its natural shape, it is unlikely to get a dead on strike, even at point blank range. Why? Because although the flight path of the arrow may be completely perpendicular to the surface of the target area, since the arrow is still bent inward upon itself due to the force of its release, the angle of the arrowhead is going to be slightly off.

Use better judgement in your next reply, and be less condescending in your manner. And maybe you should watch Nova a little more than you watch the History Channel.