Mail Call: Archery claim?

[Stacy Elliott]

Abaddon,

Can you provide some references for this effect you write about? I would like to read more on it.. I think it is starting to sink in.

However, what percentage of the overall velocity would you say is the increase due to the effect? Seems to me that it would add to the velocity of the arrow so little that it would not make a difference.

On otherhand you mentioned the stored energy that is being imparted on the arrow. Since you say the arrow shaft has stored energy because the arrow shaft is bent, why do you think the straightening of the arrow is going to incease only one of the axis and then in only one direction? That is the part that has me wondering..

[Owen]

The arrow flexes, and that is stored energy.
And that energy has to go somewhere.

Yep. It turns into heat as it is damped out.

[T. Finkas]

It is interesting to note that several writers in the 15th and 16th centuries claim that jacks were nearly proof against arrows. I have seen at least 3 quotes to this effect.

Tim Finkas

[chef de chambre]

It is interesting to note that several writers in the 15th and 16th centuries claim that jacks were nearly proof against arrows. I have seen at least 3 quotes to this effect.

Tim Finkas

You are correct - Louis XI ordinances, a reference in Dominic Mancini, for just 2 of many 15th century ones - this has also been reenforced by recent testing by the RA.

[Chris Gilman]

(delete)

[T. Finkas]

Hey, I bailed out of high school physics and got a "C" in postgrad college physics. That being said, it occurs to me you are all ignoring some rather basic physics here.

Regarding the flight of arrows, you all are forgetting the acceleration due to gravity. When an arrow is shot into a high arc, as I understand is the theory of how medieval archers performed indirect area-effect fire, it becomes a bit more like a mortar shell. The arrow loses some velocity as it hits the apogee of the arc, then starts gaining velocity as it falls.

To chose an extreme (please note I wrote extreme) example of how gravity alone can cause a warhead to pierce metal, consider the lazy dog "projectiles" used in the Vietnam War. They were tiny things, each no bigger than a .45 cal catridge, shaped like a mortar shell (think of Marvin the MArtian's rocket from Bugs Bunny cartoons) complete with tail fins. They were dropped in the thousands by airplanes from a high altitude---dropped, not shot or propelled by explosive charge. However, by the time they reached a ground target they could have enough velocity to PIERCE ENGINE BLOCKS!

Again, I do not know how much effective force would be contributed during the arrows fall---but there WOULD be a contribution. I'd love to see someone who is knowledgable on physics figure out exactly how much force is gained in the case of the arrow falling from high arc.

Tim Finkas

[Chris Gilman]

abandon,
(Edit)
I had posted an answer, but, your right.
I am a dipshit for trying to argue this with you.
The arrow goes faster.
With a tested IQ of 186, I'll do you one better than NOVA, I read.

No, Tim I have not forgotten that. We were, or I was basing this on a point blank shot with basically a flat trajectory and I didn't want confuse the issue even more by bringing gravity into it. Which in this case is just slowing things down.

[chef de chambre]

It is interesting to note that several writers in the 15th and 16th centuries claim that jacks were nearly proof against arrows. I have seen at least 3 quotes to this effect.

Tim Finkas

To further input on the topic, thus far the only 15th century military graves uncovered - from Towton, where one of the fiercest arrow exchanges of the Wars of the Roses occured, not a single cadaver had any indication of any torso injury whatsoever, although plenty of evidence for wounds to limbs, and of course, their heads (One faltering theory from a person on the dig with only a passing familiarity of the subject was her assumption that they weren't wearing any helmets during the battle - muster rolls and inventories, and laws make this theory highly improbable - people who were more expert put forward the far more likely theories - in ascending order of probability that A. as the graves were some distance from the battlefield and along the known path of the rout of the Lancastrian army, the victims had flung away their helmets while fleeing, and were struck down by pursuing horseman B. (more likely) given the brutality of the wounds to the head, and the phenomenon of overkill, that the men had been caught in flight and intentionaly brutaly executed, having their helmets removed for the purpose. Given there were a series of wounds to the forearms of most of the chaps indicating they had flung up their arms to protect their face and heads, and that their skulls were for the most part so fractured with repeated blows to have almost literaly had their heads pounded to jelly, that is the theory that as far as I am aware is currently in the highest favour.

The point being that the lack of discernable torso wounds (no evidence of wounding or nicks along the ribs - the soft tissue is obviously long since departed) , coupled with the known evidence that padded jacks (often over mail), and brigandines (ditto) were the most common defence of footsoldiers, and given the brutality of their deliberate slaughter, this is all very strong forensic evidence for the effectiveness of such defences.

Right now another grave, more properly on the battlefield is tentatively under investigation (the source of the arrowheads Erik D. Schmid mentions). I would wager that in such a grave, forensic evidence will be found of wounds to limbs by arrows (a fairly high proportion I would wager) - men so wounded being likely unable to flee, and be slaughtered in place. I would also wager that very few if any indications of arrow wounds will be found to the ribcages of the corpses. I'd also wager that on skeletons likely to have been archers, one will find horrific arrow wounds to face, throat, limbs - the areas most usualy unprotected to allow the archer to properly ply his trade freely.

Many people tend to forget two things - firstly, in the only medieval wargraves dug thus far, the corpses found have given evidence that the men were repeatedly wounded - maiming was far more common than outright killing on the medieval battlefield - even if you lopped off a blokes arm or leg (an uncommon occurance I'd wager - happened on every battlefield to a minority of men, but I doubt men went scything through the enemy lopping off a limb with every stroke) , he didn't fall over instantly dead, but would fall over shrieking, or even run a bit away shrieking. The indication from the Wisby graves was that mutilated men clustered or huddled together with their buddies, until they were finished off - merely seeking the psychological comfort of companionship. Many of the corpses had a series of disabling wounds before the killing blow.

Secondly, a ton of evidence exists in the form of hunting treatise, concerning bows and arrows (and from England, were the warbow was employed with the *broadhead* arrow in hunting), clearly indicating that even the best shot at a deer was unlikely to kill them outright (the treatise talk about looking for different types of blood trails, to determine a light wound from a fatal one), but the hunters always worked in teams with dogs (scent hounds present), in order to be able to track the mortally wounded prey down. These treatise were written by men who hunted on a daily basis, on the order of you or I getting up to work in the morning, and who describe hunts with beaters so successful deer carcasses were laid out in rows.

Point being, unless a vital organ is taken out immediately, even a mortal wound with an arrow is not instantly fatal - they do not have the same ballistic characteristic, and characteristic traumatic tissue disruption of high caliber bullets used in modern hunting and military rifles - they don't blow holes in people, they insert sticks violently into the body, and the victims are most likely to die from blood loss as immediate cause of death (in the Middle Ages, septic wounds being the great killer of even the people who had not recieved a wound that would otherwise be fatal.)

When viewing the combination of forensic, documentary and scientific evidence from testing, whith an understanding of the logistics of a medieval army, and the arming of same (only a minority of men were completely armoured), the rational mind must bow to the wieght of evidence and come to the conclusion that the armour devised was highly effective against the archery of the day. This takes nothing away from the known effectiveness of the warbow - it merely gives clarity of understanding, when examining documentary evidence of how English armies were deployed, of how and why the bow was so effective in the 150 year span of it's heyday.

It leveled the playing field when facing an enemy numerically far superior in heavy cavalry. Keep in mind the English employed men at arms as heavy cavalry at every available opportunity - and very effectively, when they had a parity with or superiority in numbers to their opponent. Note particularly the Wars of Edward I, where in his final decades in command, he effectively deployed the warbow in combination with the mounted man at arms. That they did not usually do so against the French was initially out of neccessity rather than preferance -by the middle stages of the war, the English commanders were hampered by being mentally married to a successful system, but not being mentally flexible enough to adapt as technology and the battlefield changed.

It was most effective from a prepared defensive position

Through the last stage of the Hundred Years War, the entirety of the War of the Roses, and culminating in the Early campaigns of Henry VIII (Flodden in particular, where archery was heavily employed to little effect), a distinct trend is shown of the *decreasing effectiveness* of the weapon as a battlefield dominating factor - said decline leading to it's abandonment by the end of the 16th century as a weapon of war entirely - this is particularly telling during the War of the Roses, when the bulk of both armies engaged were armed with the weapon.

It is a topic that there are no simple answers to - an insistance that the warbow must be built into a (mythical) technical superweapon limits any student of the subjects understanding with the same mental inflexibility that doomed Talbot at Castillon, and the English at Formingy.

[adric]

Hey, I bailed out of high school physics and got a "C" in postgrad college physics. That being said, it occurs to me you are all ignoring some rather basic physics here.

Regarding the flight of arrows, you all are forgetting the acceleration due to gravity. When an arrow is shot into a high arc, as I understand is the theory of how medieval archers performed indirect area-effect fire, it becomes a bit more like a mortar shell. The arrow loses some velocity as it hits the apogee of the arc, then starts gaining velocity as it falls.

To chose an extreme (please note I wrote extreme) example of how gravity alone can cause a warhead to pierce metal, consider the lazy dog "projectiles" used in the Vietnam War. They were tiny things, each no bigger than a .45 cal catridge, shaped like a mortar shell (think of Marvin the MArtian's rocket from Bugs Bunny cartoons) complete with tail fins. They were dropped in the thousands by airplanes from a high altitude---dropped, not shot or propelled by explosive charge. However, by the time they reached a ground target they could have enough velocity to PIERCE ENGINE BLOCKS!

Again, I do not know how much effective force would be contributed during the arrows fall---but there WOULD be a contribution. I'd love to see someone who is knowledgable on physics figure out exactly how much force is gained in the case of the arrow falling from high arc.

Tim Finkas

With out runnign the numbers here, i suspect the arrow would be either going slower thatn it did when it left the bow, or not much faster. When the arrow left the bow it it had enough velocity to conitue to climb untill the piont where it could no longer climb due to gravity. Then it fell and accellerated to its trminal velocity via gravity. This doesn't take into account for its forward motion. Damn ifonly physics class wasn't soooo long ago! We did several studies along these lines specifically in regard to shooting an arrow through a bike tire that had been tossed in the air. One lady in our class could hit it every time.

[Russ Mitchell]

Now, he and I hit the arguments from different sides, since my whole reason for getting into the question is to try to figure why Louis' archers were so astonishingly successful during the Neopolitan Succession Wars... but we're often talking horse-archery here, which is used as much strategically as tactically (e.g., King Matthias militarily paralysing Austria and Bohemia with craploads of hussars attacking supply points, etcetera).

With horse archers, it gets even weirder, because you have continuous direct fire, you have area-denial fire, and against infantry, you have sloping direct fire, which makes it relatively easier to bypass shields (imagine an archer on a small platform shooting into a shield wall: the geometry is much less friendly to the shield wall than if the archer's on the ground).

PLUS, Maeryk wasn't smoking crack when he mentioned velocity vs. mass. The "short arrows" being fired at Joinville's men were not the same suckers being lobbed in the air by whatever Cymri (obviously unusual fellow) was playing pincushion with the English. Somewhere, perhaps in Munyat'l Ghuzat, I have a reference to the Persians laughing at the Arabs for their heavy, clumsy arrows, for their short range and slow speed of fire (recall from earlier threads, I have seen a fairly average archer in the eastern style pull at triple the speed of that 12 shots per minute mentioned) ... but the joke was on the Persians, because the Arab arrows were heavy enough to penetrate armor, and the Persian arrows were not.
There is a significant difference between Kinetic Energy and Momentum, and their effects in relation to armor. As I said last year in the De Re session, KE is what breaks your jaw, Momentum is what knocks you off your bar-stool.

Similarly, a Manchu bow, when used with an appropriately heavy arrow, would be heavy enough to ruin a rhino's day: it's like an evil cross of a steppe bow and an English longbow, then put on steroids. Worthless if you're shooting a too-light arrow... but even in armor, I don't want to get hit with one of the correctly-weighted ones. Nor would I want to be anywhere near the business end of some the more interesting specialty arrowheads that weren't used in Western Europe, like the "gladius hispaniensis on a stick" kite-shaped arrowheads.

In Chef's locus and period, most of the things that I have to look at are non-issues for him... and one of these is the simple bludgeoning effect of the arrows, even through mail (particularly since an honest appraisal of sources still suggests significant variations in the type and presence of under-mail cloth protection) during the early and high middle ages.

But by and large, I think that Chef and Bob's points can be seconded, and should be. Black/n/White binary assessments of archery vs. armor is a completely nonproductive way of investigating medieval archery on the battlefield, whereas the interaction of the two is something that definitely requires study.

[jenseny]

Re: Accelereation due to gravity
Think of the arrow traveling upwards from the ground. With each second that it flies upwards, 10meters/second times its mass in kinetic energy (KE) is turned into potential energy due to gravity (PE.) No energy is gained or lost, only converted (I am neglecting friction in this model. forgive me, but it simplifies things.) Once the arrow reaches its zenith, it has 0 KE, and an amount of PE equal to its KE as it left the bow. It then continues to accelerate downward, converting that PE back into KE. When it reaches the height from which it was shot, it's KE is exactly equal to the KE when it left the bow. This is the way a closed system works in physics. This means that you cannot make a ball hit the ground harder by throwwing it up in the air than you can by throwing it down at the ground (assuming you throw both balls equally hard.)
Now once you include friction in this system, you'll see that some of the KE is also turned into thermal energy in the arrow and in the air. For this reason, the arrow will be slightly slower, and slightly hotter, when it reaches ground level than when it left the bow.

To address the non-powered projectiles dropped from planes: These are in fact powered, just not in the way you could expect. Think of these as tiny arrows, but rather than being shot up by a bow, they are carried up by a plane. Either way, the affect is the same, they gain KE by converting PE that was imparted to them on the upward flight.

[Russ Mitchell]

Just out of curiosity, how does the energy conversion work when it's not a 45-degree arc given the independence of perpendicular vectors? If I shoot an arrow at a distance at a 30-degree or so arc, gravity will convert over said 9.8ms^2, but on a proportionately different fraction of the arrow's total KE and m...

Not trolling here, this is information that I could really use.

[Gabriel Morgan]

With a tested IQ of 186, I'll do you one better than NOVA, I read.

With your insanely high IQ, you must realize that either:

1. Your arguments and position are reasonable without tacking on, "...and I have an IQ of 186.", in which case you might as well not type it.

or

2. They don't stand up without the addition, in which case you might want to address that point instead of tacking the phrase on.

If indeed you have an IQ of 186, you also must know that many people of similiarly enormous intellects have been wrong in the past, will be wrong in the future, and are no less vulnerable to warped perspectives and prejudices that the rest of us pebians. Thus, while there might be a correlation between the IQ nosebleed section of the IQ chart and a generic, all-purpose 'rightness', add "I have an IQ of 186." does nothing in the end.

Well, it does make you look like a bit of an ass. Doesn't do much else.

[Owen]

Russ- gravity works the same, it just rises to a lower peak height due to the smaller verticle vector component. The difference will be in the air resistence, due to the difference in path length from bow to when the arrow hits the target or the ground.

Again, an arrow shot upwards at an angle CANNOT hit the ground going faster than it left the bow, and will most likely be going slower, as a powerful bow may be able to propel it faster than its terminal velocity due to gravity.

[jenseny]

Just out of curiosity, how does the energy conversion work when it's not a 45-degree arc given the independence of perpendicular vectors? If I shoot an arrow at a distance at a 30-degree or so arc, gravity will convert over said 9.8ms^2, but on a proportionately different fraction of the arrow's total KE and m...

Not trolling here, this is information that I could really use.

Well, for my example I was speaking of shooting an arrow straight up into the air. In the case of actually wanting the arrow to GO somewhere though, the physics turn out very similarly. As you said, the vectors can be treated as independent, which makes it relatively simple.
All the arrow does is travel up to its maximum height (KE min, PE max) and then travel back down to its minimum height (KE max, PE min.) The only difference is that it does this while moving at a constant velocity laterally with respect to the ground. (Example: picture two bullets. One is fired from a rifle, exactly parallel to the ground. The other is dropped from the same height as the rifle's barrel, at the same time that the first bullet leaves the rifle's barrel. It seems strange, but both bullets will hit the ground at the same time, because they both have the same vertical speed at release--zero.) You choose how much of the energy you put in is going to be lateral, and how much is going to be vertical when you pick the angle that the arrow is shot at. The vertical portion determines how long the arrow stays in the air, and the lateral determines how fast it moves relative to the ground. Combined they give the distance the arrow will travel (distance=rate*time).
Finding out what this distance actually is for a given angle though, requires some trigonometry, which I don't really remember how to do right now. So if you were hoping for an explanation of how to calculate an actual trajectory, sorry, I can't help you. All I can tell you off the top of my head is that you maximize your range by aiming at a 45 degree angle relative to the ground, maximize your horizontal velocity (and thus penetration at short range) by aiming parallel to the ground, and maximize your height and "hang time" by aiming straight up. These however, are probably self-evident.
Hope I helped!

[Bertus Brokamp]

Ok, here's something to bring some variation in the whole 'arrow penetrating armour' debate. I stumbled upon this yesterday. The quote is from

Wilson, Guy M. (2001), European Crossbows: a Survey by Josef Alm. Royal Armouries Monograph 3. Leeds: Royal Armouries Museum. ISBN: 0-948092-20-3.

The back of this book states:
'Josef Alm's survey of the European crossbows was published in Swedish in 1947. It was immediately recognised as the definitive work on the subject. It has yet to be surpassed, but until now has not been available as an English translation.'

I don't know about it being the definitive work and not yet been surpassed (there's Egon Harmuths 'die Armbrust', which I hear is really good) but none-the-less this is a really nice book to read!

Anyway, ... so yes the quote is about crossbow bolts, not ye longbow arrow.


Page 51
Another type of bolt, the Dale bolt, (figure 31) appears to have been very common in Sweden in the 15th century. - note 64 - These crossbow bolts have a long, narrow head with a tang and a small tip, all of square or roughly rectangular section. The tang is usually 2cm long and is thrust into the shaft, which is bound with cord at its forward end to prevent splitting. The two flights are usually carved from the same material as the shaft. These bolts are usually about

Page 52
34.5-38.5cm long, of which 10-12cm form the exposed part of the head. The weight varies from 35-45g.
Dale bolts were effective weapons. The Karl Chronicle says of the peasants who served as mounted crossbowmen in Karl Knutsson's Skåne campaign of 1452: Truly their Dale bolts were so sharp that they went through both horse and man (59:295). By Karl Knutsson's order each man was to carry a crossbow and eight dozen bolts (49:635).
Olaus Magnus has the same high opinion of these bolts as the Karl Chronicle. He reports them as being made half of iron, half of wood, and a hand's breadth and a half long, which is too short. Magnus says that the Goths carried this sort of bolt on their campaigns by the thousands, and that they were not shot point-blank at cavalry, but instead diagonally upward, so that they struck downward from above like a hailstorm (figure 32). - note 65 - They either struck through helmets and harness and killed or wounded the horsemen, or struck horse in the head or back, drove it wild and rendered it uncontrollable. If the bolts missed their mark and stuck in the ground, once the wooden shaft had been trodden off the sharp tang could pierce a horse's hoof making it lame and useless (70:43-44).

Notes
64: ie, a bolt from Dalarna (the Dales)
65: Goth here means the inhabitants of Götaland, Southern Sweden. Olaus Magnus was himself a Goth from Östergötland.

References
59
Karlskrönikan. Svenska Medeltidens Rimkrönikor, Del 2. Stockholm 1866. (The Karl Chronicle. The Swedish Medieval Rhymed Chronicles, part 2, Stockholm, 1866).
49
Hildebrand, H. Sveriges medeltid, Del 2, Stockholm, 1898. (Sweden in the Middle Ages, vol. 2, Stockholm, 1898.)
70
Magnus, O. Historia om de nordiska folken, Del 2,3, och 4, Uppsale, 1912, 1916, och 1925. Compared at doubtful points with the Latin edition of 1555. (Magnus, O. History of the Northern Peoples, parts 2, 3, 4, Uppsala, 1912.)

Figure 31
http://131.211.220.145/users/bertus/figure31.jpg

Figure 32
http://131.211.220.145/users/bertus/figure32.jpg

And here's a quick link I found when Googling for Olaus Magnus.
http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/eng/omagnus.htm[/img]

[Chris Gilman]

With a tested IQ of 186, I'll do you one better than NOVA, I read.

With your insanely high IQ, you must realize that either:

1. Your arguments and position are reasonable without tacking on, "...and I have an IQ of 186.", in which case you might as well not type it.

or

2. They don't stand up without the addition, in which case you might want to address that point instead of tacking the phrase on.

If indeed you have an IQ of 186, you also must know that many people of similiarly enormous intellects have been wrong in the past, will be wrong in the future, and are no less vulnerable to warped perspectives and prejudices that the rest of us pebians. Thus, while there might be a correlation between the IQ nosebleed section of the IQ chart and a generic, all-purpose 'rightness', add "I have an IQ of 186." does nothing in the end.

Well, it does make you look like a bit of an ass. Doesn't do much else.

Sorry.

[Maelgwyn]

On the flexing of arrows as they are fired, others have correctly observed that this will not impart additional velocity to the arrow after it leaves the string.

On the other hand, if the arrow were to strike something before this vibration dampens out it would be more likely to glance off because the center of mass is not always aligned behind the point of impact. So, for maximum consistent penetrating power you really do want to give the arrow enough time/distance to "settle down" if you are shooting a powerful bow. Distance required for this would depend upon the velocity, flexibility and rate of dampening for a particular projectile from a particular bow. Note that for soft targets this factor would probably be insignificant.

[chef de chambre]

Ok, here's something to bring some variation in the whole 'arrow penetrating armour' debate. I stumbled upon this yesterday. The quote is from

Wilson, Guy M. (2001), European Crossbows: a Survey by Josef Alm. Royal Armouries Monograph 3. Leeds: Royal Armouries Museum. ISBN: 0-948092-20-3.

The back of this book states:
'Josef Alm's survey of the European crossbows was published in Swedish in 1947. It was immediately recognised as the definitive work on the subject. It has yet to be surpassed, but until now has not been available as an English translation.'

I don't know about it being the definitive work and not yet been surpassed (there's Egon Harmuths 'die Armbrust', which I hear is really good) but none-the-less this is a really nice book to read!

Anyway, ... so yes the quote is about crossbow bolts, not ye longbow arrow.


Page 51
Another type of bolt, the Dale bolt, (figure 31) appears to have been very common in Sweden in the 15th century. - note 64 - These crossbow bolts have a long, narrow head with a tang and a small tip, all of square or roughly rectangular section. The tang is usually 2cm long and is thrust into the shaft, which is bound with cord at its forward end to prevent splitting. The two flights are usually carved from the same material as the shaft. These bolts are usually about

Page 52
34.5-38.5cm long, of which 10-12cm form the exposed part of the head. The weight varies from 35-45g.
Dale bolts were effective weapons. The Karl Chronicle says of the peasants who served as mounted crossbowmen in Karl Knutsson's Skåne campaign of 1452: Truly their Dale bolts were so sharp that they went through both horse and man (59:295). By Karl Knutsson's order each man was to carry a crossbow and eight dozen bolts (49:635).
Olaus Magnus has the same high opinion of these bolts as the Karl Chronicle. He reports them as being made half of iron, half of wood, and a hand's breadth and a half long, which is too short. Magnus says that the Goths carried this sort of bolt on their campaigns by the thousands, and that they were not shot point-blank at cavalry, but instead diagonally upward, so that they struck downward from above like a hailstorm (figure 32). - note 65 - They either struck through helmets and harness and killed or wounded the horsemen, or struck horse in the head or back, drove it wild and rendered it uncontrollable. If the bolts missed their mark and stuck in the ground, once the wooden shaft had been trodden off the sharp tang could pierce a horse's hoof making it lame and useless (70:43-44).

Notes
64: ie, a bolt from Dalarna (the Dales)
65: Goth here means the inhabitants of Götaland, Southern Sweden. Olaus Magnus was himself a Goth from Östergötland.

References
59
Karlskrönikan. Svenska Medeltidens Rimkrönikor, Del 2. Stockholm 1866. (The Karl Chronicle. The Swedish Medieval Rhymed Chronicles, part 2, Stockholm, 1866).
49
Hildebrand, H. Sveriges medeltid, Del 2, Stockholm, 1898. (Sweden in the Middle Ages, vol. 2, Stockholm, 1898.)
70
Magnus, O. Historia om de nordiska folken, Del 2,3, och 4, Uppsale, 1912, 1916, och 1925. Compared at doubtful points with the Latin edition of 1555. (Magnus, O. History of the Northern Peoples, parts 2, 3, 4, Uppsala, 1912.)

Figure 31
http://131.211.220.145/users/bertus/figure31.jpg

Figure 32
http://131.211.220.145/users/bertus/figure32.jpg

And here's a quick link I found when Googling for Olaus Magnus.
http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/eng/omagnus.htm[/img]

Hi Bertus,

I don't believe any person well-informed regarding the subject of Medieval weaponry would dispute the arrow penetration potential of the military crossbow - especially the powerful composite prods and steel stave military bows being produced from the late 14th century onward.

The best armours from Milan were proofed against same, from short range, and recieved the triple marking of the armourer and the city for being viewd in proof. Such armours were in a minority even amongst complete armours. Alongside the bolts you mention, vitreons and quarrels were specificaly designed for armour penetration (or cracking, in the latter case).

[chef de chambre]

Now, he and I hit the arguments from different sides, since my whole reason for getting into the question is to try to figure why Louis' archers were so astonishingly successful during the Neopolitan Succession Wars... but we're often talking horse-archery here, which is used as much strategically as tactically (e.g., King Matthias militarily paralysing Austria and Bohemia with craploads of hussars attacking supply points, etcetera).

With horse archers, it gets even weirder, because you have continuous direct fire, you have area-denial fire, and against infantry, you have sloping direct fire, which makes it relatively easier to bypass shields (imagine an archer on a small platform shooting into a shield wall: the geometry is much less friendly to the shield wall than if the archer's on the ground).

PLUS, Maeryk wasn't smoking crack when he mentioned velocity vs. mass. The "short arrows" being fired at Joinville's men were not the same suckers being lobbed in the air by whatever Cymri (obviously unusual fellow) was playing pincushion with the English. Somewhere, perhaps in Munyat'l Ghuzat, I have a reference to the Persians laughing at the Arabs for their heavy, clumsy arrows, for their short range and slow speed of fire (recall from earlier threads, I have seen a fairly average archer in the eastern style pull at triple the speed of that 12 shots per minute mentioned) ... but the joke was on the Persians, because the Arab arrows were heavy enough to penetrate armor, and the Persian arrows were not.
There is a significant difference between Kinetic Energy and Momentum, and their effects in relation to armor. As I said last year in the De Re session, KE is what breaks your jaw, Momentum is what knocks you off your bar-stool.

Similarly, a Manchu bow, when used with an appropriately heavy arrow, would be heavy enough to ruin a rhino's day: it's like an evil cross of a steppe bow and an English longbow, then put on steroids. Worthless if you're shooting a too-light arrow... but even in armor, I don't want to get hit with one of the correctly-weighted ones. Nor would I want to be anywhere near the business end of some the more interesting specialty arrowheads that weren't used in Western Europe, like the "gladius hispaniensis on a stick" kite-shaped arrowheads.

In Chef's locus and period, most of the things that I have to look at are non-issues for him... and one of these is the simple bludgeoning effect of the arrows, even through mail (particularly since an honest appraisal of sources still suggests significant variations in the type and presence of under-mail cloth protection) during the early and high middle ages.

But by and large, I think that Chef and Bob's points can be seconded, and should be. Black/n/White binary assessments of archery vs. armor is a completely nonproductive way of investigating medieval archery on the battlefield, whereas the interaction of the two is something that definitely requires study.

Ah, yes Russ,

Well, you don't tend to find a set of hoary myths built around these weapons. You will note that those of us trying to get across the protective potential of complete armours don't make them out to be proof against all, nor do we tend to argue against the penetrative qualities of the military crossbows of the later Middle Ages and Renaissance, nor the handgonne or arquebus firing an iron pellet.

The reason we go round-robin with the Warbow as employed by the English (and of course you know, but many of the 'philes seem not to, the very same warbow was employed throughout Europe with lesser success) is that the body of myths surrounding the weapon, and the numbers of true believers regarding same have erected themselves into a veritable dragon of misconception that needs gelding, if not outright slaying, to try to begin to have a logical and rational discussion of the Late Medieval batlefield in Western Europe.

Only the Katana seems to rival the warbow as a holy grail of belief of super-weaponhood 'loosely based on a lie'.

[FrauHirsch]

Secondly, a ton of evidence exists in the form of hunting treatise, concerning bows and arrows (and from England, were the warbow was employed with the *broadhead* arrow in hunting), clearly indicating that even the best shot at a deer was unlikely to kill them outright (the treatise talk about looking for different types of blood trails, to determine a light wound from a fatal one), but the hunters always worked in teams with dogs (scent hounds present), in order to be able to track the mortally wounded prey down. These treatise were written by men who hunted on a daily basis, on the order of you or I getting up to work in the morning, and who describe hunts with beaters so successful deer carcasses were laid out in rows.

My father and grandfather are skilled bowhunters and hunted with 45 lb recurves and wooden arrows with broadheads long before some of the fancy archery gear was developed. They managed to kill deer fairly regularly in So. California, a very harsh hunting environment. It is correct that they don't often drop immediately (but occasionally do), however they often can't run particularly far, and certainly dogs are not necessary to bring them down. They pretty much die on their own or fall wounded because they just can't keep moving after a fairly short time. So of course the hunters would need to know how to track if they don't have dogs (which are illegal in some states to use while deer hunting.)

Equating this to a battle field would mean a man hit with an arrow would live for awhile or even be hit in a non-life threatening way, but might be made ineffective over a fairly short period of time - which is just as valuable or moreso than killing people outright.

-J

[Gabriel Morgan]

Only the Katana seems to rival the warbow as a holy grail of belief of super-weaponhood 'loosely based on a lie'.

Q: Can a warbow cut the barrell of a machinegun in half? Discuss!

Just finished Bradbury's 'The Medieval Archer', and he does a very capable job of dismissing the claims that the longbow was anything different than other warbows used before or after the 100 Years War,. Also lances the ideas that it came from Wales, was especially used in Wales, or that Welsh bowmen were especially skilled pretty viciously, too.

A very cogent book. I recommend it highly. It has little to say about armour penetration, though.

[Bertus Brokamp]

Hi Bertus,

I don't believe any person well-informed regarding the subject of Medieval weaponry would dispute the arrow penetration potential of the military crossbow - especially the powerful composite prods and steel stave military bows being produced from the late 14th century onward.

The best armours from Milan were proofed against same, from short range, and recieved the triple marking of the armourer and the city for being viewd in proof. Such armours were in a minority even amongst complete armours. Alongside the bolts you mention, vitreons and quarrels were specificaly designed for armour penetration (or cracking, in the latter case).

Hey Chef,

I can see your point.
It was not my intention to dispute anything really. I was just wanting to share some nice info on the penetrative power and use of military crossbows and thought it'd fit in well with the discussion as a side track. I should have made myself more clear I think
Thanks for the additional info. Keep up the good work of trying to educate us all, it is much appreciated.

[Marshal]

Q: Can a warbow cut the barrell of a machinegun in half? Discuss!

A: Only in the hands of a ninja.

[Saint-Sever]

Just to add a point re: military crossbows-- I posted this story months ago on another thread--

Charles Addams (the cartoonist who created the Addams Family) collected, among other cool things, medieval crossbows. I read an interview with him where he told a story about a medieval military crossbow he had purchased in the 1950's. Addams said that he wanted to shoot the bow, and one night, finally decided to do so-- inside his Manhattan apartment. He figured that the fire door separating the kitchen from the rest of the apartment would be a safe target, since it (the door) was solid wood a couple of inches thick, and sheathed with sheet steel on both sides. Addams said he drew the bow with a windlass, and used a period bolt. He was surprised when the bolt went completely thru the door and into the kitchen, and made a significant penetration into the concrete wall of the kitchen. Addams said he he enjoyed the shot so much he would have continued to shoot, but discovered that the first shot had cracked the crossbow's prod, ending target practice for the night.

Hell, I figure that a thru-and-thru shot against a door as described, AND blowing a crater in concrete to boot, would be a good contender to penetrate plate armor.

[Bertus Brokamp]

According to Jean Liebel*, who refers to Egon Harmuth** for this, draw weights of the one-foot military crossbow were 450 kg for a steel bow and 350 kg for a horn bow. And these were just the little suckers. Imagine what damage the larger types of crossbows could do.

*
Liebel, Jean (1998), Springalds and Great Crossbows (Espringales et grandes arbalètes). Leeds: Royal Armouries. ISBN: 0-948092-31-9.

**
Harmuth, Egon (1975), Die Armbrust. Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt.

But back to the longbow arrows penetrating armour issue!

[Mykaru]

Ok, I've skipped to the end as I got tired of the "oh yeah?!"posts. Chef I'm sure you have this data handy. Average thickness of a breastplate AND Rockwell of said plate. Eric, did you get that bodkin hardness info? If you did, I missed it. Please post and a period shaft weight as well. When I've got this information, I'll put together a plate (not a full breast mind you) and an appropriately pointed arrow. Testing at the dojo will commence. (note this will likely be a 20 kilo draw composite [not compound]bow). I'm not weighing in on either side of this issue until I have done some tests. I CAN say with authority that many modern tests by "archers" without years of experience are probably wrong. I use the heaviest draw bow at the dojo yet I am consistently outshot by more experienced archers with lighter bows. Outshot means not only striking the target but PENETRATING POWER.

Please don't use Zen and archery in the same sentence. 2 quacks have completely warped the West's perception of Japanese Archery.

[Jehan de Pelham]

Does this mean that a Japanese bow can't cut a machine gun barrel in the hands of a ninja to the sound of squealing guitars played by hard bodied blondes?

Just kidding.

Jehan

[Angus Bjornssen]

Sir Gaston, as I read the post (page one just before you posted i think) it was not that the arrow increased it's velocity, only that it's actual kinetic energy was increased. From what I gather, the ocillations in an arrows shaft will detract from it's impact strength (kinetic energy) because when the impact occurs the rear of the shaft may still be in motion to one side or the other of the head and thus the entire mass of the arrow is not behind the head. The reflex of the shaft may then cause the tip to alter it's initial course at point of impact slightly to the side because the shaft is still in lateral motion, thus reducing the already lowered kinetic energy within the arrow. Since the current discussion seems to agree that at a solid 90 degree impact penetration can be accomplished to some, if minor to moderate, effect then a, for lack of a better term, wobbly shaft will eliminate a 90 degree impact instantly and thus reduce significantly the possibility of penetration.

Basically, if the shaft isn't straight on behind the head, with no oscillation, full effect of the arrow head cannot be achieved. Thus the argument for minimum range versus point blank. Minimum range being that range where the arrow reaches is maximum penetration effect or maximum kinetic energy.

That's how I read the post anyway.

And (not for you Sir Gaston) a bullet fired from any sort of rifle has it's maximum torque and velocity and thus kinetic energy as soon as it leaves the barrel. A whole different animal.

Thank you for your indulgence all,

Angus (Matt itrw)

[Rich C]

The SUPERBOW concept may be true, just not accuarate. as written down by the chroniclers and heralds of the day.

You ladies and gentleman are much smarter than I when it comes to math and science ( i graduated from college with Business Math and Bio 151 )

It's basic simple math, no physics required. You've all been arguing about ballistic equations when the answer is simply a matter of range cards and fireplans.

Take a formation of 5000 archers
Say Each archer puts 3 arrows into the air every minute.
That's 15000 Arrows.

Now lets say 90% of those arrows are duds, The armour worn by the Princes, Knights, men at arms and even most of lower classes of infantry turns out to be proof against the arrows.
Only 10% of those arrows actually hit a target.
That's still 1500 men wounded in a minute.

Lets make that even more extreme and say that only 1% of the arrows caused any casualties,

That is still 150 men a minute. Nobody can lose an infantry company a minute for very long. The modern term for that type of battle is Meat grinder.

The Warbow is not a sniper rifle, it's a Howitzer component.

[Marshal]

That is still 150 men a minute. Nobody can lose an infantry company a minute for very long. The modern term for that type of battle is Meat grinder.

Sure; but nobody can fire 15,000 arrows a minute for very long, either. Arrows take up space and must be carried somehow; what nonmechanized army could cart along enough to keep up that rate of fire long enough to destroy a more numerous opponent at "only" 150 men per minute ( and of course wounded doesn't necesarily mean out of the fight ).

[Saint-Sever]

Sure, if you accept Richard's very low rate of fire and causualty-producing effect as the norm-- other folks here have stated that the ROF for a decent bowman is 12+ arrows per minute. If each bowman is supplied with only 36 arrows apiece (well within the logistic ability of a pre-mech army to maintain), that can put the caualties-per-minute up to 600 men per minute, or nearly 2000 casualties before their ammo is expended. If you're charging the position with 8000 men (a formidible force by medieval standards), you've done 25% of the attackers, which usually is enough to break the attack as a cohesive blow. If the survivors come into contact with the archers in drips and drabbles, they get ganged up on my crowds of guys with mallets, etc, a'la Agincourt.

I think Richard may have hit the nail on the head.

[Chris Gilman]

Angus Bjornssen
Your right that is what is says. That I understand. But the arrow as a whole is not increasing its speed. Even with this oscillation effect dampend out, the percentage increase is not enough to dramatically affect the outcome. In other words, the arrow still would have not gone through my test piece.
Add to this that the long bow is reportedly used an arced trajectory where any power of increased velocity due to the power of the bow, is lost to distance and terminal velocity as the arrow falls. My test was a direct point blank shot, and in all cases, close or farther away (I did both) the arrow did not penetrate the test pieces under any of the conditions.

[Chris Gilman]

I forgot about the book “Helmets and body armor in modern warfareâ€Â

[Robert_C]

Can anyne dirrect me to a single book to address the issue here. I have "the medieval archer," a barnes and noble book ( I am at work and can not remember the author).

I often get into this with my father in law. He tends to believe these myths about archery. He holds that the performance of archery at Agincourt proved thta armour was obsclete. (he also thinks that knights had to be winched onto the horses, he uses the large size of the warhorses as evidence of very heavy armour).

I am looking for one or two book stha will load me with data regarding medieval archery.