Mail Call: Archery claim?

To discuss research into and about the middle ages.

Moderator: Glen K

User avatar
Chris Gilman
Archive Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Sylmar CA.
Contact:

Mail Call: Archery claim?

Post by Chris Gilman »

I saw the Mail Call episode last night and was surprised by some of their claims. R. Lee Emery claimed medieval archery would go through armour. Hmmm? What kind of armour? Certainly not plate armour! I have done test using long bows, like the one Jeff was using (made by Japp Kopeldryer “Yumiâ€Â
User avatar
T. Finkas
Archive Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Pennsic Adjacent

Post by T. Finkas »

Chris,

I have always wondered about these things as well. I know how archers were employed and that they were valued and successful. So we know they were effective. But just how did they function? You are definitely touching upon this question.

In your experiment, what was the draw poundage of the bow you were using? How heavy were the arrow shafts? I have heard that English war arrows were mounted on a much stouter shaft, though I don't know exactly how that would effect the physics of impact. Seems like the added mass would aid in penetration of armour.

Consider the effect that archery would've had on the horses. A horse in battle cannot effectively (or economically) be proofed against arrows. And a horse with a bunch of arrows sticking in him is not likely to be the most effective or controllable mount.

I agree about crossbows being easier to aim. The archer had only to lift the crossbow, not keep the string drawn as with a bow.

As far as the rate of fire goes, it is said that a trained archer can loose an arrow every 6 seconds or better. But what's the point? What happens when you run out of arrows after a few minutes? Do you just stand around and chit chat over coffee until the wagon full of arrow sheaves rolls around and drops off a fresh bundle for you? I know archers are equipped to skirmish with hand-weapons, but I believe that's a back-up function (maybe even a last-ditch function?).

Honestly, I'd love some insight as to how all that worked.

Tim Finkas
Would-Be English (Longbow) Archer
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Post by chef de chambre »

Hi Sir Gaston,

What you witnessed on Mail Call is the bane of both scholars and historic interpretors like Jeff Hedgecock in dealing with any production - they can hire all sorts of informed people, and get the best equipment for doing such an episode , but once the production crew is off-site, and in a studio editing together a sequence, all sorts of crappy information can be interjected. This has happend to Tobias Capwell of the Kelvingrove, Erik D. Schmid, David Edge, and any such person you care to think of who has been tapped for information by such people. Basically, I think Jeff did a fine job - the crap creeps in during the segment where R.Lee is reading from a script while the production company is showing crappy Victorian engravings - this is no doubt in a sound studio, not at the live shoot with Jeff (who offered to provide them with good illustrations, but they claimed they didn;t need them).

Your own tests are pretty much in sync with the most recent tests carried out by the RA, and with the documentary evidence from history. The RA says penetration to a vital spot is extremely unlikely under battlefield conditions, with penetration to a thinner plate or lame like on a limb being possible with a square hit, but not to a depth to cause a disabling wound.
User avatar
Trevor
Archive Member
Posts: 9717
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Kansas City, MO USA

Post by Trevor »

Your experiments would also jibe with the accounts of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt. In the two earlier examples, there was a great deal of reenforced mail, (not plate). One may guess that the large number of casualties from archery was due to the longbow's ability to penetrate mail. Given that during the Battle of Agincourt, the archers found to their dismay that the french riders, wearing their white harnesses, were impervious to their arrows. They were then forced to aim for the unarmored rumps of the horses in order to bring both man and horse down.
Ron
Archive Member
Posts: 361
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Contact:

Post by Ron »

A couple of comments. I don't get cable so I'm not hindered by what was on TV :-)

To measure penetration, you need to know at a minimum, the type of bow, weight of bow at the draw length, the draw length, and the mass of the arrow. Long bows and horn bows (and cross bows for that matter) loose an arrow in different ways so that need to be computed or looked up (like in Klopsteg)

You also need to know the material of the target (i.e., plate, maille, padded, etc.) and the type of arrowhead (arrows for piercing maille don't pierce plate, broad heads penetrate flesh, but not maille or plate). Clearly you also need to know the metallurgical makeup of the arrowhead and the armour. As an informed archer, I'd select an arrowhead based on the type of target I was shooting at.

By the way, I think I shoot at 10-12 shots a minute. I don't think that is much of a challenge at all. You just can't watch the flight of the arrows, you shoot and draw the next one.

Also, just a thought, but it the penetration is based in part on the velosity of the arrow, letting it accelerate to full speed might be more effective than point blank.
Just my two cents worth.
Ron
XVIIc Polish Pancerni
http://r.jachim.home.comcast.net
Parlan
Archive Member
Posts: 769
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 2:01 am

Post by Parlan »

Great thread. 1 question.

What do you mean by "reenforced mail"?
- Parlan
User avatar
Mike Garrett (Orc)
Archive Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Somerset, ENGLAND
Contact:

Post by Mike Garrett (Orc) »

There is some evidence and experimental archaeology that shows that under the right circumstances a longbow can penetrate plate - but not often! Bodkin tips were used and I've also seen arrow heads similar in shape to Cleopatras Needle - Egyptian tapering square ponty thing with pyramid shaped tip the name of which escapes me at the moment - lol.
The poundage on longbows - more correctly warbows - the term longbow was a later addition - was BIG! Potentially 150lbs or more , depending on the individual. You could tell an archer by his broad chest and due to the fact that one shoulder ( usually right) was larger and higher than the other. Skeletal evidence shows the bone struture , and therefore musculature , was greater on the drawing arm. It was a legal requirement that men and boys practiced archery every Sunday - ther was a fine in place for failure to do this ( I believe it's never been repealed!). Mastery of a bow takes years - this is possibly why they were able to take out armoured knights - finding weak spots. Incidentally Richard the Third was a keen archer and this is possibly where the " hunchback" legend comes from.
On massed archery - Agincourt 5000 archers, 12 arrows a minute - first 5 minutes 300,000 arrows - quite a storm! The English armies carried huge wagon loads of them and it was a major industry manufacturing arrows in tens of thousands
Crossbows definitely will penetrate armour - they were extremely powerful. There were repeated attempts to ban them as they could and did take out the higher orders and could be mastered by any old peasant in short time, unlike the warbow. Their disadvantage was a much slower rate of fire ( up to a minute plus to reload ) than the longbow.
There are specific arrow heads for dealing with horses - known as Swallowtails due to the long barbs - these would not neccessarily kill or disable the horse but would sink into its flesh, causing pain and flapping about as it moved aggravating the pain and frightening the horse, try controlling your destrier when it's got a couple of these stuck in it! Quite a task I imagine.
Incidentally - for interest - at Crecy the English/Welsh archers fired short, causing the mercenary Genoese crossbowmen to under estimate their range and move closer. They then hammered them with arrow storm, causing the hapless Genoes to run. The French decided in the heat of the moment that the Genoese were turning there coats and charged the English line , riding down and killing many of the poor crossbowmen at the same time!
Hope this helps a bit.
Cheers
Mike
User avatar
Chris Gilman
Archive Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Sylmar CA.
Contact:

Post by Chris Gilman »

Ron wrote:Also, just a thought, but it the penetration is based in part on the velocity of the arrow, letting it accelerate to full speed might be more effective than point blank.
Just my two cents worth.

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.

Yes to do a scientific test, all the factors need to be addressed as close as possible to the original conditions. For instance real armour was made up of metal with inclusions of inferior material. That could account for an arrow penetrating a piece of period armour But, my guess, this only rarely and most likely not far enough to seriously injure you or kill you.
The bow I was using may not have been as powerful (Est. #50) as the most powerful bow in use, but not many shots are from 8 feet.
Arrow mass is a factor. But shaft weight increased by a few grams is not going to make the arrow penetrate a plate it has only dented.
As for type of arrowhead:
As I stated, I used a longish bodkin point. Good mass very pointy. I also tried a short bodkin point and it made no difference.
Different bows move arrows in different ways, but once the arrow has left the bow, only velocity and projectile weight matter when it comes to penetration. Not the type of bow that launched it.
User avatar
Chris Gilman
Archive Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Sylmar CA.
Contact:

Post by Chris Gilman »

EnglishWarrior wrote:There is some evidence and experimental archaeology that shows that under the right circumstances a longbow can penetrate plate - but not often! Bodkin tips were used and I've also seen arrow heads similar in shape to Cleopatras Needle - Egyptian tapering square ponty thing with pyramid shaped tip the name of which escapes me at the moment - lol.
The poundage on longbows - more correctly warbows - the term longbow was a later addition - was BIG! Potentially 150lbs or more , depending on the individual. You could tell an archer by his broad chest and due to the fact that one shoulder ( usually right) was larger and higher than the other. Skeletal evidence shows the bone struture , and therefore musculature , was greater on the drawing arm. It was a legal requirement that men and boys practiced archery every Sunday - ther was a fine in place for failure to do this ( I believe it's never been repealed!). Mastery of a bow takes years - this is possibly why they were able to take out armoured knights - finding weak spots. Incidentally Richard the Third was a keen archer and this is possibly where the " hunchback" legend comes from.
On massed archery - Agincourt 5000 archers, 12 arrows a minute - first 5 minutes 300,000 arrows - quite a storm! The English armies carried huge wagon loads of them and it was a major industry manufacturing arrows in tens of thousands
Crossbows definitely will penetrate armour - they were extremely powerful. There were repeated attempts to ban them as they could and did take out the higher orders and could be mastered by any old peasant in short time, unlike the warbow. Their disadvantage was a much slower rate of fire ( up to a minute plus to reload ) than the longbow.
There are specific arrow heads for dealing with horses - known as Swallowtails due to the long barbs - these would not neccessarily kill or disable the horse but would sink into its flesh, causing pain and flapping about as it moved aggravating the pain and frightening the horse, try controlling your destrier when it's got a couple of these stuck in it! Quite a task I imagine.
Incidentally - for interest - at Crecy the English/Welsh archers fired short, causing the mercenary Genoese crossbowmen to under estimate their range and move closer. They then hammered them with arrow storm, causing the hapless Genoes to run. The French decided in the heat of the moment that the Genoese were turning there coats and charged the English line , riding down and killing many of the poor crossbowmen at the same time!
Hope this helps a bit.
Cheers
Mike

Most of this I have read, and much of it sounds like the same speculation and repeated history I have heard in the past. Other bits are common sense approach to what may have been.
I am more interested in some modern tests using correct arrows and correct armour. Also some studies on the actual events of battles on how archers where used specifically. Not just that the archers shot at so and so and they won the day…
I’m not sure if this information is out there.
Alexander of Derlington
Archive Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Darlington, co Durham, England

Bodkins case hardened?

Post by Alexander of Derlington »

Is it possible that the bodkins used were case hardened? It is a theory I have had bouncing around in my head for a while. Does anybody have any information on this?

It is possible for an arrow to have more energy at the point of impact than when it is fired. However this is only possible if you are standing on a hill and your target is at the bottom of the hill, gravity is a mighty ally to the archer :) .

Mass of arrows is critical to penetrative power, for example increasing your shaft diameter from 8mm to 9mm gives you an extra 26% mass (assuming the weight increase is carried throught to the head). This gives an extra 26% energy at point of impact (from kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared). The disadvantage is that you obviously need a bigger bow to achieve the same range.

There are articles on longbow arrow dimensions somewhere on the net I will try to dig them up.
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Post by chef de chambre »

Bodkins were not case hardened - in point of fact they were low carbon iron. The 'Cleopatras needle' ditto.

The RA tests were conducted with a 104 lb draw Mary Rose bow reconstruction, which falls into the normal range for a war bow - the speculation of 150 lb draw bows and up are not borne out by the best evidence we have, or the most recent edition of Robert Hardy's book (which contains a number of scientific examinations of the Mary Rose Bows, including destructive pull tests on a few, in the appendix in the rear).

You shot what you were issued, which heads were mass-produced for a campaign by local blacksmiths by every account available for all of the major English expeditions to the continent.

The optimum for penetration with a bow was to get a 90 degree hit on a plate - which was near impossible with battlefield conditions given the way the bows were employed (mased indirect fire area denial weapons), and the design of armour - there are no flat spots on historical armour.

I am not even going to go into the tests conducted against mail, as both the results of the best tests, and the historical documentation do not jibe with the myth beloved of the English warbow being a 'superweapon'.

These posts concerning this topic always end up rather badly - people have invested a good deal of trust in cherished mythology - armour scholars today will tell you two things 1. no armour was invulnerable, but 2. a full armour of quality in any era was unlikely to be compromised in normal conditions - such armours being in a distinct minority on any battlefield (most combatants were lightly armoured or unarmoured footsoldiers, who made up the vast bulk of the casualty lists in normal circumstances).
Alexander of Derlington
Archive Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Darlington, co Durham, England

Post by Alexander of Derlington »

Hi Chef

My metallurgy isn't all that good so please correct me if I am wrong.

I had thought that case hardening would only be detectable in the surface layers of an object which would have "probably" corroded away in the intervening 500 years.

Has anybody analysed an arrowhead to determing manufacturing technique? I was wondering if the long soak at case hardening temperature (if it existed) would be detectable by modern analysis techniques.

It was just a theory I came up with while reading various articles. I don't have anything to base it on other than it would seem a sensible thing to do if you had the technology. I am more than happy to be proven wrong by more knowledgeable people like yourself.

With respect to arrows hitting plates at 90 degrees, that would seem to imply that the most vulnerable part of a mounted soldier to the arrow was the thigh. (Just something else I thought of, an interesting concept but ultimately non useful, I should probably get out more :D ).

Thank you for your help.

Rgds

Alex
Bob Charron
Archive Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Time to trot out the primary sources again

Post by Bob Charron »

As always, speculation is speculation.

Let us look to some of the primary chronicles throughout the period. Here is a post I've had up here several times:

"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 wounded 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 (1356):
"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.
No one in an armor is dying from arrows going through it. And this is just a small sample of what's available from the chronicles.
********
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
Erik D. Schmid
Archive Member
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2000 1:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Contact:

Post by Erik D. Schmid »

Bob Charron is my hero. :D

Anyway, for those of you concerned with the metallurgy of arrowheads, there was recently (last summer) a very large cache of them recovered from the Towton site. It is believed that this is another mass grave. They had only done some preliminary tests on them when I was over last fall. I will do some checking and see what else they found if anyone is interested.
Alexander of Derlington
Archive Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Darlington, co Durham, England

Post by Alexander of Derlington »

Wow
Thanks Bob, that is good information.


Erik
Really, really yes please.

Rgds

Alex
User avatar
Chris Gilman
Archive Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Sylmar CA.
Contact:

Post by Chris Gilman »

Hooraah!
Thank you, Bob. That is some useful information. I am sure, in my extensive library, I have some of these. Sorry I’m so lazy, but I knew someone here had this info at his or her finger tips.
It always fascinates me how these myths get started. Most of these I have read origins traced to some event or person being flamboyant. Many of these I question. Other origins are most likely lost to time.
You know the myths:
Horned Viking helmets: Opera?
Magic archers: Robin Hood??
Super bows (150 to 200lbs. Draw): ??
Armour weighing 250 lbs.: Bent edges give the illusion of much thicker metal as well as jousting suits set up to immobilize the upper body, giving the appearance of tremendous weight.
Swords cutting men in half, then cutting a silk scarf dropped on them: [color=blue]Kevin Costner in “The Bodyguardâ€Â
User avatar
Alecks
Archive Member
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Oversticht, Netherlands

Post by Alecks »

Sir Gaston wrote:
Ron wrote:Also, just a thought, but it the penetration is based in part on the velocity of the arrow, letting it accelerate to full speed might be more effective than point blank.
Just my two cents worth.

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.
<snip!>


http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/paradox.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joetapley/bm2.htm


I don't know if the velocity still increases while in flight, but unlike a bullet an arrow does not have it's full energy at point blank range. It needs several yards to 'straighten' itself. This is because of the 'slowness' of the mass of the arrow. This is what happens when you loose an arrow:
(I'm sorry if this sounds very basic, but it is helpfull in understanding arrows)
1: You nock the arrow and pull the string of the bow back. Energy is stored in the bow.

2: You let go of the string. The bow straightens. The energy of the bow is transferred to the arrow, which starts to move. The arrow, however, can't accellerate fast enough to take all the energy, the mass is slow. The back of the arrow is accellerating faster than the front of the arrow: the arrow bends itself to store this excess energy. If you look at it in slow motion the arrow bends considerably.

3: The arrow bends around the bow, straightens itself and bends again, this time the other way. this happens a few times.

4: After bending a few times, the arrow stays straight. All the energy of the arrow is now kinetic.

This is also known as the "archers' paradox". This causes the arrow to bend itself around the bow. A brief explanation of this is given at http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/paradox.htm
A more detailed explanation, with a very detailed description of the velocity during the straightening of the arrow can be cound at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joetapley/bm2.htm

Sir Gaston wrote:Yes to do a scientific test, all the factors need to be addressed as close as possible to the original conditions. For instance real armour was made up of metal with inclusions of inferior material. That could account for an arrow penetrating a piece of period armour But, my guess, this only rarely and most likely not far enough to seriously injure you or kill you.
The bow I was using may not have been as powerful (Est. #50) as the most powerful bow in use, but not many shots are from 8 feet.


Because the straightening of the arrow takes some time, the arrow needs some distance to get it full energy potential. When you try your experiments on a larger distance you might get more than a dent. 15 to 20 yards would be sufficient, I guess.

Upon impact, the reverse happens: The arrowhead hits the (hard) target and stops, the back of the arrow is still moving -> the arrow bends again, storing energy. Later, the arrow straightens itself, pushing the head through the target.

Secondly, how large was the target? I saw on discovery civilizations a documentary about archery through the ages in which a similar experiment was conducted (It might be the same documentary that was mentioned before). The arrow was shot to a piece of metal of about 4 x 4 inches pinned to a target. The arrow did not penetrate. My guess is that the whole piece of metal was pushed back, which slows the arrow more gradually. If a larger pieces of steel were used they would be slower (greater mass) which might make it easier to penetrate the steel. I think it would even be better id the steel is 'worn' (by a crash test dummy, not a person).
The same would apply to mail. A small piece would fold around the arrow where a larger piece would stay straighter.

-----------

Considering the chronicles Bob Charron quoted: It shows that good armour would suficently protect the wearer. Still, bows were being kept in use. They must have had some effect to stay important enought to keep them in large numbers.

Considering the 'Super Bows' Sir Gaston mentions in his myth post: the bows of the Mary Rose were stress tested up to those points. These strengths were calculated in advance as well, so it seems the strenght of these bows is no myth.
Robert Clark Carruth
Archive Member
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Lewisville/Austin TX USA
Contact:

Post by Robert Clark Carruth »

Considering the chronicles Bob Charron quoted: It shows that good armour would suficently protect the wearer. Still, bows were being kept in use. They must have had some effect to stay important enought to keep them in large numbers.


I am not nearly the scholar that many here are, but this seems pretty obvious. Most people on the battlefield did not have armor. If you have a weapon highly effective against ~80% of your opponents it seems foolish not to keep using it. Furthermore, neither those in armor, nor their horses are 100% protected. So, while it's not highly effective against them, you're bound to get somebody in an open face helm occasionally or a horse. That makes it a cheap, generally effective weapon against the majority of foes. M-16s don't take out tanks but we keep using them. I'm puzzled as to why this question seems to be implied; "If arrows couldn't penetrate armor regularly, why use them?"

-Robert
User avatar
Jehan de Pelham
Archive Member
Posts: 11405
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Outremer
Contact:

Post by Jehan de Pelham »

Bows were used for the same reason High Explosive artillery is used against tanks: to harass and suppress. Archery is the indirect fire weapon of the middle ages. Now, in modern terms, to "destroy" the enemy only involves 30% casualties, and requires a great deal of effort. I imagine much the same, or even more, was the case with archery against armored men at arms.

But, you gain other benefits: you can suppress the enemy, you can inflict some casualties, you can force the enemy to lower their visors, you can destroy cavalry charges, and you can shape the battlefield, for example denying some areas and avenues of approach to your position.

These reasons, and more which are known to the wise, are why archery was used, and to great effect, in the middle ages.

Jehan de Pelham, squire to Sir Vitus
Bob Charron
Archive Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by Bob Charron »

Study of the Assizes of Arms will reveal that those in the field of battle were those who had a certain proscribed amount of moveable income per year and who were required to provide their own equipment, also outlined in detail in the assizes. The infantry was largely composed of business owners and burghers of the towns who provided their own armour and drilled monthly. In the later Medieval period, as a furrier or goldsmith, you were required to provide full harness and a horse for yourself.

Everyone knows about the cavalry.

So farmers farmed, businessmen and nobility fought (or paid for a professional to fight for them). It was only later when the model was turned entirely on it's ear.

So I'm afraid it is another myth that there were a great number of unarmoured people running around the battlefield. That would be the exception rather than the rule, and out of necessity or foolishness rather than proper design. It would be ill-considered in the extreme, not only for the individual, but for the commander to allow such on the field. When it did occur as the exception to the rule (King Stephen's Welsh knifers at the Battle of Lincoln), the first few mowed down by missile fire resulted in the rout of such a unit, usually followed by the a good portion of the remaining army.
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
Russ Mitchell
Archive Member
Posts: 11800
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
Contact:

Also...

Post by Russ Mitchell »

Also, folks... think about what Bob posted... why on earth would the hard, bad dudes described care about "bruises?"

It's a pretty safe bet that they were some nasty, awful, "I-hate-this-for-a-week" sort of bruises.
You don't have to defeat armor or kill somebody to affect morale, tactics, or cohesion... banging people around and making them keep their heads down or shields up is pretty useful, too...
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Post by chef de chambre »


Considering the 'Super Bows' Sir Gaston mentions in his myth post: the bows of the Mary Rose were stress tested up to those points. These strengths were calculated in advance as well, so it seems the strenght of these bows is no myth.


No, they were not stress tested 'up to those points', if you insist on them having draw weights of 150-200 lbs. The tests concluded the range of draw weights (probable when new) were on the order of 80-130 lbs draw weight - 140 lbs outside If you think a 104 lb draw wieght is inconsequential for a warbow, then I suggest you try out the reproduction Mary Rose bow we have at that wieght - not to mention that is precisely the draw wieght of several of the recovered bows.

It is easy enough to go to the most recent edition of Hardy and quote the statistics directly, if you insist.

Again, the weapons were employed as massed fire, indirect fire artillery, and *under those conditions* the bows and arrows, as reconstructed exactingly as possible, show an inability to penetrate either the torso or helmet of a combatant. I would quote the eyewitness account of the battle of Browershaven, contemporary with Agincourt (within 10 years time), but it gets tioresome to write it out, and have the evidence dismissed out of hand by some people because it does not match what they know to be true in their hearts.

If armour were as ineffective as many people would like to believe against archery, then the dynamics of the battles of the Wars of the Roses - where *boith* sides heavily employed longbowmen, would have been dramatically different than they were.
Robert Clark Carruth
Archive Member
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Lewisville/Austin TX USA
Contact:

Post by Robert Clark Carruth »

Bob Charron wrote:So I'm afraid it is another myth that there were a great number of unarmoured people running around the battlefield. That would be the exception rather than the rule, and out of necessity or foolishness rather than proper design.


I stand corrected, Bob. I would have sworn that someone had posted on here some evidence to the effect of what I had stated regarding the percentage. I must have misremembered.

-Robert
FrauHirsch
Archive Member
Posts: 4520
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by FrauHirsch »

Even without the ability to pierce plate, the archers kill the other archers, and kill or wound horses (who might just flip out a bit causing disruption, or drop their riders - and in iconography of most battles are not really all that well armored), or wound and maybe occasionally kill someone by finding an armor gap.

I'm in agreement with Jehan, they have a valuable strategic use, even if they do not kill great numbers of armored knights.

Meanwhile other artillery may be flying. If you can get them bunched using archery, the larger artillery pieces would be more effective, as well as cavalry charges, etc.

What you don't want to be is the commander with partially armoured ground troups vs an army with a good proportion of archers.

-J
User avatar
Chris Gilman
Archive Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Sylmar CA.
Contact:

Post by Chris Gilman »

As for bow pull weights. I have a 10ga lever action Winchester shotgun it is really fun to shoot...4 or 5 times in a row, after that it hurts to much to be fun. But my 12ga. version I could shoot all day. The military found the 12ga. To be the best. Easy to handle and could be used all day every day. (well until the Germans protested)
How much power is enough? It depends on what your trying to do and for how long you need to do it. There may have been "10ga." bows, but I'll bet they shot the "12ga." ones and found that’s all they needed, and still hoist an ale that night.

Oh yes, velocity increase. Well I’m not a physics professor, but I’m 99.99% certain that velocity cannot in any way increase after the arrow leaves the bow. Basic physics law seems to rule this out. As for the articles you cited, they seem to have no reference or indication to an arrow increasing velocity. They merely indicate the arrow oscillates in flight. Of this I was aware. Now this could affect impact force, which I had not considered, but it seems unlikely that it would affect it enough to make any serious penetration difference.
The increase in shaft diameter is an interesting calculation.
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.
Sceotan
Archive Member
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:01 am

Post by Sceotan »

Concerning bow weights, I think there is one thing some of you are overlooking here. The bows on the Mary Rose would have been, more than likely, stock bows made to arm that ship. Bows supplied in such a fashion was more than likely not the case for many of the free componies. These were men who trained for years. I can tell you from experiance that no two archers work under the same standards. Diffirent variables apply to individual archers, and unless broken or lost a longbowmen in a free compony would more than likely bring his own bow. An archers bow is a very personal thing, this would not have been lost on the archers of this period. Draw length, weight, brace height, bow height, etc would all depend on the person shooting it unles the weapon was supplied under stress of battlefield conditions. I have an uncle who can draw an #150 warbow, It's very possible. A good archer is going to base his tools to perform to the best of hist personal ability. If that means #104 that's what you have, if it's #150+ there you go. It's all relative to the person behind the bow. Someone who is capable of effectvly fielding a#150 warbow is easily going to realize that a #100 warbow is lighter than his effectivness. I know when I have reached my max poundage by the way my muscles react, and I base what I shoot off of that. Someone who shoots as regularly as these men must have, would easily have picked up on these concepts and applied them accordingly.
Suggesting that the "norm" is what the Mary Rose holds is hard for me to believe, not when years of holding a bow tells me what a man can know and feel out of a bow when he learns to do so.

I am not saying the armour of the period was easy to defeat in any way, I've learned that lession through my own testing. I do think it is possible with the level of skill these men had, but still very difficult at the least.
Sceotan.
Finnvarr
Archive Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: North Bay, Ontario Canada

Post by Finnvarr »

I think that the amount of armor on the field is again a matter of speculation.

My speculation is that there were many people who didn't have that much armor.

In one account of the Combat of the Thirty, it is made clear that the professional soldiers in the two garrisons had to hunt around for more armor to get ready for the pre-arranged battle. They were not the highest ranking professional soldiers, but they were pros, the kind of people who were doing the fighting in Brittany in 1350.

Now of course the kind of fighting they were doing was mainly raiding and plundering the undefended, but that's what the Hundred Years War was like.

One data point, as interpreted by me. But I think that some pretty good professional historians agree with me.
Jeff J
Archive Member
Posts: 9181
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Adrift Just Off the Islets of Langerhans: Latitude N 39° 2' 55.3, Longitude W 104° 48' 50.4

Post by Jeff J »

Alecks wrote:I don't know if the velocity still increases while in flight, but unlike a bullet an arrow does not have it's full energy at point blank range.


Yes, it does have all of it's energe, and it's not going to get any faster (without a heck of a tailwind ;) ). It just isn't straightened out competely. A wobble is not stored energey which it later expressed in a forward acceleration. It is a lateral oscillation which is damped by air resistance and the spring properties of the shaft.

The archer's paradox articles posted do not explain it very well, so it's not hard for it to be misinterpreted as such.
BONANZA!!!
User avatar
Chris Gilman
Archive Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Sylmar CA.
Contact:

Post by Chris Gilman »

Sceotan wrote: I have an uncle who can draw an #150 warbow, It's very possible. A good archer is going to base his tools to perform to the best of hist personal ability. If that means #104 that's what you have, if it's #150+ there you go. It's all relative to the person behind the bow. Someone who is capable of effectvly fielding a#150 warbow is easily going to realize that a #100 warbow is lighter than his effectivness. I know when I have reached my max poundage by the way my muscles react, and I base what I shoot off of that. Someone who shoots as regularly as these men must have, would easily have picked up on these concepts and applied them accordingly.

I don't think anyone is saying it's not possible. There are bows that have been built over the 300# range (not long bows that I know of), they where just few and far between the norm.
My dad who served in WWII and could put a 30-06 round in a gnats butt hole from 50 yards, (at 200 he could only manage a chipmunks BH) but not many guys could shoot like him and the army didn't issue target or sniper rifles to everyone because of this. So saying one or a handful of people can do yada yada yada in my opinion really doesn’t support the theory of, bigger stronger bows where common.
User avatar
Alcyoneus
Archive Member
Posts: 27097
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Wichita, KS USA

Post by Alcyoneus »

The rotational speed, which could be important, should change once it straightens out.

We did some calculations a while back, and found that the initial energy, expressed on a 1/32sq" point, could easily reach up around a million psi. It would decrease rapidly as it opened a hole, of course, as there was more metal making contact with more surface area of the point. An engineer was doing the calculations, and of course we made certain assumptions about arrow speed, and weight.
My 10yo daughter says I'm pretty!

Squire to Jarl Asgeirr Gunnarson, Barony of Vatavia, Calontir
User avatar
Mike Garrett (Orc)
Archive Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Somerset, ENGLAND
Contact:

Post by Mike Garrett (Orc) »

Those of you unsure of the power and capability of the bows and the archers seem to keep overlooking that these men used these things since childhood, on a regular basis. OK - not all were professional mercenaries but those that went to war/battle tended to be the best. Don't forget English army at Agincourt was 1000 knights/men-at-arms and about 5000 archers. Our casualties were miniscule ( under 100 if I remember correctly) The French lost Thousands, including most of their nobility - who were better armoured by default surely?
This thread is great. And I probably know a lot less than you guys but I gotta say my piece.
Cheers
Mike
Bob Charron
Archive Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Various

Post by Bob Charron »

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.

Finnvarr,

You certainly exceed me in academic prowess, and have access to many more records than I do. Maybe you can correct my faulty memory, as I have no references with me, but didn't the Battle of the Thirty occur during a lull in the 100 Year's War? Wouldn't it have been the custom for many knights making their economic way during this period to pawn or sell any equipment they didn't need for ready cash until the requirement for a good harness was re-established? Like I said, I'm no expert on the 100 Years War, so I may be misremembering.

English Warrior,

So there were thousands of French slain at Agincourt, including *most* of their nobility? The list of noble dead was significant, but I wouldn't say most, and it was my impression most were lost in the crush at the contact point of the hand-to-hand fighting. Those with many years of studyof the battle that I have interviewed indicated to me that the number of knights lost to arrows was very small.

I know this is an emotional topic, far beyond normal logic or examination of the primary sources. We have the play Henry V which was put out as a propaganda piece before the English went off to get trounced in Ireland, and which re-emerged on a huge budget from the War Department during WWII for the same reason. We are an Anglophile nation, and we buy into their nationalistic egalitarian sentiment of the worthy yoeman bringing the arrogant knight down with his arrow.

This is always difficult to discuss, and I acknowledge the feeilngs of everyone involved.
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
User avatar
Mike Garrett (Orc)
Archive Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Somerset, ENGLAND
Contact:

Post by Mike Garrett (Orc) »

Hi Bob ( and others) - Yep - sure is an emotive issue and I am more than happy to bow to the superior research and knowledge of you guys! Archers must still have played a significant role - otherwise why have them? And yes they majority of casualties probably were crush victims etc. Still a damn fine victory though! As were Poitiers Crecy etc. I have seen various figures for the casualties on both sides - I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure. What is certain is that the French loathed the archers ( most likely because of their chevauchee style raids) and that's ( apparently - I'm willing to be corrected) where the good old British 2 finger salute originated - after the French had threatened to remove those particular digits from captured archers.
They were still more effective than early firearms. I have heard it said that George Washington would have kicked our butts with greater efficiency had he had longbowmen instead of the early guns!
Best for now - Mike
User avatar
Trevor
Archive Member
Posts: 9717
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Kansas City, MO USA

Post by Trevor »

Parlan wrote:Great thread. 1 question.

What do you mean by "reenforced mail"?


Most armors of the mid 14th century consisted of a gambeson, hauberk and reenforcing pieces, such as coats of plate and spaulders worn over the hauberk. This left many areas solely protected by mail. While plate armor was being developed at this time, it was not as full nor as develped as it became in the early 15th century (Agincourt was fought in 1415)
Gabriel Morgan
Archive Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by Gabriel Morgan »

I find myself wondering if this conversation might be going a bit differently on the 'Bowyer's Archive'. :)

1. It is clear that archers had a use on the medieval battlefield of 1300-1450. They almost invariably outnumbered the men-at-arms. Great care is made to keep them supplied. Their position on the battlefield is carefully considered.

2. The Welsh longbow of the time clearly was effective against lightly armored soldiers and warhorses - see Crecy, where the charges of the French mouted men-at-arms are thwarted at least four times by small pits and by archers felling horses, which crush men--at-arms and cause other horses to fall, ad nauseum.

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.

3. 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?

3a. A similiar claim is being made about armour - if it wasn't useful, it wouldn't be worn. But useful does not equal invincible. Even if a full kit would make it 50 percent more likely for you to live through a volley of arrow fire, and I suspect it was higher, wearing it would be a useful and desireable thing.

3b. Claims are being made to the effect of, 'Sure, crossbows could penetrate plate, but not longbows.' Ridiculous. The longbow is considered by most scholars to be the far superior weapon, it's only drawback being the necessity of at least 12 years of training to master. Medieval Archer even shows evidence that the French were so impressed with it that they tried to institute the 'church practices' that were so successful in England, but in the end went the most mercenary crossbowmen.

Some quotes from the book I am currently reading, "The Hundred Years War: English in France 1337 - 1453":

Agincourt:

"In desperation, the French men-at-arms on the wings charged the archers. As always the horses suffered most from the arrows, becoming unmanageable or bolting...The first line of the enemy's (ed: French) dismounted men-at-arms then formed themselves into a column, hoping fewer would be hit by arrows, and toiled slowly towards the English through the thick mud which had been churned up by the horses. The English on the wings shot steadily into the sides of the column, inflicting many casualties..."

Note that the arrows kill lots of horses, but they also cause the dismounted men-at-arms to huddle (why huddle if you are immune?). The longbowmen also inflict many casualities. Also note that the French force had not seen battle before this. The men-at-arms were in good supply and their armor was in as good a repair as it could be expected to ever be.

The author also credits the longbow with a "plate penetrating power of about sixty yards." (p. 53)

I've got more, but that should be enough to talk about for awhile. :)
Post Reply