Men in mail slain by arrows?

[Josh W]

I don't know if this has made the rounds on the Archive yet, but here it is:

http://www.capnmac.com/archery//maille/TOC.htm

This Evian Blackthorn fellow seems to believe very firmly that mail was no defense against arrows. I believe otherwise, and am frankly appalled by the fact that he (arbitrarily?) accepts certain translations of period sources (namely the ones that back up his claims) and tosses others out.

What do you think?

[knitebee]

Here's my input on it. (Now granted this isn't a subject I've studdied or reseached in much detail) Personally I think that some mail was very protective from arrows while some wasn't. I'm sure that the quality of mail available varried upon the amount of money one had to spend on it. There fore those with more money had better quality mail with tighter weave and better quality metal in it while those poorer soldiers on the filed had lesser quality of mail. Much like many products available these days you get what you paid for and some didn't have the funds to abtain better mail.

Just a random thought here but think about the nasty bruises an arrow would leave after being stopped by better quaility mail.

Brian

[D. Sebastian]

I would not be surprized.

A Kevlar flack vest without the SAPI plate will stop 9mm SMG ammo, but a knife will go through it with moderate force. The reason is that when several of the strands in the weave can act together, they can absorb a tremendous ammount of force, but anything that can exploit the gaps in the weave - will.

I see the same concept with chainmail. An axe will land on many rings allowing them to share the impact, where an arrow can exploit a single ring or rivet.

My $.02

[iaenmor]

Yes Josh it had made the rounds some time ago. If anyone reading Evian's work will note he not only includes documents for arrows doing damage but also includes those that do not. The fact is that he even states that his research is ongoing is included. The work was only published online after his death. Unfortunately we will never no what else he came up with and what changes he would have made. Now if you will come up with sources and translations to refute what he has said please post them and I for one will be glad to read them.

[Jeff J]

No fact will cause him to stray from his pre-conceived notions. It's pointless to even make the attempt.

[Jeff J]

No fact will cause him to stray from his pre-conceived notions. It's pointless to even make the attempt.

The work was only published online after his death.

Especially in light of this...

[Bedlam]

I might be off-base here but during the 1st Crusade, weren't the Crusaders mostly clad in mail (or were there not enough in armor to make a difference)? Coupled with the fact that the Turks' etc primary weapon was the bow to me it implies that arrows were affective vs mail based on the outcome.

This is merely supposition, but it seems to be logical.

BEDLAM

[Morgan]

The crusading KNIGHTS were clad largely in maille. The rest of the idiots who walked along with them were not so much. I recall a story about crusading knights (tho I don't recall which crusade) gettitng peppered by arrows so they looked like pin cushions but continuing to fight because they weren't harmed. The story is chronicled from both sides so is credible.

[Bedlam]

Morgan:

Now that you mention it, I do recall hearing that, but I believe it was on the History Channel, so I figured it was dubious at best

Thanks

BEDLAM

[Morgan]

I hear ya brother, I hear ya. But I recall reading it here, from someone who's research was to-be-believed in general...but details escape me.

[Tom Knighton]

Just from skimming parts of this, I really have to question a lot of this. He seems to make assumptions about who decides what gets saved, but give no evidence to support this. It just states it as fact, but having never read anything stating this myself, I have to question the validity of it. It may be correct, but he's not convincing me that the "high born" made the decisions and would trash anything that made them look bad.

Further, perhaps (and yeah, I'm assuming) these high borns, if things happened like the author claims, like the idea that saying arrows could pierce maille because it make the knights and nobles look far braver. After all, knowing that your armour was little protection against arrows yet still riding forth looks more heroic than saying that you rode forth impervious to their weapons

Also, he seems to discount something that was typed into an email because of misspelling. While it can make things annoying, it doesn't make sense to me to discount the whole thing, especially when the author admits that its misspelling...not somethign made up! Yet he refers to this as "falsification". I don't see how. It was typed into the computer by a human being, who makes mistakes in typing. I'm a pretty good typist and I do it all the time.

And all this is the first real page of "research". Now, personally, I believe that there were times when arrows pierced maille, but I also believe that it wasn't all the time. One case or the other was an exception, though I'm not sure which. However, the author has already discounted experimentation because:

To make re-constructed items needed for this 'research and example' requires that, first, the original item must exist, and in a manner that it's original properties can still be determined. Secondly, the person making the re-constructed items must have access to that original item, and the capability of running all the necessary tests on that item to determine fully all it's original properties. Or the actual re-constructor must have access to the information produced by someone with such access that has run those tests. Most artifacts dating from the Medieval era are held under lock and key, in museums or private collections, and while possibly accessible to 'view', it is a scant handful of experts that have access to a scant handful of these artifacts in such a way they can determine the exact properties of the originals. It is extremely difficult to determine tensile strength, shear strength, composition, hardness, brittleness, ductility, and a plethora of other physical and chemical properties on the 'wire' used in a chain mail shirt without causing some pretty severe damage to at least one link of that shirt. And most museums and private collectors are not going to allow their artifacts to be damaged in this way, except under some very highly controlled circumstances, by recognized experts, and only for some special reason, usually done to satisfy the owner's needs or desires, not the expert's.

It looks to me like he's already painted an out for himself. After all, if we can't get direct access to the artifacts, we can't take 1000 measurement and therefore we can't accurately experiment. Nevermind that many of the "handful of experts" would love to test and see what would happen. But that doesn't get figured in either.

With respect to the departed, I have to question the scholarship on this one. I'm far from an expert, and I'm definately not an academic. I'm also not calling the man a liar or anything else. But it leaves me with questions, and that never makes me feel comfortable about an author who's trying to make a point.

Tom

[Matthew Amt]

The problem with the theory that "poorer" or "cheaper" mail for less wealthy men was less resistant to arrows is that only wealthy men had mail! ANY mail was so expensive that the lower classes simply could not afford it, while the upper classes could afford the best quite easily (generally speaking). "Cheap" mail that didn't work was not produced.

The story from the Crusades as I heard it describes not a knight but a crossbowman. He walks along with 10 or 12 arrows sticking out of his back, loading his crossbow. Stops, turns, shoots a Turk out of his saddle, then continues on his way. Unfortunately, as I recall the description is vague, and it might imply that these arrows were stopped by a padded gambeson alone, not even mail. We don't know this fellow was wearing mail or not.

The Crusades are NOT a clear example of the advantages of Eastern archery over Western armor. The Crusaders were able to crush any Saracen force they could catch (provided the disparity in numbers wasn't too huge!), and there are numerous accounts of how their mail protected them. In one of Richard I's great victories (Arsuf? Ack, what was the other one?), he had his crossbowmen working in pairs with shield-bearing spearmen at the front. Behind them was his cavalry, waiting for their chance. The Turks kept getting closer because their archery was having no effect, except that the Crusaders' horses were being hit. Finally the Templars had enough and charged, and Richard sent the rest of his knights forward. They smashed the Saracens. (I think I'm remembering this right! Been a while since I studied any of this...)

There were lots of reasons why Crusaders were defeated by Saracens. Horses were very vulnerable to arrows, and the footmen were more vulnerable than the armored knights. There was terrible heat, lack of water, poor organization, crappy discipline, bad supplies, you name it. But I think a closer look at the accounts will NOT show you that arrows were singing through mail with any sort of regularity.

The physics of an arrow point versus mail is very complicated. The flexibility of the mail and the padding beneath it soak up the arrow's energy as it attempts to break its first ring. Remember that mail was quite fine, and more than one ring might have to be broken for it to penetrate to any effective distance. Also remember that through the 13th century, mail was made of alternating rows of riveted and SOLID rings--what if the arrow hit a solid ring first? No rivet joint to break! Not to mention that the guys who make riveted mail seem to find that the joint is the strong part of the ring... Anyway, IF the arrow point manages to break through the first ring, does it still have enough energy to break a second? You aren't resting rings on a convenient unyielding surface and hitting them squarely with a chisel, after all.

I know there are people who will promptly start calculating joules and foot-pounds and airspeed velocities, but the whole physics point is moot if the people who actually wore the mail back then believed that it was sufficient protection from the weapons of the time, including arrows.

It seems to me that they did.

Matthew/Quintus/Aelfric

[Owen]

If some reports indicate arrows piercing mail, and some don't, that indicates that arrows pierced mail, at least some of the time. Many factors. An armor does not have to be perfect to be used, so the fact that they wore it does not mean they believed it would stop everything.

[Russ Mitchell]

The paper is badly flawed. It was a valiant first attempt, and a real pity he's gone on intellectual grounds as well as personal, because with adequate training, he clearly had the potential to be a very good scholar.

The paper itself has several large logic holes (for instance, the section from Dlugosz, read dispassionately, actually directly implies that armor was the surviving factor for the members of the contingents in question). Also, he is guilty of selected reading at the siege of Bruges... the squire got nailed point-blank, obviously right through his armor: however, the mercenary Benkin shot many arrows from the walls which couldn't wound fully-armed men at arms, even though they did stupefy, stun, and otherwise beat the crap out of them. Both my research and Chef's has demonstrated that the impact energy of the arrows is a serious problem, and one which (imho, not to put words in Chef's mouth) mail does not handle particularly well.

The problem is the It Depends Factor(tm). The short arrows fired by the Turks have different performance characteristics than the arrows fired by the Venta in Wales... equally, if the "doubled mail" does refer to a 6-in-1 weave, as an effigy or two suggests, then you also have a serious problem of not all mail shirts performing equally as well, since one cannot argue that every instance where mail is mentioned cannot be an instance where doubled mail was worn. Then you have custom jobs like Harald Hardrada's mail shirt "Emma," which was made extra thick and strong on purpose.

I've spent two years working on this problem. It's a real pity that De Re is so freaking slow to publish... it's a real problem in the field. Let me drop DeVries a line, and ask him what the restrictions are on sharing my research. If there's no problem, I'll post my work here for folks to look at (and tear apart as you like).

[Strongbow]

If some reports indicate arrows piercing mail, and some don't, that indicates that arrows pierced mail, at least some of the time. Many factors. An armor does not have to be perfect to be used, so the fact that they wore it does not mean they believed it would stop everything.

Exactly.

Say mail stops an arrow 80% of the time... that 20% is still a significant threat. If you start to consider the numbers of arrows flying at places like Crecy, then that 80% protection doesn't look so good.

Armor certainly worked, or no one would use it, but the same can be said for arrows and bolts... if they didn't work, nobody would have used them. Especially in the THOUSANDS the way the English did.

Strongbow

[Gwydion Caithnes]

I certainly wouldn't want to stand 100' away from someone shooting at my mail-protected chest with a 100 lb. longbow...

I think Robert Hardy deals with this subject in his book, Longbow. I've got it at home - will check tonight.

[Owen]

Say mail stops an arrow 80% of the time... that 20% is still a significant threat. If you start to consider the numbers of arrows flying at places like Crecy, then that 80% protection doesn't look so good.

Even if mail stopped 99%, when thousands are fired, that's a true threat.

Armor certainly worked, or no one would use it, but the same can be said for arrows and bolts... if they didn't work, nobody would have used them. Especially in the THOUSANDS the way the English did.

Another good point.

[Rhoetus]

Most armor was decent protection against what it was designed to protect against, but NO armor was perfect protection.
An arrow hitting at an angle, or from far away, would most likely, be defended... however, a close range square on attack is more often than not, going to break through the rings.
Chain also loses cohesion as more and more rings are broken, so even if the first several hits don't get to you, eventually you'll get hurt.

[Felix Wang]

Well, the paper reflects a great deal of work, but is not unbiased, IMHO. I am working through the text right now, so my opinion may change. In the second chapter the author describes a number of ways an apparent quotation can be misinterpreted / distorted. He sets a very high standard for authenticity, an unrealistic one for a nonprofessional. A source should certainly be named, and the quotation should be correct - omitted bits must be indicated. If possible, an Internet link is best, because the source can be examined by everyone. If not, the translator [i]may[/] be important, depending on the technical detail of the question. However, to expect access to the original language text is unrealistic in an amateur, non-professional context. The author doesn't claim mastery over medieval Latin, and that is perhaps the most important single language in this situation. Other sources might be in medieval German, Spanish, Greek, or Arabic; very few people are trained in all of those languages.

After going through this impressive analysis, the author concludes that the phrase "by the will of God" indicates the event (mail resisting arrows) was inherently unlikely. I am not convinced. In a world where religion was universally acknowledged, such phrases crop up regularly. In the Paston letters, almost every single letter mentions God or a saint in an invocation similar to "may God keep you" - which doesn't mean that every single person was in immediate danger of dying.

At the beginning of the third chapter, the first paragraphs toss his analytic skills out the window. He cites Ammianus Marcellinus on the siege of Armida: first, that the Persians were clad in mail, second, that many of them were pierced by arrows. He concludes the arrows punctured the mail - which is not what was said. For all we know, the Persians who were "pierced by arrows" were all hit in non-armoured body parts. We don't know how extensive the mail covering was (it could have been very complete, as shown on the Dura Europos graffito of a clibanarius-type cavalryman) and we don't know where the wounds were.

It does get better later, but I am disappointed.

[Trevor]

Hell, even Kevlar helmets have stopped AK-47 rounds.

Note, I did NOT say they were "proof" against AK-47 rounds.

Point being, given the right conditions (velocity, angle etc.) the Kevlar helmet worked. Given the wrong conditions, you've got serious head trauma.

And that's with a standard round and a standard helmet.

Most mail was proof against some arrows fired by some bows. generaly speaking, the bows used in the Middle East during the Crusades were too light (and possibly their heads were too wide) to penetrate the Eurpoean mail.

However, given a bodkin point fired from a 150 lb. longbow, and you've got serious head trauma again. (Or a sucking chest wound, etc.)

It is a very telling fact that when the longbow came to dominate the battlefield, armor changed to meet this new threat. Previously, mail had been the major material in use for 1000 years. One has to ask, why did armor (very expensive armor) change if it was still doing it's job? Short answer; it wasn't.

The longbow propelled plate armor development. It remained relatively unchanged for 300 years until guns became so common and so powerful that it was no longer advantageous to wear full armor...

[Tom Knighton]

I think everyone can agree that occasionally arrows pierced maille at the very least. The subject for debate is the frequency of these penetrations.

However, this topic is about a particular peice of work, which can and will (if it already hasn't been) be used as proof that X happened. While it may have, the scholarship on this work is sketchy at best. Perhaps if the author had lived longer, he could have tightened things up a bit and put together a nice piece of scholarly work. However, that didn't happen and what we are left with is, in my opinion, a falicy that supports his thinking.

The fact that he feels the need to talk about SCA combat archery alone is enough to put me back a bit. He obviously wants to support that CA in period resulted in deaths of medieval knights. I'll happily concede that point for all to see. It did happen. But he discounts most, if not all, experimentation as well as several passages that support the other side of the arguement. Why is this? It comes across as maille was ineffective against the arrow. Now, I'm sure we all know this is bull. If it didn't work, why wear it against an opponent that used it extensively? After all, there were other armours that may have worked better (lamellar for example?) that could have been procured. But it doesn't seem to have happened. Why? Perhaps maille did work, at least to some extent, against arrows.

As for why would arrows be used if they didn't work against a mounted knight, think about the makeup of a medieval army for a moment. What percentage of combatants wore maille? In those instances, I bet arrows kill them quite easily. If a medieval army was only 25% armoured in maille, and you kill the other 75% with arrows, you're off to a nice rout . Now keep in mind that I do believe that occasionally a maille clad warrior would fall to an arrow, but the question is where were they hit? King Harold of England was clad in maille and apparently killed by an arrow....but he was apparently hit in the eye, an unarmoured part. There is more to the equation than what killed the warrior and what kind of armour he wore.

Everyone wants to debate the use of archery in combat until they are blue in the face, but you know what? It doesn't really matter. This topic is about a piece of work that is posted on the internet and makes the rounds apparently. This work that will be used to support a position but is, at best, misleading and quite possibly highly biased. Those who support CA and want to support it, please take this work and fix the holes. This work is to easily carved up. If it is fixed, it could be a wonderful piece of work that will go a long way to educate a great many people.

Tom

[Jean Paul de Sens]

Say mail stops an arrow 80% of the time... that 20% is still a significant threat. If you start to consider the numbers of arrows flying at places like Crecy, then that 80% protection doesn't look so good.

Even if mail stopped 99%, when thousands are fired, that's a true threat.

Only if they all land with the 40 square feet I'm inhabiting....

[Felix Wang]

Continuing a commentary on chapter 3:

After the Armida discussion, the next section is by "Saxo" - I assume Saxo Grammaticus (after the tirade about Odo of Deuil / Douil, I do expect some precision!). This appears to be straight-forward, if lacking in specifics and not being an eye-witness account. The idea that Saxo's account must be acceptable because he is the only source for the period is illogical. Being the only source doesn't mean he is a good source.

The Heimskringla was written about the mid-13th century, if I recall - a few centuries after the events. The first battle of the Nis river seems to be clear. The Jomsberg Viking battle says something very odd: it says that the earl's mail was cut into 2 pieces by the arrows! This is outrageous. Think about cutting a leather motorcycle jacket into two separate pieces with a modern rifle - and then try it with mail and arrows. It is not absolutely impossible, but under battle conditions is not going to happen. Note that the wearer is still alive and standing, because he takes the mail off and drops it; this is even less probable.

I will not continue this section by section - some accounts do clearly state that mail was penetrated by arrows, but many do not. As Russ noted, Dlugosz really says the opposite of what the author tries to conclude.

The next chapter is difficult. Much of the text concerns the shortcomings of various others persons on-line, and their inability to provide citations of the required specificity and accuracy. The author concludes: "If those who want to show chain mail stopping arrows want to use John Barbour, Giles li Nuisit, and Geoffrey le Baker, or the Lanercost Chronicles, Chronigraphica regum Francorum, the Grandes chroniques, or even the Chronicles of the Grand Catalan Company, if this actually exists, or any other period text, they need to provide accurate quotes from a readily accessible translation of the text and specify how to find that text." Apparently this doesn't apply to him: in section 25 he clearly hasn't read a copy of Kelly DeVries' book on Infantry Combat; and that book was published in 1996 and is readily available. (His line is "I have no idea what the (HTK) refers to, but again, the page numbers evidently refer to Kelly Devries text, but I have no idea if this is a quote from Devries, or Person Three's story about what Devries has to say". If he had DeVries' book, he should know what DeVries said.)

[Felix Wang]

The fifth chapter is not directly to the point, so needs little comment. The first example from the Heimskringla does not say that Hakon was killed by arrows, nor does it say arrows pierced his (unspecified) armor. It says he died amidst whizzing arrows. He could have been hit in the eye by an arrow, he could have collapsed from blood loss, or heat exhaustion, or have been hit by a battle-axe.

On another subject: it is not likely that the longbow directly encouraged the development of plate armour. The longbow was not known outside of Wales (and perhaps Ireland) until the late 1200's; it was used against the Scots around 1290 to 1320; its first large-scale use on the Continent is during the Crecy campaign. The French are already in transitional armor at that time. So were Italian knights, and the longbow never reached Italy in large numbers (i.e. thousands of bowmen). The Germans also were moving to transistional armour, and the longbow never played a significant role in Central Europe. The crossbow is probably a factor, and especially the appearance of trained infantry armed with heavy polearms. The social aspect of commoner infantry fighting aristocratic knights is also important: a knight might expect mercy (and a ransom) when fighting another knight, but knights didn't ransom commoners and the commoners often returned the compliment and didn't try to ransom knights.

[Strongbow]

On another subject: it is not likely that the longbow directly encouraged the development of plate armour.

I agree with that.

The longbow was not known outside of Wales (and perhaps Ireland) until the late 1200's; it was used against the Scots around 1290 to 1320; its first large-scale use on the Continent is during the Crecy campaign.

I disagree with that... in another thread, I go over the copious evidence that the longbow was fairly common in Northwestern Europe and Scandinavia. We have surviving examples (grave finds) of Scandanavian and Saxon longbows from 9th, 10th and 11th century. What the Welsh apparently developed were the very high poundage longbows that were far more effective as military weapons.

The French are already in transitional armor at that time. So were Italian knights, and the longbow never reached Italy in large numbers (i.e. thousands of bowmen).

Until Hawkwood. :0 But I agree with the point.

The Germans also were moving to transistional armour, and the longbow never played a significant role in Central Europe.

Agreed.

The crossbow is probably a factor, and especially the appearance of trained infantry armed with heavy polearms.

I suspect the most likely reason is simply the improvments in the industrial processes to produce iron and steel in sufficient quantities to make plate armor practical. The development of pole weapons probably caused more than a few knights to search for armor with better protection against blunt trauma.

The social aspect of commoner infantry fighting aristocratic knights is also important: a knight might expect mercy (and a ransom) when fighting another knight, but knights didn't ransom commoners and the commoners often returned the compliment and didn't try to ransom knights.

A commoner who captured a knight might very well have made his life's fortune... though he usually would have gotten only a small portion of it. Certainly many English commoners were said to have become wealthy men in the HYW from loot and ransoms.

Strongbow

[Felix Wang]

Strongbow:

Your point about the Scandinavian longbow is well made. As you note, however, these bows do not seem to have made any substantial military impact on the way war was waged in Scandinavia or Germany.

About Italy, I don't have any figures offhand on how many longbows Hawkwood might have had with him in Italy. Would this be in the 1000+ range?

I didn't mention the industrial issues, but you are exactly right about the availability of iron and steel, which probably was a relevant factor.

[Glen K]

While we'll probably never have a definitive answer, someone on a History Channel show (believe it or not) put it in a way that I often paraphrase/plagarize when I'm doing a presentation: armour was a reasonable defense against weapons of the day. Not proof, not useless, but reasonable. The Interceptor body armor and Kevlar helmets our guys are wearing in Afghanistan and Iraq today can be given the exact same description.

There are a variety of sources in period that give examples of armour protecting and failing under the attack of an arrow. It obviously worked to a degree, otherwise 1) folks wouldn't have worn it, 2) poor folks who couldn't afford it wouldn't have wanted to get ahold of it so badly.

Say mail stops an arrow 80% of the time... that 20% is still a significant threat. If you start to consider the numbers of arrows flying at places like Crecy, then that 80% protection doesn't look so good.

It still looks better than 0%, or even 50% though, doesn't it?

Armor certainly worked, or no one would use it, but the same can be said for arrows and bolts... if they didn't work, nobody would have used them. Especially in the THOUSANDS the way the English did.

A good point. But how often was the English longbow volley used en masse to such deveastating effect? The other thing to consider, though I can't possibly go into this scenario now, is the context in which armour was worn. Yes, lots o' armour was worn by those who had it in the great battles of the period, but it was also worn on all the other martial activites such as sieges, patrols, chevaucees, etc. To borrow from the (not always correct) modern analogy again, a Kevlar and interceptor vest isn't going to protect you from 20 155mm artillery pieces raining down directly on your position, but it's great for the occaisional mortar round or roadside bomb/sniper.

[Captain Jamie]

Strongbow wrote:
"Exactly.

Say mail stops an arrow 80% of the time... that 20% is still a significant threat. If you start to consider the numbers of arrows flying at places like Crecy, then that 80% protection doesn't look so good."

Hey if you think that doesn't look good try facing the arrow storm with out it!

Captain Jamie

[Templar Bob/De Tyre]

The crusading KNIGHTS were clad largely in maille. The rest of the idiots who walked along with them were not so much. I recall a story about crusading knights (tho I don't recall which crusade) gettitng peppered by arrows so they looked like pin cushions but continuing to fight because they weren't harmed. The story is chronicled from both sides so is credible.

Actually, what was referred to here is taken from Beha-ad-Din (one of Saladin's chroniclers) and Ambrose (one of Richard I of England's chroniclers) describing the Battle of Arsuf, 1191. Beha-ad-Din refers to the English infantry as:

...clothed in a kind of thick felt, and maille corselets as ample as they were strong, which protected them against arrows. I have seen men with up to ten arrows stuck in their bodies marching no less easily for that.

Ambrose, from the Gesta Regis Ricardi, said of the infantry that they were:

...armed quite well according to the customs of foot-soldiers, (with) head protected by an iron cover, a hauberk and a linen tunic padded many times and difficult to penetrate, ingeniously worked with a needle and consequently called in the vernacular a pourpoint.

Some historians intimate that the arrows referred to by Beha-ad-Din were merely long-range flight arrows, used by the Turkish horse-archers for harrassment purposes. While such arrows would be effective against unarmoured men and horses, their effect against armoured infantry would be limited, unless they hit an unarmoured spot.

Most mail was proof against some arrows fired by some bows. generaly speaking, the bows used in the Middle East during the Crusades were too light (and possibly their heads were too wide) to penetrate the Eurpoean mail.

However, given a bodkin point fired from a 150 lb. longbow, and you've got serious head trauma again. (Or a sucking chest wound, etc.)

It was known that Turco-Mongol qaraghulam horse archers did in fact have (and use) armour-piercing arrows designed to defeat maille and lamellar, which would be used at intermediate range. It was also known that bows used by Turco-Mongol horse-archers ranged in weight from between 55# to 166# of pull. Otherwise, the reports of such archery stopping cold a European-style cavalry charge (such as at the Battle of Ascalon) wouldn't have been written.

Brother John of Plano-Carpini (a Franciscan friar who was an envoy to the Mongols) described the Mongols making armour-piercing arrows by heating the heads red-hot, then quenching them in salt-water. He further suggested that knights be issued with "doubled maille" as a defense against such arrows (however it's unclear whether this referred to two mailleshirts or double-thick or 6:1 maille).

More grist for the mill...

[Templar Bob/De Tyre]

The story from the Crusades as I heard it describes not a knight but a crossbowman. He walks along with 10 or 12 arrows sticking out of his back, loading his crossbow. Stops, turns, shoots a Turk out of his saddle, then continues on his way. Unfortunately, as I recall the description is vague, and it might imply that these arrows were stopped by a padded gambeson alone, not even mail. We don't know this fellow was wearing mail or not.

According to Beha-ad-Din, he was.

The Crusades are NOT a clear example of the advantages of Eastern archery over Western armor. The Crusaders were able to crush any Saracen force they could catch (provided the disparity in numbers wasn't too huge!), and there are numerous accounts of how their mail protected them. In one of Richard I's great victories (Arsuf? Ack, what was the other one?), he had his crossbowmen working in pairs with shield-bearing spearmen at the front. Behind them was his cavalry, waiting for their chance. The Turks kept getting closer because their archery was having no effect, except that the Crusaders' horses were being hit. Finally the Templars had enough and charged, and Richard sent the rest of his knights forward. They smashed the Saracens. (I think I'm remembering this right! Been a while since I studied any of this...)

There were lots of reasons why Crusaders were defeated by Saracens. Horses were very vulnerable to arrows, and the footmen were more vulnerable than the armored knights. There was terrible heat, lack of water, poor organization, crappy discipline, bad supplies, you name it. But I think a closer look at the accounts will NOT show you that arrows were singing through mail with any sort of regularity.

The physics of an arrow point versus mail is very complicated. The flexibility of the mail and the padding beneath it soak up the arrow's energy as it attempts to break its first ring. Remember that mail was quite fine, and more than one ring might have to be broken for it to penetrate to any effective distance. Also remember that through the 13th century, mail was made of alternating rows of riveted and SOLID rings--what if the arrow hit a solid ring first? No rivet joint to break! Not to mention that the guys who make riveted mail seem to find that the joint is the strong part of the ring... Anyway, IF the arrow point manages to break through the first ring, does it still have enough energy to break a second? You aren't resting rings on a convenient unyielding surface and hitting them squarely with a chisel, after all.

I know there are people who will promptly start calculating joules and foot-pounds and airspeed velocities, but the whole physics point is moot if the people who actually wore the mail back then believed that it was sufficient protection from the weapons of the time, including arrows.

It seems to me that they did.

Actually, the strategy of Saracen horse-archers was harrassment. The Muslim cavalry not only had lightly armed horse-archers, but heavily armoured cavalry who could meet the Crusader knights on an equal footing, and easily defeat them. But the primary goal of horse-archers was to take away or seriously attrit the main advantage a Western European cavalry force had--mobility and speed.

During the Battle of Arsuf, the strategy of Saladin was to cut off the rearguard from the main body, then destroy it in detail. The Crusader strategy was to engage the entire Muslim army into a close quarters bout, then hit them with a crushing charge--but only when Richard gave the order.

The rearguard was made up of the Hospitallers, and they frankly got tired of enduring massed archery, loss of horses and constant attack without striking back. The Master of the Hospital (or the Marshal--I'm unclear) started the charge, saying "by God, we must charge, for I can endure this no longer!" Richard ordered the rest of the army to follow suit, which defeated Saladin, however, the charge was made too soon, so he did not achieve his goal of destroying the Muslim army.

In a question of Muslim archery (and its effectiveness against European maille), it pretty much depends on what types of arrows (and bows) were being used.

[Elling Hrolleifson]

Well, on the subject of mail as armor in general...

I have always read, and been told, by various (probably non-scientific) sources a few simple "facts."

1. Mail was very good at protecting against and form of cutting action.
2. Mail was mediocre at best in protecting against any sort of crushing action.
3. Mail was downright crappy at protecting against piercing attacks.

The basis for this argument is mostly a thought experiment, and some actual experience with wearing mail in the SCA. Mail is heavy. This is good. Mail is flexible. This is bad. Mail is made of lots and lots of tiny rings. This is also bad.

The weight of the mail, combined with its flexibility, provides excellent defense against a cut or slash. However, the flexibility is a detriment when a crushing blow lands. I know people who gave up fighting in mail simply because it didn't protect them worth crap against the simple sticks we use in the SCA. They had to wear a coat of plates underneath to avoid going home with bruises all over. And the suit was NOT light. 40+ pounds, just for the tunic with sleeves that went to the elbow and a bottom at groin level. The weight was simply not enough to stop a blow, due to the flexibility. Plate spread the blow...chain does not.

Good luck CUTTING through it, though. Now, since an axe/sword is more of a chopping weapon and less about the cut, I would think basic chain would give mediocre protection against it. You won't get a deep cut, but the force is still transmitted. Hence the use of padding underneath, to ameliorate this factor. A specifically designed crushing weapon, however, would be VERY brutal. I recall reading horrific accounts of the mail being literally crushed, broken, and driven into the wound, with a nice pupled limb as the recipient, and later death by infection.

Piercing weapons would seem to have an even better advantage. Take a spear thrust, for example. The point ISN'T going to slide off. The rings catch it. In typical 4-in-1 mail, you really only have to burst one ring in order to spread the mail wide enough for a spear head to penetrate. And the spear is focusing the power in a VERY tiny area. A dagger or thrusting sword would be just as effective. And I can only imagine the horror of a good, spiked crushing weapon getting in a clean blow. The padding beneath isn't going to do much to help against a piercing weapon.

But arrows are another matter. They have the basic advantages of a piercing weapon...i.e. they won't tend to glance or slide off, and they focus all their energy in a very small area. With a bodkin point, they would probably go right through chain.

But a LOT of that depends on the equipment used. I've been an archer since I got my first longbow at age 3 (before I could actually even use it. ). I grew up in Montana, bowhunting, and around professional archers...people who ate, slept, and breathed bowhunting (I was not such a fanatic). And I gotta tell you...even the burliest individiual I ever saw using a bow, with modern methods, modern nutrition, and modern size, never even approached 150# draw weight. Not even close. And I have serious doubts as to whether anyone in history ever did either. I've read of "discoveries" of caches of old bows and such, which were reconstructed and measured, yada yada yada. I don't buy it. 90#? No problem. 100#? Sure. #110? MAYBE. And that would be someone born and bred to the bow, a real exemplary physical specimen and professional archer.

Now, the power behind an arrow doesn't come from draw weight alone. Power stroke length is of vital importance. I'm a tall person...almost 6'1". I have long arms. When younger, I used a 65-70 pound draw weight. With a draw length of 30-31". That puts a lot of power into a good arrow. About the same amount as that 100# bow with a 26" or 27" draw length, which would probably be MUCH more typical of a historical archer, who was 5'6" or so.

The total power also comes from the weight of the arrow, although to a lesser extent (lighter arrows gain more energy, but have less mass to "impact" with). Probably not an important factor, but worth mentioning.

With all that said, and with keeping in mind the huge variations in bows used from one culture to another, the act of penetrating padded chain with an arrow is a sticky one indeed. I would say that it happened on a regular enough basis that people continued to use archers in significant numbers throughout history, regardless of what their opponents were wearing for armor. I mean, look at the fear the English longbow engendered. Or the fact that the primary weapon of the Samurai was NOT the sword, but the Bow (early period) and the Spear (later). Or the hordes of Mongol horse-archers. The expert bowman was a force to be feared in any time and place.

I know for a FACT that I would never want to face a competent archer with decent equipment while wearing chainmail. Thats a losing proposition, unless you start in arm's reach of him.

If you have any doubts about this, take a suit of chainmail. Stick it on a dummy. Stand 50 yards away and watch your arrows rip through the chainmail usnig a 65-pound longbow and some simple steel heads. I think you will be shocked at the results. I've seen such things on the Discover Channel before. It ain't pretty. Even plate was often not "proof." Thrusting/piercing is a MUCH better way to get through most forms of armor.

Which brings me to a side point concerning SCA combat. If we're all wearing padded chain and an open-faced helm, why do I only have to TOUCh my opponent's face, but I practically have to shove my sword/spear through someone's body for real to get people to accept torso thrusts? Shouldn't a decent, telling, clean blow be good no matter what? Its a calibration issue I have ran into so often I don't even bother thrusting to the body anymore.

Now, if you have some hard evidence refuting any of this, speak up. I don't. Like I said, it comes from scattered readings, limited actual experience, and "common sense." But it DOES make sense, to me, at least.

[Sir Daniel]

I hear in montana all they do is bowhunt and date sheep.

An I've seen you shoot a bow

~D

[Halberds]

I recall years back a story about bamboo or some splintering wood used as arrows to shatter and penetrate the mail. Don't know if it is valid or not.

[Felix Wang]

Halberds: I'm not sure what incident you are thinking of, but I believe the gist of your coment is correct. As I recall, the problem with splinters was encountered by De Soto while he was exploring the American South; the locals didn't have metal arrowheads (of course), so when their arrows shattered against mail the splinters could still wound the wearer.

Templar Bob: I agree with your analysis, but I am not sure what you refer to when you said "The Muslim cavalry not only had lightly armed horse-archers, but heavily armoured cavalry who could meet the Crusader knights on an equal footing, and easily defeat them." I am not aware of any Muslim heavy cavalry which could reliably defeat an equal force of Christian men-at-arms. The Mamluks were more heavily armed than other Muslim horse, but they only appear late in the Crusading era, and I know of no evidence that they were superior to the Franks.

Arima: One of the points the author makes that I do fully agree with is that modern testing is only relevant when it is done under controlled conditions. No test will perfectly show what happened in medieval times, but one can be reasonably close. Without specifics, anecdotal evidence counts for very little. Unfortunately, television shows are dramatic but very rarely give the relevant background, so they are often more misleading than enlightening. Dr. Alan Williams of the UK has done scientific work on mail penetration and published it (although I have mislaid my copy of his work on mail at the moment).

[Maelgwyn]

Here is an experiment for you: Dress a scarecrow in a grey tunic and hood to simulate mail and add a tin-foil spangenhelm. Now add an unarmoured straw horse. Shoot 500 arrows at the scarecrow from long range. Count how many arrows hit the fighter where the "armour" doesn't protect them. Count how many "emergency ejections" your fighter would need to survive.

Arrows can be lethal to armoured warriors without actually penetrating armour. Massed archery can discourage cavalry and deny lines of attack.

Could medieval arrows penetrate medieval armour? I am quite confident that some could, some of the time, and others couldn't. I'm not sure we will ever really know much more than that.