The Armour Archive

I'll have to agree with that. My 150 lb crossbow will bounce arrows of the pressure treated yellow pine holding the target if it hits a hard spot at 30 yards. I have always felt that the English merely shot the horses at Agincourt and the French had to deal with maddened horses in a confined area. Plate would stop the arrows, but would be little protection from being crushed by a 1300 lb dieing animal. The English won, got to write the history, and made themselves the heroes. Their brave forays into France were nothing more than slash and burn terrorist attacks. Their couragious warriors murdered peasants, destroyed crops and ruined the land. But I rant about those "englishe godams with ther crooked sticks"!

------------------
Virtus vincit invidiam
"Virtue overcometh envy"

Huh, the topic was plastic and the SCA, wasn't it? Oops, sorry.

Ian quote: "You people are probable also some of the ones wearing shoes and boots with heals while trying to recreate the 15th cent. -In case you don't know heals didn't appear until 1560."

Strange! I thought heals went all the way back to first human attempts at healing and basic herbal medicinal remedies. And by the way, it's probably not probable.

Oh! He means 'heels' ! Wait a minute, I seem to have been ripped off! None of my handmade pre-1500 leather shoes have heels. Damn. I want my heels!!!!

Thanks for pointing that out Ian, I have to go back to Alastair and the other shoe and bootmakers I have dealt with and demand my heels! No wonder everyone else gets taller at events. I thought I was just drinking too much and was pre-occupied with wondering why so many of the tall, geeky, dateless archer types compensate for their shortcomings by handling really big yew bows that they have to fondle longingly and rub constantly to keep them warm and firm! Something about if you don't do it, the archer's shafts get cold and fragile. Sounds like a bunch of bull if you ask me.

You know, now that I'm married, I have taken to sending all of the knight lady wanna be's and camp followers to the lonely archer types. My form of charity. You know, charity begins in your own back bedroom.

You know, if you archers were not such heedless heretical HEELS, maybe you would drop your bows, get some armour, find some dates and fight like real men instead of like the contemptable, sniping, thin shafted flighty creatures that many of you seem to be! Its a lot better than trying lame lines like "My Lady, my shaft grows cold and fragile, could I impose upon you to stroke my yew that does defend this kingdom from certain doom and your own virtue from the ravages of the barbarian hordes?".

This rant brought to you by way of Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.

Now if I could just get i before e except when it isn't right.

By the way Ian, I'm just kidding. Some of my best friends are archers.

Hi Ian,

Sorry, This 15th c. type is wearing proper wool and linen from the skin out, proper patterns, turnshoes (no heels), pattens..... The list goes on, and nothing you will find is glaringly 20th c. - except the material was grown on 20th c. sheep and flax plants. My mild steel armour offends Thomas powers, but it is being replaced with better gear from Jeff Hedgecock and Macphereson.

I even use quarter sawn white oak to make chests and benches, and paint with egg tempra paint. God knows there are 'holes' in my equipment, so to speak, but I warrent with me in harness you could take a photo of me next to any member of "The Company of St. George" or "The White Company" and you will be hard presse dto tell the difference until I opened my mouth and was revealed as a "Yank". :>

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

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joaquin:
I don't think you'll send any "yard-long shaft" through most plate armour, Ian. I, too, own and shoot bows, and my hunting bow exceeds yours in draw weight. Over the years, I've shot at most of the armour I own, plus countless other pieces of steel (usually 16ga/14ga mild, like my armour, and that of most other SCA members), and have had little success. Longbows aren't the wonder weapon some people make them out to be. I would be confident indeed of victory if I were facing down a longbowman while encased in my plate harness, just a would a man-at-arms so equipped in period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you have forgotten all about Agincourt where the French thought the same thing. Funny how most of them ended up in graves.
I too have shot breast plates with my bow. While it is true that a broadhead most likely won't penetrate, a bodkin most asuridley will and quite easily I might add. After all, they where designed for it.

I have serious doubts about the ability of any arrow shot from any longbow to penetrate a breastplate, especially a period breastplate. I highly reccommend a book entitled, simply enough, "Longbow" by Robert Hardy. It is widely held to be among the better books on the subject of plate armour penetration by longbows, and is probably the most readily accessible.

Hardy admits that the likelihood of a shaft, even a bodkin-headed one, piercing a breastplate is pretty slim. More likely, it _might_ go through a piece of limb armour.

As for the French being defeated at Agincourt (or Crecy or Poitiers, for that matter...) as a result of their armor being penetrated, you'd better think again. Read Bascot's post once more. Those are _far_ more likely reasons for the French loss. The longbow is _not_ a wonder weapon. There's no such thing.

It should also be remembered that Agincourt was the last of those great "English Longbow Victories". It's strange how it coincides perfectly with the beginning of the heyday of plate armour, isn't it? The point is, Plate could stop longbow arrows, man.

I re-iterate my former statement: I would feel pretty confident of victory if I were armed at all points in my Milanese plate harness, and facing down a longbowman.

I have performed the very same penetration tests you have. Ask anyone who's seen my harness up close. My 75 lb bow cannot send a bodkin (since this is what they "where" [sic] designed for, right? "asuridley"[sic]) through my breastplate, backplate or cuisses, but especially my breastplate. This is ordinary sixteen guage steel, mind you, and well-dished. There was no "easily" about it. It didn't happen, and it wouldn't have happened in period, end of story.

At Agincourt, the French Knights didn't get their armor pierced by the arrows, they got their horses shot out from under them. Then, as the survivors tried to turn away, they exposed their backs, which had far less armor on it. A longbow of ~75 pounds might put a bodkin through a breastplate at close range, but not in arcing fire at a moving target. Most would glance off, or not penetrate enought to do more than scratch.

Now, can we get back to flaming me about plastic?

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>At Agincourt, the French Knights didn't get their armor pierced by the arrows, they got their horses shot out from under them. Then, as the survivors tried to turn away, they exposed their backs, which had far less armor on it. A longbow of ~75 pounds might put a bodkin through a breastplate at close range, but not in arcing fire at a moving target. Most would glance off, or not penetrate enought to do more than scratch.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something to keep in mind, most 14th century armor didn't have a back plate. The plate only covered the front. The back was rlatively light mail and an arming coat for protection.

Now, archery had to be at least somewhat effective because the English used it to force the French to go where they wanted them even when the French caught on and faught dismounted too.

Dan

Dan-

Yes, I have seen the pics from 10, 20 years ago. Actually, I was IN the pics from 20 years ago

You are right, our technology is much better than 10 or 20 years ago. When I say that our standards are slowly flying out the window, I mean that when I first got into the SCA, the folks in my Barony didn't know a lot about how to make stuff, but on the whole they really TRIED to look like medieval folks. We didn't even have bar grills. Now, we have a lot of people don't even TRY.

So, we have some folks who look totally kick-ass, dead-on authentic. Then, we have some folks who bitch about documentation, whine about how this is about "how the Middle Ages SHOULD have been", and generally make up any excuse so they don't have to make any special effort. Yuck.

Trevor,

Here, things are better than they were even 10 years ago when I started. More people are trying to make things look period, wether it's a camp, armor, garb, etc. Many are far from perfect, myself included, but things are a lot better than they were.

We have only one of the people who preeches "as they should have been" and he doesn't tend to carry much weight anymore. He's not active enough.

I try to make my stuff look right. I'm still trying to get my new harness going (raising an 8 year old alone and work kill a lot of my time for armoring) and try to make my own garb look right. I use some non-period materials because of back problems (for armor) and allergies (wool). I also try to encourage other people to work toward period appearance (ask Edward et Flint ). I've found encouragement to be a lot more effective than anything else.

Dan
(who is rambling way too much...)

Your point is taken. Plate is a very good way of stopping arrows. I wonder about the difference in metallurgy though. Plus I am trying to find some pictures in a book I have that shows arrow holes in numerous pieces of armor including breast plates and helmets which where on average of heavier metal than breast plates.

Perhaps they are holes made by crossbow bolts, which I believe can indeed pierce a breastplate (unless the breastplate is "proof", but that's anoher can o' worms...)

My apologies if I came off as rude.

[This message has been edited by Joaquin (edited 01-25-2001).]

My apologies if I came off as rude.

I hope you take mine apology as well, good gentle

While I was looking through my library, I came across another bit of information. It is a reference to a man named Roger Ascham. He was tutor to Queen Elizabeth and he wrote a treatis on archery called "Toxophilus". In it he describes the use of the long bow in battle and the ability of the bodkin the puncture plate. My reference however does not make it clear if it is plate defences for the arms and legs or the breast.

Joaquin said
The point is, Plate could stop longbow arrows, man.
\-----------------------------------

Yes, but horses could not...
Dismount a cavalryman, and he is now an infantryman.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joaquin:
I have serious doubts about the ability of any arrow shot from any longbow to penetrate a breastplate, especially a period breastplate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I watched a show on the History Channel where they had two teams building and firing trebuchets at a wall they had built. Since the engineers firing the the trebuchet had to be fairly close (within arrow range) they demonstrated the danger by hanging a breast plate (built to period specs) by one of the trebuchets and shot it from the wall with a longbow. The bodkin arrow went right through it.

I myself saw a longbow demonstration where an archer fired a bodkin arrow all the way through a a helm made of 16g mild steel. He buried another arrow 4 inches into a solid walnut log. Granted it was a Welsh longbow and according to the archer was superior in design and draw then an English longbow.

I do have to agree with the assesment of the Battle of Agincourt though. Horses would make a MUCH easier target then a mounted man.

On the subject of plastic I have to agree that visible plastic is bad. Most of the local heavy fighters have plastic breastplates but have it covered with leather. I plan on making a COP in the near future (next month or so) but currently have a plastic breastplate covered in dark brown leather which makes it looks like well polished boiled leather.

ok as far as cost I've yet to see some one come in with armor for under $40.00. That's what my plastic FULL suit or armor costed.
$20.00 for the drum
$10.00 for the rivets and other metal accoutraments.
$10.00 for the webbing to fasten everything together.
Oh yea forgot the $1.00 for the spray paint for the metalic look.
as far as laziness, I hand made each piece to fit myself with no templates. I PREFER PLASTIC is why i use it. Some day i may empty the brains from my head and go with something heavier that doesn't give the same protection.

I also saw a program on the History Channel (Arms in Action: Mail and Plate Armour) wherein the plate armour not only had no trouble whatsoever in stopping any of the projectiles fired from the longbow, but stopped those fired from a crossbow as well. Also, a trebuchet is _not_ a longbow, nor does it fire anything to which a bodkin might be attached. I believe you're thinking of a ballista.

I have little regard for claims of having seen this or that demonstration. I know a guy in Nebraska who loudly swears he saw a flint arrowhead go through a 16ga breastplate. I heard a man at Lillies last year claim he saw a halberd cleave a 14ga helm perfectly in half after merely falling from the wall it was propped up against. I believe both men are either lying over grossly exaggerating.

...And what about armour of proof? We have an abundance of surviving medieval records of armour being impenetrable, that is "proof", against the very projectiles in question.

Longbows can not and could not pierce plate with any regularity at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joaquin:
<B>I also saw a program on the History Channel (Arms in Action: Mail and Plate Armour) wherein the plate armour not only had no trouble whatsoever in stopping any of the projectiles fired from the longbow, but stopped those fired from a crossbow as well. Also, a trebuchet is _not_ a longbow, nor does it fire anything to which a bodkin might be attached.

Longbows can not and could not pierce plate with any regularity at all. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe I didn't make myself clear. No problem. I'll try again.

Regarding the show. The producers of the show were attempting to demonstrate the dangers of being a member of a siege engine crew by hanging a period breast plate by the trebuchet and firing-at-it-with-a-longbow from the wall they were using as a target for the trebuchet. The arrow was a bodkin arrow and did-in-fact-pierce-the-breast plate. I never said they fired at the breast plate with the trebuchet.

In regards to the demonstration I witnessed, I can attest that the arrow pierced the helm. I will clarify that this was at roughly 30 yards. I would agree that an arrow fired in an arc over 80 yards would probably not pierce a breast plate. I apologize for not including that in my earlier post.

As to regularity. I agree that it would take a well aimed shot from the right angle to to avoid glancing off. In the right circumstances a bodkin arrow-will-penetrate a-breast-plate. On an average man 2-3 inches of penetration in the upper chest will go into the heart or lungs. Lower torso penetration would cause an agonizing (and eventually) fatal gut wound (ick).

I believe a lot also depends on the quality of the breast plate. I have read that in later periods armourers started making heavier breast plates. This was a direct reaction to bodkin arrows and the even more deadly crossbow. Armourers would even fire a crossbow at a completed breast plate to test it's quality. Of course this just lead to heavier crossbows and eventually firearms.

I'm afraid, Joaquin, that you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Respectfully,

Raibeart

Hrothgar,

You're right, it's hard to make a suit of armor for under $40. I suppose if you found a source for free steel, rather than paying $20-30 for a new 4x10 sheet of 16 guage, it mihht be comparable. Of course, you don't have to get all of those tools together that are necessary to make a suit of plate.

Nor do you have to expend the effort of dishing, raising, planishing, fitting, polishing or even research.

But, you still look like a guy in a plastic barrel.

I have a suit of transitional 14th c. armor. Admittedly, I skimped on weight and made it out of 7071 T-6 aluminum and covered it with leather and rivets, with a steel helm, spaulders, elbows, poleyns and gauntlets.

I researched the armor of the period, and found something that I could make out of light materials and still look like a knight of the period. I go to Pas de Armes and get compliments on my armor.

When my opponent is fighting me, they get the experience of looking through their eyeslots at the same thing that medieval knights of the period saw through their eyeslots. It is my contribution to the look, feel and experience of the event.

What is your spray-painted barrel contributing?

I'm not trying to make you feel bad or defensive. What I am trying to do is open your eyes to a new way of looking at what is possible if everyone puts forth a little more effort.

I invite you to look through some books on arms and armor, and ask yourself if you see anything that you can make that will look like the armor in the book. I'd suggest something in the 13th-14th century, possibly German. There are lots of materials they were experimenting with at this time, and i'm sure there's something that is within your capabilities of creating. If you don't want the expense of leather, you can also use cloth. That's period.

Your armor is a reflection of yourself. On the field, it is the first impression you give to others on your attitude and honor. If you want to progress in the SCA, I'd think about what your armor is saying about your beliefs and values. Does it say you're a serious student of Chivalry? Or does it say that you are willing to win at any cost? Does it say that you are concerned about your contribution to the group's medieval experience? Or does it say that you're just in the SCA to hit people and drink?

Good luck, and I hope that you get the most out of your experience in the SCA.

I am a sport fighter. I fight to win.
I hear people say that one should fight for renown, honor, the dream...
Renown is gained by wins. Sagas were not written about how many holmgangs were lost.
I honor my house and my army not by dying gloriously, but by staying alive, and keeping our polearmers and spears alive.
The dream... is different for everybody. If you meet me on the melee field, and call me out to gloriously have a chivalric single combat... i will do you the honor of saying no. I say that because my refusal says you are dangerous.

I rely on speed and tactics to win. I am 5' 8" tall, and weigh 120 pounds. It's not a good idea for me to try to throw my weight around. In singles, I try to be as fast as possible, my defense is simply "don't get hit"
In melee, I disappear among the bigger fighters, and often make like the stealth fighter... I'll come straight up at you, and you won't know it till I hit you.

I began fighting in plastic Lorica Segmentata. I liked it for the weight and flexibility advantage it gave me.
Now I fight in leather lamellar (like my Varangian Guard persona would have. I fight in this preiod armor... for the weight and flexibility advantage that it gives me, with the added bonus of looking good. Looking good helps my fighting by helping my self esteem.


This is just something I felt compelled to write. I reserve the right to promptly piss on any flames. Rational discussion is welcome and encouraged.
Olaf




------------------
"That fighter's a duke. What do we do?"
"Kill him. Quick."

Olaf,

You say that renown is gained by wins. Infamy can also be gained by wins, can it not? For example, if you win by not calling a blow that, to the crowd, looked good, what does that do to your reputation?

If that is the case, doesn't that mean that renown is more than a win/loss record?

For me, while I enjoy victory, it seems clear that renown is more than just winning. I'd much rather lose all of my fights in which I behaved honorably than win a very public fight and forever cast doubt on my honor, wouldn't you?

SImply said, I've seen many reputations forever stained by winning a very important tournament in a manner deemed by the populace as unchivalrous.

AS far as winning itself, I ask you, what is it that you win? No kingdoms fall, no one is killed; it is an imaginary game that we play. The ONLY thing that we really risk is our honor and reputations.

So, is it really so important that we win that we wear plastic, make armor that is inauthentic in the hopes of gaining a slight advantage, or refuse someone's honorable challenge in a make-believe battle?

Seems to me that by adotpting such a "sport mentality", you're missing out on winning the only thing that is really worth anything.

LOL i get barrels for free. I made a deal with the local car washes. Barrels are garbage to them. "One mans trash is another mans treasure." My god thats soooo true.

------------------
Long Live the Landsknechte,
Harold the Bear

By barrels do you mean the little 5 gallon sized ones or the big ass 55 gallon blue drums? Don't see how ANYONE can wear a blue drum and call that comfortable or superior to leather or steel in ANYWAY other than cost. Thinner stuff isn't so bad, it's handy for hidden armor and reinforcing leather.

Ah, I love it when 100 people with different goals get together and argue. It makes for a most enjoyable discussion.

When we (Swordsman) banned plastic, there was some resistance. It's lighter, cheaper, and gives you that sport advantage. But it is not the direction or intent of our club to be sport fighters. We do not wear "minimum" armour because it makes us quicker. Our armour standards consist of helmet with faceplate - that's it. But everybody is fully armoured in steel because it looks a lot better than plastic and/or bruises. Plus, there is no better sound than having your best fighters' armour clank away while they're fighting in a melee.

If I wanted to listen to a bunch of plastic barrels being thumped, I'd either (a) start listening to street music more often or (b) throw a barrel against a wall. Judging from the attitudes I've seen here, I'd happily include some of you in the barrel when I tossed it.

Back to the cave with me.

[This message has been edited by Prince Of Darkmoor (edited 02-08-2001).]

I am not sure if it is proper for me to post, since it has been a while since I fought heavy, but . . .

Back when I wore carpet armor, I called my hits light to represent just a gambeson. I would be able to respect a pastic warrior who called blows like he was wearing cuir bouilli or less. But if he is wearing 10 lb of plastic, I shouldn't have to hit him like he was wearing 50 lb of steel.

Ah, so you've met our "good" duke, Captain Midrealm!

------------------
Virtus vincit invidiam
"Virtue overcometh envy"

Olaf quote: "I am a sport fighter. I fight to win.
I hear people say that one should fight for renown, honor, the dream...
Renown is gained by wins. Sagas were not written about how many holmgangs were lost."

Really? Perhaps you should check out the Song of Roland, Chandos, Beowulf, any recounting of Sir Lancelot and Arthur, Joan of Arc, Richard the Lionheart and the Constable of France whose name escapes me. They generally died while LOSING a fight or after having LOST. Yet they are famous and live on in song and legend long after many winners who never, ever lost have faded from memory. True, many of these are famous precisely because they were excellent fighters or leaders who did win a lot or even most of the time. But their renown is no less due to having lost in the end, whether by being killed in battle or burned by their enemies.

I do happen to think Roland was an idiot, but a very brave, noble and loyal idiot.

I don't have anything against winning, in fact I view winning as a sign of experience, knowledge, skill and talent. The point is that there are many sports fighters who have chosen to increase the likelihood of winning by wearing unrealistic harness which also detracts from the spectacle due to shoddy appearance.

I have nothing against a sport that emulates medieval combat in a less authentic way, I just wish that the SCA tourney list was not being turned into that place. My problem is that the SCA is presented as an educational and historical group, yet we give preference and advantages to those that least represent an accurate portrayal of medieval armour and verifiable medieval technique.

Its kind of like the Tuchux and Vampires. I am happy for a Tuchux or Vampire who has a Tuchux or Vampire oriented organization that allows them to explore their interests. But these sorts of groups do not fit into the SCA's attempt to portray Western European Medieval Court/Combat and visitors that would have logically participated in such settings. The sport fighters are not all bad, but many of them contribute to the win at all costs, damn the attempts at authentic armour, full speed ahead attitude that has made the SCA combat less accurate and less appealing for the spectators.

When I joined the SCA, a tournament with more than 20 or 30 fighters was a pretty big deal (other than a limited number of kingom level events or Pennsic). For every fighter, there would be 5 to 10 spectators. Now, due the degradation of the combat and its presentation in many areas, the fighters and their aides often outnumber the spectators. Something is wrong and many of us believe that the sport fighting element is partially responsible for this.


[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 02-08-2001).]