documentation of armour being defeated by arrows.

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 3:07 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:
I've fallen off a horse dozens of times. While a few times were complete surprises while NOT wearing armour, and consequently getting the wind knocked out of me, the rest didn't faze me at all. Wearing properly padded plate defenses and knowing HOW to fall off, it is simple to hit the ground, roll off the inertia, rise and draw a sword in one fluid movement. I see no reason that having my horse shot out from under me would incapacitate me as a fighting foot-soldier for more than 5 or 6 seconds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, after you get to your feet (assuming you have not been trampled by other horses in the charge), you are now a solitary foot soldier. When you went down, your horse tended to disrupt the formation of the charge. You and your unhorsed companions are disorganized and confronted by organized infantry. Bad to be you.

Baron Logan · Post by **Baron Logan** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 3:55 pm

Iâ€™m not a horse rider. But my thought is that riding a horse that gets wounded or killed outright while on a cavalry charge is going to be a whole â€˜nother story than just falling off. But thatâ€™s my â€œseen too many Hollywood moviesâ€

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 4:14 pm

Hey Logan. I'm thinking that you are right. Even if the horse is just injured, I'm *guessing* that it would tend to be just a bit unruly. Again the point being that disruption of the charge makes the archery an effective battlefield element. Injuring the rider directly is not necessary.

Egfroth · Post by **Egfroth** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 5:32 pm

Ever seen a horse fall in a horse race? The ones behind him crash into him at full speed, THEY go down, spilling their riders, crushing the rider of the first horse; subsequent horses add to the chaos, piling on top of the horses and riders in front of _them_. I wouldn't want to be the guy underneath, armour or no. And even if the horse doesn't cause others to fall, "smoothly rolling out of the way and drawing a sword" doesn't take into account "getting trampled by all the other horses coming along behind". I _still_ wouldn't want to be the guy on the horse that fell in the front of a charge.

Somebody once said the only thing you can be certain of in a battle is chaos. Many of the rules we take for granted in one-to-one conditions don't apply. The most skilled fighter may fall to the lowliest peasant, or to his horse putting a foot in a hole and bringing down all the following horses on top of him. War is hell.

------------------
Egfroth

"I can't help it. I was BORN sneering" - Pooh Bah
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 5:42 pm

Now as to whether archery was effective in warfare is different than whether an arrow could kill a fully-plated knight. What are the actual percentages of fully armed heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy infantry and light infantry? Even if you couldn't kill a knight (perhaps 1 out of 6 combatants) you still could kill the other 4 or 5. Therefore, archery WAS effective on the battlefield.

Ned Chaney · Post by **Ned Chaney** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 5:48 pm

I doubt we will see any plate from the 100 years war period with bodkin holes. Why? Because we don't see very much intact armour from this period in the first place let alone holed armour. Now, consider the armour of the Crecy time period. There was some plate, yes, but there's a reason this is called the "transitional" period. There was still a LOT of maille backed up with some plate. As I understand it COP's were very popular and full plate breasts were rare. Soooo....what gage of plate do we see in the Wisby finds (since these are considered obsolete during the 1360's can we assume they were in wide use in 1346) and could a bodkin pierce that gage? So we have COP's for torso armour with maille and a little plate here and there. A bodkin WILL pierce maille and I think with as many arrows that were in the air a lot would have found spots to pierce.

It seems to me that both sides in this discussion are arguing from pre-conceived notions. The archery contingent (I'm VERY pro-archery btw) wants the English at Crecy, Poitiers, etc, to win on the strength of the archers alone and it just didn't happen that way. The con-archers (mostly knights I notice) refuse to admit that the archers were effective at all and it just didn't happen that way either. Crecy was a very early occurence of a "Combined Arms" force. This army sat in England for a while before deploying to France. What in the HELL do you think they were doing all that time? If you look at how they fought once they got to France it's obvious they were drilling. I don't mean marching. I think they were practicing fighting as a cohesive force. If the French had fought as a cohesive force the English would have been in deep shit. But...they didn't! If you read Froissart's account the King was not much of a leader and his nobles didn't listen to him anyway. The French force was a bunch of undisciplined nobles backed up by mercenaries and peasants. One of the biggest problems was that the different units spoke different languages and communications had to have been a nightmare. As pro-archery as I am... after studying the situation a bit I've been forced to admit that this situation with the French army, the weather on the day of the battle (a pretty intense thunder storm just prior) the sun being at the Englishes' backs (btw this battle started an hour or two after midday. It WASN'T dark) all contributed to the English victory, but I don't discount the archers' part at all. They DID help win this battle. Ed III would have had a touchy situation without them even given the situation in the French camp. Give the common lads their due! They were an important part of this force. I believe Ed valued them as such too. There is a "pass" extant written for an archer by Ed III touting his service and giving him leave to go home to take care of some family business then rejoin the army. Those of you who discount the commoners part in all this are doing the memory of those lads as well as history itself a disservice.

------------------
Emm aye sea kayee why. Emm ohyou essee.

[This message has been edited by edward atte flynt (edited 03-22-2002).]

[This message has been edited by edward atte flynt (edited 03-23-2002).]

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 7:40 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aidan Cambel:
If plate was developed because maille was ineffective against the longbows, isn't that proof that the bows were effective? else the transition to plate would never have happened.

I understand that you are primarily talking HYW, in which case the arrow-against-plate argument is valid. I think we can really view effectiveness side-by-side with progression in armour. If the armour was effective, it wouldn't need to improve. If it wasn't effective, there would have been no need for weapons to improve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're close, Anraden. You see, the longbow wasn't very common in the early middle ages. When the longbow became more popular it was seen as a threat to mailed knights, and this happens to coincide with the increasing amounts of plate that started to show up in the early 14th century. I think you may be assuming that the longbow was around earlier than it really was.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Ulfbjorn · Post by **Ulfbjorn** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 8:35 pm

Sounds to me like some very sound and reasonable things can be learned from this whole topic.
1) If you believe you are right you will not be swayed.
2) Archery doesn't seem to "kill" armored men.
3) Archery is deadly due to the huge collateral damage it causes to mounts, peasants, and morale.
4) Actual evidence to prove the point will not be had. All we can use is what someone wrote and hope they were honest.

This lead me to come up with a solution for CA in SCA terms that I'll throw out here for you good gentles. CA should be counted blows. One arrow does not a dead noble make. Five or six will put him out of a battle. Anyone feel like trying this out?

Ulfbjorn

In the intrest of stoping this silly topic.

Amalric Unomen · Post by **Amalric Unomen** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 8:59 pm

Ulfbjorn, counted blows might be realistic if we had really large numbers of archers all with 24 arrows in their quivers. As long as the numbers are low and there is no rain of arrows, one hit one kill seems a reasonable simulation. At Agincourt there must have been about 150000 arrows fired off, against a force of 10000 French in the forward battle one arrow in about a hundred would need to find a seam, visorless face, or an area only deffended by mail to compromise French morale and shatter their ranks. How many men at arms had visors and could afford full plate, maybe dukes and counts should be proof only. It would seem that splinted armour would be much less protective, and someone shot in the arm or leg could bleed to death or at least be incapacitated.

------------------

"Heads up, by God! Those are bullets - not turds!" Colonel Lepic

Ulfbjorn · Post by **Ulfbjorn** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:15 pm

first I personally have no problems with the current system. But as many gentles here have so painstakingly pointed out it isn't really very realistic. I suggested this as a compromise and an interesting experiment. Besides many on this board expound the greatness of the counted blow system. This just seems to be a logical continuation of the idea that the one shot kill didn't happen.

Egfroth · Post by **Egfroth** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 3:56 am

Aren't we getting a little off the subject of the thread?

------------------
Egfroth

"I can't help it. I was BORN sneering" - Pooh Bah
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 9:08 am

Egfroth- Wth this bunch...are you Surprised?????

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:47 am

amalric: "Ulfbjorn, counted blows might be realistic if we had really large numbers of archers all with 24 arrows in their quivers. As long as the numbers are low and there is no rain of arrows, one hit one kill seems a reasonable simulation."

Your argument would only stand if we had the thousands of horses and more lightly armored levies to die regrettable deaths while leaving the knights relatively unscathed. As I've explained before, even if you are playing "nobles at war", we only have nobles on the battlefield and we should assume that our armor is the most effective against the archery of our chosen eras. Since the nobility accounted for only a small percentage of the total force, then it could be argued that the number of arrows we use is representative of what any one knight might have faced historically.

This said, we should consider that the risk to the knight should also be representative and acknowledge only those blows that we -know- would work -- namely, arrows to unprotected targets. As much as the heroic 'arrow through the breastplate' might appeal to our romantic senses, it was at best notable by its exception. The overwhelming evidence we do have is that the unfortunate few knights who left up their visors or entered battle sans armor were tragically slain. I believe this would help restore a modern parity on the SCA battlefield while retaining a distinctly â€“noble- medieval element to our game. And even if knights like Rhys would die far less frequently to the well-placed arrow shot, I might hazard that the anguish of his final screams would be that much sweeter to the ears of the earnest bowman.

With regards,

-cheval-

[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 03-23-2002).]

DanNV · Post by **DanNV** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 1:06 pm

This said, we should consider that the risk to the knight should also be representative and acknowledge only those blows that we -know- would work -- namely, arrows to unprotected targets.

This is basically how the rules in the West work. Plate is considered proof against arrows. (Plate for this is defined as a min 18 ga steel [no or equvalent on this one] at least 16 square inches in surface area.) The rule for steel helps encourage period materials for armor. The plate as proof rule gives the effect of the better armored person only being "killed" by arrows that hit in unprotected areas. And, as a bonus from where I'm standing it penalises the "pad boys" by letting then get "killed" by most of the arrows that actually hit them.

Dan

Amalric Unomen · Post by **Amalric Unomen** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 3:07 am

Cheval, I agree that the simulation is poor without horses, but a given knight would face as many arrows as any given footman. The Fench knights in the forward battle at Agincourt would be under the same rain of arrows, 100 or more at least. Perhaps we should test archery effectiveness by having someone in full plate walk through a beaten zone covered by 100 archers. Every strike to an unarmoured area or an area only covered by mail, counting as a kill. This effective factor could be extrapolated to the number of archers available and the number of arrows they are allowed. Then we could determine counted blows accordingly. We cannot do five because finger gaunts are not legal and how will I keep count.

------------------

"Heads up, by God! Those are bullets - not turds!" Colonel Lepic

Stosh · Post by **Stosh** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 3:31 pm

Does any one have a timeline conserning armour thickness and type vs bow strength and type? It might give us a better look at arrow vs armour and get us away from "lumping" armour type. (My cannon can destroy your punny car!!!!!) ( oh yea my tank is impervious to your pea shooter!!!)

I dont believe its a one way battle( all or nothing), but since, I'm not an expert and have not studied the subject extensively, I not going to "shoot" my mouth off. I find commons since to sometimes be not too common.

Stosh

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:18 am

I guess it's time to post this again. This is written by an Englishman standing among the longbowmen at Poitiers. If anything, he's going to be biased *for* the archers, right?

From an English chronicle of the Battle of Poitiers :

"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.."

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:17 am

"The con-archers (mostly knights I notice) refuse to admit that the archers were effective at all and it just didn't happen that way either. "

No, that was never said.
READ the posts.
Everyone has said archery WAS effective, just not against the armored nobles, which is WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED to be.

And, for the record, I am not a knight.

What IS being said is that if you are armored properly (as we're all assumed to be) arrows aren't much cause for concern except in the face if it's unprotected.

It's the people seeking instant gratification instead of working to improve their prowess who gain the advantage in the system we have now.

THAT is the issue.

One can buy a bow, and after a FEW HOURS of practice, "best" (If one can even consider that an appropriate term....) someone with vastly superior fighting skill.

All the while standing out of weapons range.

The CA evil started out innocently enough.......

Remember when all they wanted was "to just be treated like everybody else"?

But they didn't want to get hit.
So, now, in some places, kingdoms have had to muster enough spine to issue decrees that, in effect, FORCE the CA's to play by the rules that the rest of us play by.

Because they certainly didn't volunteer, did they?
No, they wanted to be special.

Then their weapons came into question....
They felt theirs didn't need to meet SCA standards.
Once again, they DIDN'T want to be treated like everybody else, they wanted to be special.
Everybody elses weapons wouldn't fit through an eyeslot/bargrill.....
"Waaaaa waaaa waaaaa" cried the archers....
"Change YOUR stuff, not OURS, screen your helms! We don't CARE what the archer/fighter ratio is!"

So a ruling had to be forced on them, because they certainly didn't volunteer, did they?
No, they wanted to be special.

So, not only do they want to be treated differently, they also want their butt kissed and to be told how much everyone appreciates their being there.

I refuse to do that.

VvS

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 11:16 pm

Wow Vermin. That was pretty good.

The only problem is, Jerry Lewis is doing a telethon for what he calls Jerry's Archers. So they should be able to afford to lobby for their special interest group more effectively from now on...

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 12:07 pm

(grin)

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 12:25 pm

(grin)

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 7:15 am

A bit more documentation to show the defeat of armour by arrows, in this case crossbow bolts. From: European Crossbows: A Survey by Josef Alm, translated by H Bartlett Wells, edited by G M Wilson - Royal Armouries Monograph 3, page 52:

"Dale bolts were effective weapons. The Karl Chronicle says of the peasants who served as mounted crossbowmen in Karl Knutsson's Skane campaign of 1452: truly their Dale bolts were so sharp that they went through both horse and man (59:295). By Karl Knutsson's order each man was to carry a crossbow and eight dozen bolts (49:635).

Olas Magnus has the same high opinion of these bolts as the karl Chronicle. He reports them as being made half of iron, half of wood, and a hand's breadth and a half long, which is too short. Magnus says that the Goths carried this sort of bolt on their campaigns by the thousands, and that they were not shot point-blank at cavalry, but instead diagonally upward, so that they struck downward from above like a hailstorm (figure 32).^65 They either struck through helmets and harness and killed or wounded the horsemen, or struck the horse in the head or back, drove it wild and redered it uncontrollable. If the bolts missed their mark and stuck in the ground, once the wooden shaft had been trodden off the sharp tang could pierce a horse's hoof making it lame and useless (70:43-44).

(65) - Goths here means the inhabitants of Gotaland, Southern Sweden. Olas Magnus was himself a Goth from Ostergotland.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Steve -SoFC- (edited 03-27-2002).]

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 8:19 am

Steve,

I mean absolutely no offense by this, so don't take any, OK?

What you've provided us is secondary sources material interpreted by scholars. That's all well and good in and of itself.

However, do you have the primary sources material for their conclusions? Is it based on the testimony of soldiers or monks, those present at the battle or not, etc., etc.

I'd be honestly interested to know.

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 5:27 pm

None taken, Bob, I knew that would come up when I posted it.

I don't have any primary documentation for archery kiling armoured noblemen - yet.

For the record, I don't think it's necessary. I think there is enough ancillary evidence in this thread alone to conclude that noblemen died from archery fire, and likely while wearing armour.

The immediately preceeding post is not primary documentation. But it is a Royal Armouries publication, which should lend some degree of credibility to it.

My personal feeling at this point is that "noble" armour probably provided some degree of protection against archery, but did not make one impervious to it.

The relevance of this post goes to the concept of "plate is proof" (or more generally, "noble" armour is proof) with respect to arrows in SCA combat.

I still lean towards the idea that noble armour was pretty effective against archery, but I am not yet convinced that it was so overwhelmingly good a defense against it to merit a "proof" rule in SCA combat.

In fact, I was nearly convinced, based on everyone's postings here, that armoured nobles simply didn't die from arrow fire, and I posted to that effect on the Meridien Archer's list, where I was met with many posts to the contrary.

In summary, there is no doubt in my mind that some noblemen died as a result of arrows penetrating their armour. Is there anyone here who still disputes that? To me, the real question now is, "how common an occurance was it?"

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 8:51 pm

Since this has strayed into SCA territory, I'm having a problem understanding this statement:

The relevance of this post goes to the concept of "plate is proof" (or more generally, "noble" armour is proof) with respect to arrows in SCA combat.

Do you mean that if one is an SCA knight/count/duke, one is immune to archery, regardless if one is wearing plastic or sports gear, or would I (a total nobody) be immune if I was wearing my 1450 Milanese harness? Is it the armour, or the person's opinion of himself and his standing in the SCA?

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 7:19 am

"Do you mean that if one is an SCA knight/count/duke, one is immune to archery, regardless if one is wearing plastic or sports gear, or would I (a total nobody) be immune if I was wearing my 1450 Milanese harness? Is it the armour, or the person's opinion of himself and his standing in the SCA?"

No, though I can understand your confusion; everyone on the archery email list mis-interpreted it, too.

When I say "noble" armour, as opposed to "plate" armour, I am not directly referring to the social status (re-enacted or SCA rank) of the wearer.

I simply mean "state-of-the-art armour that would be expected to be worn by a nobleman".

The anti-archery arguement goes that we are all presumed to be nobles, thus everyone on the field should be armoured accordingly. And such armour is proof against arrows (so the argument goes).

The reason why I am have expanded "plate is proof" to "noble armour is proof" is that there are many SCA personas who are in the wrong time period for plate armour. In fact, all SCA fighters are supposedly presumed to be wearing maille with a conical helm. If I were to support the "noble armour is proof against arrows" stance, it would be from the ground that noble armour of any given time period was reasonable protection against archery of the same time period.

To simplify, I specify "noble" instead of "plate" so as not to exclude everyone who has a very knightly kit but does not wear plate armour.

So if I were going to have a "noble armour is proof" rule I would make it so that if you were really armoured like a noble from your time period, you would be immune to archery. If, on the other hand, you are armoured in the standard SCA minimal you would not be.

Some may claim that SCA minimal is noble armour for some cultures. Perhaps. But I think since we are all presumed to be wearing maille, and that maille dates to at least 300 B.C., even the earliest personas ought to wear a hauberk if they want to claim "noble armour" status.

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

[This message has been edited by Steve -SoFC- (edited 03-28-2002).]

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 8:05 am

Steve,

I'm willing to be reasonable, and completely understand your "how common was it?" approach to the effectiveness of armor against arrows.

Now, I'm still waiting for the one example to get started, let alone dozens. I have very detailed accounts from chronicles on how a lance (very seldom - two in Usamah ibn Munquidh's entire chronicle) went through a hauberk. It describes whether it hit the man or no, or whether it unhorsed him without breaking his hauberk.

I have chronicle evidence of a very hard axe blow hitting someone is a 12th century helmet and causing unconsciousness (Battle of Lincoln - then he got up after the battle and caused trouble for many a year).

I have arrows through the eyeslot, arrows sticking out of padded coats without harming the wearer, arrows causing multiple minor wounds (but not fight-stopping) while wearing maille, and longbow arrows being shattered and redirected by transitional armor without doing any damage.

I'm just looking for the indication that arrows caused the death of armored men in any numbers at all. It seems to me more died falling from their horses and breaking their necks than did from archery. The chronicle evidence (or lack of it) would indicate that if it did happen it was a very, very rare thing. So why create a norm in a group espousing the recreation of Medieval Armed Combat that does not reflect that in the least.

I'm not a close-minded jerk. I just really want to know, and want to see the evidence from the primary sources.

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

corbin skarlocke · Post by **corbin skarlocke** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 10:36 am

As some ancillary evidence of the effectiveness of the longbow against transitional armour. I was reading about the battle of Crecy, the french lost 1400 men at arms and nobles to slightly over a hundred english dead. If armour so effectively checkmates arrow fire as some would have us believe, we are left assuming that the english men at arms killed 14 frenchmen to every dead englishmen roughly. Im an Anglophile but I find that a little hard to believe

.

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 1:08 pm

It seems to me more died falling from their horses and breaking their necks than did from archery.

I think we need to look at the suffocation deaths more from the perspective of the formation of the battles. If you have a line of knights, say 20 wide, and behind & inbetween them another line of twenty, for, say five rows, for a total of one hundred men charging, and you get hit with a rain of arrows, what is going to happen to the guy eight from the right in the second row? His horse goes down, and he falls to the right or to the left, only to be run over by the following lines. They, in turn fall to arrows or trip on thrashing horses, causing the first fallen to either be crushed, or be trapped for enough time under perhaps thousands of pounds until they suffocate, not from the mud or water, as is normally assumed, but more like being caught by a python or anaconda. The archery didn't kill the knights, but was directly responsible for causing their deaths, and was therefore effective against fully armoured heavy cavalry.

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 3:58 pm

Corbin,

Longbows en masse are very effective - at compacting formations and causing mayhem - not at killing armored individuals outright. That's if we're following the evidence and the current scholarship on the use of the weapon in the 100 year's war. Everyone has simply assumed they must have died from arrows when there is not proof they did. It was a very effective weapon, but for a different reason than is popularly thought.

Bascot,

Arrows were not that effective, except in formation manipulation, against *fully armored* cavalry. The first 300 knights that crossed the field at Agincourt had armoured horses, and they weren't being tripped up and mowed down.

According to the evidence and the advice from various treatises such as the Speculum Regalae, there were a lot more armored horses out there than people think. Richard I captured some 70 horses with full maille caparisons during a small skirmish in Anjou. What can be said of even larger battles.

I'm still looking for that primary evidence. I understand speculating, and some of it is quite logical, but I want to follow it up with primary evidence. Let's dig in and find some. That will be what needs to be provided to convince people of the cause.

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:43 pm

Archers aren't effective except against massed cavalry? Tell that to Crassus' legions at Carrhae. Massed infantry, all wearing mail. 30,000 killed.

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

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:15 pm

Hi Bob,

There is exactly one example of 15th century plate armour documentable having been pierced by an arrow. It is a letter form Sir John Paston, to his mother, dated a week post the Battle of Barnet (1471). He describes how he was injured by an arrow penetrating his vambrace, and asking her to send money to him, as he had none and was in hiding unable to get more (he was on the losing side and in danger of recieving a writ of attainder).

The initial wound itself was minor, but his life was in danger due to infection, and he owed a sum of money to the surgeon who was attending him. He was able to strip off his armour and flee the battle successfully (he had no servant with him, something he complained bitterly about), so the wound couldn't have been that debilitating.

This matches up with the Royal Armouries tests and conclusions, that only limbs/extremities of a hosting harness of the 15th century were vulnerable to outright penetration, and then not likely to a depth to cause a debilitating wound.

It is telling that the Towton casualties show no evidence of wounds to anything other than their limbs or heads. The forensic evidence suggests they were likely wearing torso protection, but being (mostly) archers, their limbs were exposed. They attribute the hideaous multiple heads wounds to the probability of the fugitives casting off their helmets while fleeing the battlefield - being something easy to remove while running (given the distance of the grave pit from the battle, and the location in the middle of the probable pattern of flight of the Lancastrian army. They currently attribute the head wounds to probably being inflicted by horsemen pursuing - the custom for English armies of the day was to keep a small reserve of mounted men at arms to exploit gaps as an enemy battleline crumbled, and to pursue the defeated and to turn defeat to rout.

One of the two brigandines I am patterning mine after bears damage from an arrow (rear waist plate I believe) where the first plate was penetrated but the second underlying plate stopped the arrow. Brigandines are much lighter than cuirasses of the era (@1470).

Hope this helps.

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

Jean Paul de Sens · Post by **Jean Paul de Sens** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:30 pm

Gotta say I love this discussion. I'm learning a lot. I currently don't have time for dedicated scholarship, but I do humbly recognize and appreciate that of those posting here on the board, particulary chef, bob, and Steve of Forth Castle.

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:34 pm

Hi DanNV,

The skullcap (for that is what it is, it is in the Higgins collection, and I have personaly handled it) that was penetrated by three "arrows" is a cap of the lightest form. It was a product (one of thousands of such items) of the Missaglia shops, and an item of low quality. If it weighed as much as three pounds, then I weigh only three pounds. The cap was found in the dry moat of an Italian town early last century.

The speculation is the cap was pierced by crossbow bolts - from the inside, the penetrations occuring in all probability when the luckless soul wearing it stuck his head over the town walls during a siege and got popped simultaniously by three snipers - up through the chin and into the brainpan.

The projectiles did not "blow through" even this light an armour (admittedly, they were probably slowed considerably by the mans skull and grey matter), rather, only the tips of the heads penetrated - the holes are quite small. Bashford Dean put three crossbow bolt heads (real 15th century ones) on some shafts, and set up a "diorama" with projectiles near identical to the originals (from the shape of the holes) sitting in the holes with shafts connected. The hat was sitting on a simple helmet stand, nothing elaborite like a skull. The presentation was long ago dissasembled, and the cap sits on a shelf in the reserve collection. A photo of the helmet can be seen in the 1961 Higgins Museum catalog.

It really isn't a helpful bit of evidence for the pro archery side, given a careful examination.

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

DanNV · Post by **DanNV** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 7:33 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Hi DanNV,

The skullcap (for that is what it is, it is in the Higgins collection, and I have personaly handled it) that was penetrated by three "arrows" is a cap of the lightest form. It was a product (one of thousands of such items) of the Missaglia shops, and an item of low quality. If it weighed as much as three pounds, then I weigh only three pounds. The cap was found in the dry moat of an Italian town early last century.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(snip cool info)

Thanks. All I remember is a small picture in one of my many books.

There is also a bascinet with what looks to be a square hole, probably from a cross bow bolt, that is reputadly a helmet worn by Joan od Arc. (Another small pic in one of my books.)

Dan