Perhaps, arrows rarely pierced plate, but that does not mean they did not kill knights and men at arms. The Froissart illustrations though wrong for 14c. still show many men without face protection. Also many 14c. brasses and effigies show no indication of a visor attachment, but some have the flip up nasal, I do not imagine this was worn with a visor. Also early in the 14th many knights are shown with splinted limbs which is eventually eliminated, seems reasonable this was done to improve protection against missiles rather than hand weapons or just a matter of style. Gutter vambraces would be sufficient if mail were truly enough protection against arrows.
Do we know how many individuals were killed in any manner, how many were killed by miseriocord? If arrows regularly entered eye slots and did no damage would chroniclers have bothered to mention it.
As city militias learned through experiece that they could defeat cavalry if they maintained order, they became more confident. Why would knights who had been under arrow showers and learned they were impervious allow archery to effect there movement in subsequent engagements?
------------------
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Heads up, by God! Those are bullets - not turds!" Colonel Lepic</font>
Regarding the 14th century effigies. How do we know that the lack of a visor is not an artistic convention in this case? Most illuminations of western European noblemen in combat show them with visored helmets. It was important to depict the nobleman on his tomb at the "perfect" age of 33, and usually an ideal of masculine beauty at the time, rather than an actual picture of the person (note the facial similarities on most 14th century effigies).
If you take evidence of pictures without knowing some of the societal nuances of a culture, you can often draw an incorrect conclusion from pictoral evidence.
Chef, you could be quite correct and the absence of visors is an artistic convention. OTOH vervelles are depicted rather clearly so the artists had some familiarity with actual armour. Many small details of ornamentation are represented. They could have shown visors flipped up, or the center hinges. If the bascinet was worn under the great helm would there be any visor? As the great helm was discarded then the visor becomes necessary, but did all knights add the visor immeadiately? Not everyone would have made the changes simultaneously. Therefore there would have been varying levels of protection and varying risk.
I understand what you're saying about the possibility of being hit in the unprotected face by an arrow.
Two things. 1) Why show a knight you want to identify on an effigy with a visor on? And, aren't their heads lying on their great heaumes in many of those effigies? 2) being hit in the open face with an arrow (or through an ocularium) is not being struck through your armor.
Chef's example of the arm wound is more in keeping with what I've found in the chronicles, even from the age of maille, concerning wounds from arrows for those who were actually wounded.
Cavalry formations (and infantry formations) are manipulated not by the piercing of the arrows, but by their impact on the individuals. Chronicles from the age of maille, such as the 12th century attack on the gate of the city of Bruges, speak of those in a hauberk suffering "many bruises" from the arrows, but no one being killed in that entire assault. The impact of the arrows is like being slugged by someone. After four or five you seek the shelter of your friends, so that they get slugged instead of you. Pretty soon you're all packed together with your weapons vertical. Then you're an easy target for anyone. This is when the archers at Agincourt cast down their bows and picked up hand weapons to attack the flanks of the compressed column of French men-at-arms. If arrows were killing them, then why close at all?
So, yes they are effective weapons. They are not effective because they slaughter, but because they can re-shape an entire formation of attackers, and there is always the threat of a wound. Combine these two (impact and threat of wound) and the result is dramatic.
------------------ Bob Charron St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
chef said It was important to depict the nobleman on his tomb at the "perfect" age of 33, and usually an ideal of masculine beauty at the time, rather than an actual picture of the person (note the facial similarities on most 14th century effigies).
I thought it was because they were all related! ;^)
I guess it's finally time to weigh in. I curious as to why people believe that a weapon has to be deadly to be effective. In an anachronistic example, the sherman tank of WWII was not able to kill panther and tiger tanks frontally. This did not stop the US Army from deploying tens of thousands of them and just accepting that 10 would be destroyed while they outflanked the each german tank.
Back to point, you have to look at combat psychology. While killing wounds would be rare, very minor wounds probably numbered into the thousands. Arrow puncture wounds were very likely to become infected and were probably very scary. English archers were accused (and some probably did) of dipping the arrow tips in excrement. In all times being wounded is a decent justification for retreating for "treatment." This stream of wounded to the rear would have a severe effect on morale and many would join the rout.
As for that 14 to 1 kill ratio at Crecy, there are a few points to look at. many casualty figures include the "missing", this number often includes prisoners and those who ran to quickly to be counted or identified. No one retreats with banners waving and trumpets blaring, cowards want anonimity.
The real effect of the archery was to disrupt the formation of an attack. Until the actual closing to melee, only a small percentage of those that started the charge had the courage or foolishness to continue the charge as a rabble. The French at Crecy charged piecemeal, I beleive it was 14 seperate charges. If you charge in small groups you will suffer disproportionate casualties. Imagine fighting 200 versus 50 but the 200 charge 20 at a time.
Many minor wounds, resulting in infection makes sense. I think it is a combination of unprotected faces, mail failing to stop arrows, some deffective plate or poorly repaired olate, and bad luck resulting in casualties under the arrow storm. Some seem to suggest that if you are properly armoured you can laugh at arrows and ignore them, however this is not what happened in period. It seems odd that men who would engage in tournaments would be so cowed by arrows that just bruised them. Thundering cavalry is probably as terrifying as an arrow storm, and yet most infantry learns to stand firm. To just bunch up because you are being bruised seems unreasonable, there must have beeen more than a notional risk of being injured. Also the case of the assault in mail without anyone being killed by arrows sounds like an exception. if arrows rarely killed anyone then why mention that in a given assault no one was hurt. Why record the unremarkable.
The point you are missing is that these men (the French at Crecy) were not "cowering" at all. Neither of us having been in an arrow storm that literaly could block out the sun for a few seconds (say, 10,000 archers simultaneously firing through 24 arrows apeice over the course of a minute). To ignore the psychological impact of such an 'event' on the morale of even the best trained fighting men is to betray an ignorance of ever having fought for ones life for real in the course of a battle. In short, you or I haven't a damned clueabout the impact of such a thing on morale, and it is arrogant to presume we do.
Having been shot at exactly once for real (a hunting "incident" - I won't call it an accident as the hunters shot at me intentionaly, being loaded to the point of barely being able to stand, and in that state thinking it a "good joke" to shoot at the hiker.....), I can say it is an unnerving experience at best (I dropped to the ground, and low crawled away - one of the bastards put a bullet a few inches over my head, from the impact in the tree I was standing directly in front of when they let go at me). I have grown up around guns, have fired them enthusiasticaly, and look at them as a tool, and have no unreasoning fear of them.
Even the best trained troops can freeze in combat when fired upon at first in earnest - bunching together and still going forward to fight is NO sign of cowardice, a coward would run away. Bunching together is still a natural reaction however, and the modern army strives to train the tendancy out of the troops (remember one of the "ten commandments" of the first army - "disperse thyselves, or one round will finish thee all" - my favority, next to "hide thy commo wires, for fly swatters groweth not in yon woods").
There is no comparison to actual combat archery, and any tournament experiance cannot compare to an arrow storm, any more than having a dozen combat archers sniping at you with golf tube arrows. To think your reaction might be better than the actual participants (and I'm not accusing you of that here) is as ignorant as the worst redneck trailer park Confederates at modern reenactments (note - they aren't all this way), who seem to think they could do a better job at Pickets charge than Great Granddaddy (most of whom's great grandaddys weren't even in this country during the war).
One factor most ignore is the reaction of horses to the arrow storm. A few minor wounds from flight arrows would turn the critter into an unmanagable, frenzied projectile - going off in any unpredicatble direction, with the rider unable to control it. A few such incidents would break up a cavalry formation, rendering them ineffective.
But then again, horses don't fit into most modern peoples equation, nor their limitations.
Chef, I think you misunderstand me. I do believe that the infantry did bunch up under the arrow storm, it is a coomon enough practise when troops are under fire. It is my contention though that the arrows had to do some real damage, inflict some casualties. The arrow storm is not unending, if when it let up there were no casualties, I would expect an enormous morale boost. Some have written that they should be able to ignore archery as there armour renders them invulnerable. I am merely extrapolating from the events. The bow was a dominant weapon system. It effected the tactics of other arms, The infantry bunched up under fire, infantry that expected to exchange hand blows. The infantry never seems to have adopted field tactics to deal with the archers. Taking these factors together it is my surmise that the arrows did real damage, not heavy casualties, but enough for experienced troops to still have a reasonable fear of it. Just as an example at Agincourt the arrows would inflict something like 1500 serious injuries. I realize there is no direct evidence for this, perhaps even fewer casualties might be enough to sap the french will to fight. I just cannot believe the arrows tailed off leaving the French unscathed save for bruises and a very occasional minor wound. historically troops who expect to suffer heavy
The "troops" did indeed suffer heavily - the infantrymen not wearing a full harness would be mown down like ripe wheat. People forget only 10% of a late Medieval host would be wearing a hosting harness. You could have concievably inflicted 90% casualties on the French Army without killing a single nobleman in plate. Since troopps statisticaly break and run when the casualty rate reaches above 30% in a single engagement (there are exceptions, but that is the norm. To give an exception, the 12th Mass in Millers Cornfield at Antietem marched straight into one of the worst killing zones of musketry prior to WWI, and recieved 80% casualties, and while the remmanents withdrew, they withdrew in order with the colours).
A mounted man at a canter can have his horse brought down, and break his neck without ever recieving an arrow wound. A man that doesn't break his neck falling from a dead mount in the middle of a formation can be trampled to death, or suffocated under his horse - the horses suffered terribly. One of the occurances at Crecy was French cavalry being rendered useless when their lightly armoured and completely unarmoured horses were maddened by painful but not fatal wounds from flight arrows. This long range harrassment archery broke up cavalry charges without ever killing very many people or horses at all.
In direct contrast is the two French forlorn hopes attacking mounted at Agincourt. These few hundred men rode directly through an arrow storm, and with better armour than their Great Grandfathers, and having armoured mounts with horse armour worth a damn, the entire force made it to contact with the English line, without suffering a casualty. The English were so stunned, that they made commentary on it in their chronicles after the battle. The first casualties in that mounted charge were incurred running the horses onto stakes as they tried to engage, and unfortunately for the French, the force that reached the English lines was both too small to make much of an impact, and was disorganized, so accomplished nothing beyond running themselves onto field defences, or trying to engage the dismounted men at arms in formation as individuals and being struck down for their pains.
The English themselves comment that most of the bodies had nary a mark on them, but apparently suffocated in the press. If you actually study Agincourt, and you take a look at the length of the English battleline, and the numbers of the French host, they had to clump together to fit into the available space as they closed with the English.
Agincourt is one of the best documented battles of the Hundred years war, and you will find little evidence to support your position in the documentation of the time. The French, wearing early full "white harness", over full hauberks (not knowing any better) were wearing the heaviest armoures devised until musket proof suits came along. There is some indication that much armour was not hardened on these early suits, and that it was made thicker than it might need to have been, specificaly to make them "proof". Add a long, crowded walk through a muddy churned up field (any of you ever walk though a pasture where horses have been milling and running after a rainstorm? You can break your ankle in a good pair of modern boots), and the psycological effects of the arrow storm, and your mates crowding around you to the point you can't lift your arms or swing your weapons. Then you slip in the mid and can't get up (wonder how many that happened to?), and you are suffocated as people pass over you.
Yes, the English archers did execution at Agincourt - mostly with two handed mauls as they dropped helpless French men at arms like so many clubbed baby harp seals. The evidence is plainly written, for those who bother to read it instead of relying on pre-concieved notions based on 19th century jingoisim.
Too many men attacked on too narrow a front. If the French had enough armoured horses for even half of their host, and given the direct evidence of the forlorn hope and it's fate, they might well have been able to bull their way right through the English line. The chief effects of the bowmen were as horse killers, and here we have evidence of improved technology to render the horses relatively immune.
If the French had tried that, then we all might be arguing about the unrivaled effectiveness of the mounted man at arms until the 16th century, with Crecy and Poitiers being exceptions to the rule, and I would be arguing for the battlefield effectiveness of the bowman in the capacity above, and the lot of you would be laughing at me.
Speaking of Poiters. The Black Prince's forces seemed to have fewer than the 2/3s archers to men at arms the english usually favored and seemed to have had a rougher time for it.
King Johns opening move was to send 300 chosen knights (mounted) to deal with the english archers under Marshals De Clermont and d'Audrehem. They were to exploit a hole in the make shift defenses that allowed four horsemen to ride abreast. The english archers arrow fire was so fierce as to drive off the french knights. Clermont was killed by english knights who came from behind the hedges and attacked after the arrow storm, DAudrehem was captured.
The second french battle under the Dauphin consisted of 4000 men at arms. At the suggestion of a Scot's knight, William Douglas, this battle was to be afoot in their heavy armour. The french advanced to the english lines and attacked so fiercly that the Black Prince had to throw everything into the fray save a tiny reserve of 400 picked men. The english finally repelled the french attack but were badly shaken. " Some of our troops laid their wounded under bushes and hedges out of the way, others having broken their own weapons took spears and swords from the bodies of the men they had killed, WHILE ARCHERS EVEN PULLED ARROWS OUT OF THE WOUNDED WHO WERE ONLY HALF DEAD" (my emphasis)
The french battle was described as "men at arms", who marched in their "heavy armour". Some of who, were at least wounded by arrows. Respectfully, CS
While your scholarship is commendable, part of the purpose of "living history" is to work past the broadly-painted scope of the traditional military scholar and seek out the details of how the described events played out at the individual level. In specific, this is why Chef and Bob Charron are citing primary accounts relating how individual soldiers may or may not have been affected by archery. Your account is tertiary -- a recitation of another scholar's interpretation -- and, while it is consistent with all that I have read, it lacks the provenence that a primary source provides. The question raised is whether or not a knight accoutered in the full panoply of his day was virtually immune to arrows. The data you provide, interesting as it may be, does not contribute one way or the other to our understanding of the specific issue under discussion.
Topic: documentation of armour being defeated by arrows.
That is the question. The bar was raised to "are fully armored knights, in state of the art full plate immune to archery fire?", and then to "while they may take wounds in the limbs, are their torsos and heads invulnerable except for a lucky shot through the eye slots?"
In modern terms, the bar has been raised to asking if a man wearing Hard Core 4 protection threatened by a person shooting him with a standard pistol round that aims at the ceramic plate reinforcement?"
The same sorts of chronicle evidence has been put forward for 12th century sources, and they concur that in the age of maille the result was the same.
True, there may have been some "thread creep" toward the 14th and 15th century, but the general question remains that if you are portraying nobles in armor, are those nobles in the main vulnerable to being taken out of the fight in numbers by arrows.
There is a great letter from the King of France in the 15th century ordering padded jackets of 24 layers of linen for his men. He says that never in his life has he heard of more than half a dozen men seriously wounded by arrow or sword while wearing one.
That's also telling concerning padded and quilted armors, and corroborates evidence from the 12th and 13th century concerning the effect of Moslem arrows on Christian infantry wearing padded armor.
The evidence is consistent throughout.
------------------ Bob Charron St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
"One of the arguments against Combat Archery has been that the armour worn by nobles would be proof against arrows" Cheval- as Alcyoneus stated, the above is the topic of this thread. I took some time to reply to your post because I was somewhat offended by its condescending tone. I hope it wasnt intentional since you are typically very informative and civil.
Primary sources regarding the Hundred Years War being notably lacking here in Texas I have quoted a passage from Desmond Leary's "The Hundred Years War". The salient passage I quoted verbatim, Mr. Leary having published it as an eyewitness account of the battle- a primary source. Id like to note that most research, at least in part, is based on the work of other scholars. If I am to be chided, chide me for not reciting my source. Dont chide me for quoting anothers work.
Regarding archery in regards to the SCA. The, for lack of a better term, anti-CA folks always quote the knight in full panalopy as the standard of measurement regarding the effectiveness of archery in the medieval battlefield. Even if we are willing to concede that top of the line armour was proof against archery (and Im not in the hundred years war- at least at Crecy and Poiters). The vast majority of men at arms are not going to be wearing it, not everyone is a Black Prince, Dauphin, or King John. Like the medieval battle field the SCA battlefield is not composed solely of fully armoured knights. Living history folks strive to portray the average, not the exceptional.
Corbin: "I took some time to reply to your post because I was somewhat offended by its condescending tone."
My apologies for any offence taken. While none was intended, I can see where some of what I wrote (particularly the last sentence) could be construed as condescending. Clearly, I may be losing some of my perspective *wry grin*....
Corbin: "I have quoted a passage from Desmond Leary's 'The Hundred Years War'... Mr. Leary having published it as an eyewitness account..."
I hope you're not saying that Mr. Leary claims to have been there *grin*!!
Actually, this illustrates my point very clearly. Mr. Leary is interpreting a primary source. That makes his book a secondary source. In this situation, we are limited to what Mr. Leary wants to tell us about his references, specifically as they apply to the message he wants to convey. My first guess is that this is not a book about living history, let alone a study of working archaeology.
Compare this to what Chef and Bob have offered. Theirs are actual, contemporary accounts of the effects of archery on heavily armored nobles across four hundred years. They speak to specific instances of individuals or small groups under attack by archery and the results. This evidence, at least, would have us rethink what benefit archery brought to the battlefield. It does not seem to be what killed the knights.
Corbin: "Id like to note that most research, at least in part, is based on the work of other scholars. If I am to be chided, chide me for not reciting my source. Dont chide me for quoting anothers work."
I never meant to chide you, only to offer a comparative between quoting a secondary source and a primary one, especially in light of the particular thread topic.
Corbin: "...folks always quote the knight in full panalopy as the standard of measurement regarding the effectiveness of archery in the medieval battlefield."
This is because according to our conventions, we are all of noble birth. This means we should be portraying -only- the "knight in full panoply". Anything else is inconsistent with our guidelines and should be introduced very carefully and with no small preparation (unlike CA).
Corbin: "Like the medieval battle field the SCA battlefield is not composed solely of fully armoured knights."
Actually, it is -- which is one reason why Rhys argues our battles are more like tourneys than wars. And even if we accept that our "wars" are really just slices of a medieval battle where groups of knights might have encountered one another amidst the greater host of non-noble combatants, we should still conduct ourselves as knights and craft our rules to reflect the advantage of our station -- not the least of which is that arrows would have had little effect against our armor.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval: <B>This is because according to our conventions, we are all of noble birth. This means we should be portraying -only- the "knight in full panoply". Anything else is inconsistent with our guidelines and should be introduced very carefully and with no small preparation (unlike CA).
Sincerely,
-cheval-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And the actual percentage of folks on the field wearing "the full panopoly" is?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Alcyoneus: And the actual percentage of folks on the field wearing "the full panopoly" is?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That depends upon the battle. It's a moot point, however, because we, in the SCA, are all supposed to be of the nobility, and would therefore be well armored.
------------------ Hugh Knight "Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I beg to differ, we are all supposed to be minor nobility- not knights. Armour was always expensive, good armour was very expensive. Not everyone drives a Ferrari and not every second son of a minor lord could afford a full panalopy. I assume you are a SCA knight, I think you really want to think about if you want to cheapen your station by saying we are all knights. CS.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by corbin skarlocke: <B>I beg to differ, we are all supposed to be minor nobility- not knights. Armour was always expensive, good armour was very expensive. Not everyone drives a Ferrari and not every second son of a minor lord could afford a full panalopy. I assume you are a SCA knight, I think you really want to think about if you want to cheapen your station by saying we are all knights. CS. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ummm... Minor nobility *were* the folks that could afford armor. Knights were the lowest class of minor nobility in period; just one more thing we got wrong.
I wish that when folks get authorized we would knight them at that point, and reserve the title "Lord" (or something similar) for knights as we mean the term.
In any case, all SCA fighters should be of a rank that could afford armor that was largely invulnerable to arrows.
------------------ Hugh Knight "Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I recall reading somewhere that the poorest knight in fifteenth century England made about 40 pounds per year. A good complete 'white harness' armour could be gotten for betweeen five and eight pounds. Hardly a crippling expense, IMO. I think that more or less complete armours were more common than we might think...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Alcyoneus: Wouldn't we also be invulnerable to swords at that point? (Or so I'm told... )</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes! Exactly! That's why, when you see manuals that show life-or-death combat they don't show swinging blows with swords (except on horseback), they show powerful thrusts with halfswording, and those thrusts are aimed not at the plate but at the gaps in the armor (e.g., armpit, palms, etc.). The powerful, swinging blows we use in the SCA belong only on the tournament field where you're not actually trying to hurt someone for real.
Even mail was really enough to stop most of a one-handed sword blow; I suspect that's why Betrand de Borne's poem talks about hacking "heads and arms"; those are te most vulnerable spots. A helm can't be cut, but you can cause severe damage through concussion, and arms are so susceptible to breakage.
------------------ Hugh Knight "Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I've always taken the bit about "assumed to be members of the nobility" as defining how we treat each other, not requiring that we portray ourselves as such. Play nice, don't snub the "little people", that kind of thing. We do a great many activies that the nobility of the High Middle Ages would not have sullied their hands with, such as (in my own case) brewing and vintning. They had people for that, you know. Besides, Corpora states (twice) "These activities recreate aspects of the life and culture of the landed nobility in Europe prior to 1600 CE". It doesn't actually say that WE are landed nobility, and, in fact, elsewhere states that the ONLY landed nobility within the SCA are the Crown, the Coronet, and Territorial Barons.
------------------ Owen "Death is but a doorway- Here, let me hold that for you"
Even more - It protects people from being treated poorly in the name of authenticity -
There are already jerks out there who believe that they are afforded some special privledge over other because they are a Knight/Laurel/Pelican/Baron/Count/Duke - etc.. Imagine these same jerks being justified in their behavior becuase it is "historicly accurate."
But that wouldn't happen in a million years, right? [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Face it, much of the REAL Middle Ages was an era of "Might makes Right". The guy with the largest, meanest army usually got his way. This trickled own to the individual level as well.
We should treat each other better than that - which is why the emphasis for a peer should be RESPONSIBIlITY, not PRIVLEDGE. Which is why regaurdless of persona, experience, activity level, or area of interest in the SCA, we should always treat each other as Noble Kinsmen.
If we don't, why play?
Dilan
[This message has been edited by Irish (edited 04-02-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Irish: <B>believe that they are afforded some special privledge over other because they are a Knight/Laurel/Pelican/Baron/Count/Duke - etc.. Imagine these same jerks being justified in their behavior becuase it is "historicly accurate."
But that wouldn't happen in a million years, right? :rolls eyes:
Face it, much of the REAL Middle Ages was an era of "Might makes Right". The guy with the largest, meanest army usually got his way. This trickled own to the individual level as well.
We should treat each other better than that - which is why the emphasis for a peer should be RESPONSIBIlITY, not PRIVLEDGE. Which is why regaurdless of persona, experience, activity level, or area of interest in the SCA, we should always treat each other as Noble Kinsmen.
If we don't, why play?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am one of the jerks to whom you refer. Sorry, but I don't believe we're "all equal"; I treat those with greater rank than I deferentially, and expect the same from those with less rank. Otherwise, just exactly what connection do we have with medieval social customs?
We have to allow people to fight in blue jeans and pickle-barrell armor, we aren't allowed to reference the religion that was central to almost every aspect of the middle ages (and I'm talking about pretending here; I don't believe in those kinds of superstitions), and now we have to pretend that a great lord would have acted the equal of a lower-class knight?
Just what part of the middle ages *are* we allowed to play?
------------------ Hugh Knight "Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I thought I ought add a few "fun" bits of information regarding horses in combat, from primary documentation in the observations of my family members.
My Great Uncle Al was a driver in a field artillery battery in the First World War - service in the Artillery is a family tradition. From his experiences, and from information he had related to him by my Great Great uncle William first hand, who was a driver (chief driver of a limber - they rode on the horses, for those of you who think it's like driving a wagon, and had an offside horse to control as well) in the 3rd Mass, and then the 5th Mass battery.
The primary target of enemy infantry attacking an artillery battery, back in the day when it was truely a combat arm and the role was direct fire exclusively, was the horse team that drew the limber and guns. The reason for this is that if you kill the limber teams, you can't move the guns, and you imobilse the battery and can capture the guns.
The drivers job (there were three per limber, each controlling two of the six horses that drew in tandem) sucked - there is no other description for it. They were drawn up 30 yards to the rear of the guns, and they had to remain motionless and mounted in action - the biggest target in the world. It was their job to swing the limbers round the guns to hitch the guns up when the batttery was ordered to move, and they had to be able to do this in an instant. So in essence, you had to sit there and be shot at, and had no means of retaliation yourself (they carried pistols, and occassionaly sabers, but the pistols were primarily used to put a horse out of it's misery).
It was the observation of my kinsman, that a horse would absorb on average five minnie balls before falling over dead. My Great Great uncle was hotly engaged in a comparitively minor skirmish one day at a ford, and observed Confederate sharpshooters kill about 100 of the 130 horses belonging to his battery, and he noted their reactions while under fire. In essence, they behaved like they recieved a particularly nasty horse fly bite, and would nip at the wound after initial impact, and then would settle down, until the poor critter would be shot again, and repeat the action.
This is in direct contrast to their reaction to arrows - one of his GAR pals who went on to service on the frontier noted the reaction of horses being shot by arrows. A horse struck by an arrow tended to go wild - unlike the minne ball, where assuming the horse underwent similar experiences to men shot, after the inital pain, shock would dull the effects until later. The arrow sticks in the wound of course, and waggles about, and the horse can see it. Horses apparently go nuts when this occurs - even with a comparitively minor wound.
My Great Uncle Al had seen horses disemboweled by artillery fire continue to follow after their "herd", even after being cut out of the traces. I consider this to be pretty good information - my Great Uncle Al only died 5 years ago, and was as "sharp as a tack" and physicaly active till the day he died, aged 96, and he knew my great great uncle into young adulthood, when William passed away in the 20's.
Combining this more recent information, and comparing it to the English accounts of Crecy, it can be seen that the English archers did not have to do great execution to be extremely effective in stopping the French in their tracks. They would have had a tougher job of it armed with muskets.
I would go into Crecy and earlier English military experiences in more detail, but this post is long enough. If the topic persits, I'll delve into it. I thought it important to put the comparison between horses reactions to arrow wounds versus bullet wounds. Hossie can see the arrow - he can't see the bullet, and assumes it's his normal tormenter.
Wait a sec. You posted that you wanted everyone to be knighted upon authorization so we would all be knights. Now you post that you want to keep a social order? Can you clarify that position? Regards, CS
Corbin: "You posted that you wanted everyone to be knighted upon authorization so we would all be knights. Now you post that you want to keep a social order? Can you clarify that position?â€
Owen: "I've always taken the bit about ‘assumed to be members of the nobility’ as defining how we treat each other, not requiring that we portray ourselves as such.â€
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by corbin skarlocke: <B>Wait a sec. You posted that you wanted everyone to be knighted upon authorization so we would all be knights. Now you post that you want to keep a social order? Can you clarify that position? Regards, CS</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where's the conflict? I want to keep the social order, I just want the titles changed to more accurately reflect medieval usage.
------------------ Hugh Knight "Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
On CA, Something that may clarify this is to follow my reasoning process. Throughout the medieval period nobles wore armour that would "normally" prevent serious wounds from arrows. As missile fire became more effective the armour did also, keeping this status quo. Since SCA combat assumes everyone is a noble mearing maille, we are all mostly impervious to missile fire. If we are impervious to such missile fire why bother. To me that means we have to either accept that missile fire doesn't work against the SCA assumed standard or we allow missile fire and go to an armour as worn standard. If you are willing to wear a noble harness of maille or plate that should be impervious, if you get hit in unarmoured areas then it should wound you.
I think Sir Rhys and Cheval are missing the station of squires. They were the low end of the noble warrior class, though this station varied greatly thoughout our time periods. In the eleventh century their noble status might be questioned but the structure was more fluid also. By the hundred years war there is no doubt that squires were men of nobility that did not have the experience, renown, wealth, land, or connections to gain the accolade. At Agincourt the English men at arms were composed of about 100 knights and 900 squires. The wealth issue probably caused the large number of knightings on the eve of battle. A newly minted knight was often thrown into the first rank of battle and he could earn his renown, his wealth in ransoms, or his death. The fact that the accolade probably tripled his ransom would be enough to make most fight bravely.
As for SCA social structure as long as we claim all are of noble birth we should treat each other as such with the exception that our normal protocals of respect should be shown to our superiors and royalty. My personal opinion is that the SCA should abandon the noble birth clause in the charter. The members of the SCA have settled into many non-noble personas. There are thousands whose personas bear no relation to any member of the "landed nobility." I don't mean that we have serfs who will spend events tilling soil but we have merchants, artisans, militia, and mercenaries. I think we should modify the charter to recognize the reality and require that everyone act in a civilized and courteous manner. This would eliminate idiotic responses like the Master at Arms who defended his actions by claiming he does not have to be chivalrous because he is not a knight.
I've met and spoken with (a couple at length) a number of the people who founded the SCA. Irregardless of what may have been meant by the particular passages in Corpora, these were the kind of people who, if asked if you could be a peasant, would reply, "Sure, whatever". They are also people who would not be pleased with someone using the excuse of "period usage" to justify being discourtious to their SCA social "inferiors". They would find that most unacceptable. Deference to your "betters" is part of the game, demanding it from your "inferiors" isn't. Snubbing is right out.
As for CA and whether or not we fight wars; rant away. Hell, you might even be technically correct. But I think, in the long run, it'll be like King Canute railing at the waves. The ocean is pretty much going to ignore you, and your feet are gonna get wet.
------------------ Owen "Death is but a doorway- Here, let me hold that for you"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Owen: I've met and spoken with (a couple at length) a number of the people who founded the SCA. Irregardless of what may have been meant by the particular passages in Corpora, these were the kind of people who, if asked if you could be a peasant, would reply, "Sure, whatever". </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, we have to take what they gave us and build and improve it.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">are also people who would not be pleased with someone using the excuse of "period usage" to justify being discourtious to their SCA social "inferiors". They would find that most unacceptable. Deference to your "betters" is part of the game, demanding it from your "inferiors" isn't. Snubbing is right out.</font>
Who said anything abut snubbing our inferiors? And how do you define "discourteous"?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">and whether or not we fight wars; rant away. Hell, you might even be technically correct. But I think, in the long run, it'll be like King Canute railing at the waves. The ocean is pretty much going to ignore you, and your feet are gonna get wet.</font>
Well, at least you have the courage to admit you're arguing for something that's wrong; that's not a good thing, but it's better than those who choose to ignore the truth.
As for the ocean ignoring me, well, I suppose that I have to continue to push for the right thing regardless of how well the folks who don't get it (or who choose to ignore the right thing) receive that.
------------------ Hugh Knight "Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Please note that I said "you might be technically correct"; not "right", or that I thought I was wrong. The fact that many of us enjoy "wars" and CA and seige and the like, to me, IS enough reason to continue them.
------------------ Owen "Death is but a doorway- Here, let me hold that for you"
)