documentation of armour being defeated by arrows.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 7:59 pm

One of the arguments against Combat Archery has been that the armour worn by nobles would be proof against arrows, as there is no documentable proof of arrows defeating armour.

I brought this up on the Meridien Combat Archers' List, and these two excellent posts were made:

From: Bill McNutt [mailto:mcnutt@pobox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:40 PM
To: meridian-ca@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MCA] Re: Noblemen killed by Archers

Those are pretty good, Bri. Let's see what I got for you:

It was spring in 1356 when Edward the III cross the Channel to kick of the
100 Year's war. According to the descriptions of the time :a great army of
soldiers well appointed." Of this host of approximately twelve thousand,
there may have been as many as seven thousand archers.

Edward landed in Normandy and, after a bit of clueless wandering, headed
east, his destination: Calais. Blocked by a French force twice his size at
Rouen (they'd destroyed the bridge) Edward went to Abbeville, where he ran
into a second French army, blocking his passage across the Somme. He had to
engage at the ford or get caught between the two armies. Not a pretty
sight.

He withdrew to a nearby hillside and deployed his forces (stupidly). The
horsemen dismounted and drew up as three divisions of pikemen. At the foot
of the slope, both flanks were made up of additional dismounted men-at-arms.
In the center, with no shields, no pikes, or a pot to piss in, were
somewhere between three and seven thousand archers, each with a sheaf of
about 24 arrows, plus more piled in front of them. The ranks were staggered
to give each archer room to work. On one wing was on a low rise, where
there were some more archers.

The archers took advantage of the wait to dig small holes in front of them
to slow the advance of the French cavalry.

Pinned in by their own wings, the archers had no room for evasive action and
bet everything on the archers ability to stop the French cavalry before they
could be over-run.

In the late afternoon, (August 26, hey, that's War Weekend), a storm hit,
with heavy rain. After the weather cleared, the French crossbowmen advanced
and attached. Their volley fire failed to reach the English lines. Then
the Longbowmen opened up. According to Croissant, "They stepped forward one
pace and let fly their arrows so hotly and thick that is seemed snow." The
crossbowmen were slaughtered. It seems that the longbows had been unstrung
for the storm, and the bowstrings stayed dry. The crossbow strings, unable
to be shielded from the rain, stretched, and robbed the crossbowmen of the
power of their weapons.

The French cavalry rode over their own crossbowmen in a charge, but were
shattered by the arc of arrows the poured from the longbow men. By
nightfall, according to contemporary accounts, "one thousand, five hundred
noblemen dead on the field."

Historians call this the battle of Crecy, and it's a study of fantastic
archery and rotten generaling. Unless you are prepared to claim that those
1500 mounted French knights were all killed by dismounted English nobles and
men-at-arms, I think we have a historical event documenting noble armor
pierced by arrows.

Ten years later, the English were still not using longbows to the best of
their capacity, and the French were still attacking fortified positions with
cavalry at Poiters. The Black Prince was raiding with a small force of
about 7K armored knights, 3K infantry archers (longbows), and about 1K in
irregulars. John of France mustered what some accounts say was 20K men and
pinned the Black Prince down at Poiters. Following the pattern they set
early in the 100 Years war, and would not break until later, the French
again allowed the English almost an entire day to build field
fortifications. They prepared a battleground of thorn hedge, thickets, and
a shallow ditch. Somehow, they managed to provoke the French into rush on
the static position defended by three thousand longbows.

As a broken field isn't the best ground for a cavalry charge, the French
king had a lot of his Knights dismount and had them advance as armored
infantry. Slowed by their armor, they didn't advance quickly enough to suit
King John and he ordered his remaining cavalry to charge. With more than
140 pounds of barding, armor, and weapons, they moved slowly enough for the
archers concealed in the bushed to cut them to pieces. Then the line of
dismounted knights reached point-blank range, and were also cut down.

The French lost about twenty five hundred men. The English loss was
negligible. Unless I grossly misunderstand the type of armor the French
cavalry was wearing, I think that this is a valid example of noble armor
failing to the longbow.

My final effort tonight will be Agincourt, were contemporary accounts
indicate that Henry V met a French force of sixty thousand with a measly six
thousand. Again, the archers were exposed on the front line, with cavalry
on the flanks and a body of dismounted knights to the rear.

After two hours it became clear that the French planned to outwait the
English, who were low on rations. Henry send his bowmen forward to attack
the tightly packed French lines. The longbow men rained hot pointy death on
the French until the English cavalry smashed the front French line. Two
more charges, against the other two French battle lines broke them up
utterly, and then the cavalry withdrew, clearing the field for the archers
to slaughter almost at will. The French left six thousand dead at
Agincourt. The English, almost none.

It was on the strength of these three engagements that the English made
their reputation as bowmen.

Now, I suppose you could make the case that, since, as far as we know, no
French knights have been disinterred with arrows through their helms, all
those arrows just fell on horses, and the knights were actually killed by
other knights running up with mauls, swords, and maces at close quarters.

But I'm prone to see these three cases as battles wherein nobles wearing the
top of the line armor for the time, against archer of the time, died, and
not in isolated case, but in windrows.

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: broinnfhionn [mailto:broinnfhionn@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:48 PM
To: meridian-ca@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MCA] Re: Noblemen killed by Archers

Another example - earlier:

"Offirid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an
arrow, in a battle between the troops of that king and the united
armies of Mercians and Welsh, which was fought about the year 633,
near Hatfield, in Yorkshire." From "The Archer's Guide", by an Old
Toxophilite, 1833.

King James IV was also felled by an arrow through the chest in the
Battle of Flodden Field, 1513.

Another account from the pacification of the Welsh:

"It happened also in a battle, in the time of William de Breusa, as
he himself relates, that a Welshman having directed his arrow at a
horse-soldier who was clad in armour and had his leathern coat under
it, the arrows, besides piercing the man through the hip, struck also
through the saddle. and mortally wounded the horse on which he sat.
Another Welsh soldier, having shot an arrow at a horseman who was
covered with strong armour in the same manner, the shaft penetrated
through his hip, and fixed in the saddle; but what is most remarkable
is, that as the horseman drew his bridle aside to turn round, he
received another arrow in his hip on the opposite side, which,
passing through it, he was firmly fastened to the saddle on both
sides."

Records from the same battle indicate that arrows penetrated over 4"
into oaken doors - the points of which were dug out and saved as
souvenirs. This was during the reign of Henry II of England.

An account of the Battle of Halidownehill, 1402:

"The earl of Douglas, who commanded the Scottish army in that action,
enraged to see his men falling thick around him by showers of arrows,
and trusting to the goodness of his armour, which is reported to have
been three years in making, accompanied by about eighty lords,
knights, and gentlemen, in complete armour, rushed forward and
attacked the English archers sword in hand. But he had soon reason to
repent his temerity. The English arrows were so sharp and strong, and
discharged with so much force, that no armour could repel them. The
earl of Douglas, after receiving five wounds, was made prisoner; and
all his brave companions were either killed or taken."

Incidentally, the low tally of nobles killed by archery at Agincourt
has been attributed to the fact that the English archers expended
their arrows before the French nobility charged.

Still more to come.

Bri.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 8:52 pm

Sometimes your armour saved you from injury, sometimes it didn't. Why do we keep searching for these Absolutes? They do not exist.
All I know is being armoured is better than not being armoured, and people should gain an advantage for going along with the concept that (IN THE SCA) we are supposed to be acting as if the weapons are REAL.
-V

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 9:07 pm

Sorry, Steve, but none of the HYW references posted made any mention of the killing of knights being done by arrows. The Genoese crossbowmen were killed, yes, but there's every reason to believe they weren't as well armored as knights (though some may have been... presumably those whom the French rode down). But F's next line talks about the French charging, then about the disruption (yes, of course; arrows were very effective against horses!) of the charge, then he talks about the French dead... leaving out the fact that the French actually died to English Men At Arms, not to arrows.

The following quotes are from Devries, K., _Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century_:

P. 96: "The Earl [of Lancaster's] cavalry, when they tried to cross the water, could not enter it because of the numbers and density of arrows which the archers discharged into them and their horses. No one appears to have been killed by the archery assault (italics mine--HTK), but progress was slow and confused..."

P. 119: "It seems that most of the Scottish soldiers either wore no helmets or helmets unequipped with visors, and that the disinherited archers ... 'blinded and wounded the first division of the Scots by an incessant discharge of arrows'. This may have caused little death, but it so disrupted the Scots that their attacks fell on the infantry with disarray and confusion".

There are many, many more references like this. Bob Charron posted a number of them referring to early medieval battle in a previous thread.

Arrows could kill horses, could wound or kill men with no visors, could kill lightly-armored soldiers, could occasionally wound even a well-armed gentleman when a lucky shot hit a joint or an eyeslot, could force ment at arms to "bunch up" in a column to avoid the lucky shot I just mentioned and could disrupt morale. But you simply can't punch an arrow into good armor. Sorry.

Your friend said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Unless you are prepared to claim that those
1500 mounted French knights were all killed by dismounted English nobles and
men-at-arms, I think we have a historical event documenting noble armor
pierced by arrows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm prepared to claim *exactly* that; in fact, when you actually study it, no other conclusion is possible.

People inthis day of revisionist history like to make things up to aggrandize the "common man", but, in fact, this isn't the time for it.

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 9:10 pm

Oh, and by the way, your friend's comments about the poor generalship on the English side are just silly. The first phase of the HYW demonstrated the *brilliance* of the English generalship by the way they chose ground carefully, made the most of the combined arms concepts E III perfected, and by the command and control they exerted on the troops.

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

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:11 pm

I think by poor generals, he meant the French, not the English.

All of the experiments of archery against armour, including well-padded mail, that I have seen have show the arrows bouncing off. There was a special on the History channel in slow motion which showed the arrow compressing to about half its size, then bouncing back.

I think it is quite possible to kill a man in full armour with an arrow, but not by piercing the armour, but rather by it skating up into articulations. Of course, once you get up to 350 + lb crossbows, it is a different matter. I don't think they had "armour of proof" in the Crecy/Poiters/Agincourt part of the HYW, but I may be wrong.

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:20 pm

Well, I wear armour ALL the time, and I've never died to an arrow.

sebastian · Post by **sebastian** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:28 pm

Well SyrRhys -

And if you think that the damage to the French calvary, was done by anyone other than archers, you might want to consider the fact that the infantry was about 250 yards away.
You neglected to mention how, at Agincourt, once the french infantry advanced to the english infantry the english archers caused massive damage by first shooting them on the flanks, and then after causing massive damage and after running out of arrows, picked up weapons and cut down an enemy who was to snobby to fight the archers.

And before you start making claims of French infantry being snobby because the archers couldn't hurt them... It was a social custom for those of "honor and stature" to NOT engage the little people, as it were.

Which brings into question why it was permissible for Calvary to charge archers, but infantry could not.
Could the Calvary riders have been lesser nobles than the infantry? no that doesnt work.

OH WAIT I KNOW THIS ONE! Because calvary could close the distance and attack the archers before they got completely ripped to shreads by arrows!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The following quotes are from Devries, K., _Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century_:

P. 96: "The Earl [of Lancaster's] cavalry, when they tried to cross the water, could not enter it because of the numbers and density of arrows which the archers discharged into them and their horses. No one appears to have been killed by the archery assault (italics mine--HTK), but progress was slow and confused..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm could this be because they were smart enough not to ENTER a kill zone?

If a 100 people walk past an electric fence with 10000 volts, and they all realize the sign says "Danger 10000 volts. Do not Touch!"
Then the statement "No one appears to have been killed by the Fence, but progress was slow and confused..." would still hold true.
But is the fence any less lethal?

SyrRhys don't tell me that you are foolish enough to subscibe to the "I didn't see it, so it never happened." mentality.

If archery was so worthless, why take thousands of archers to a battle?
What a collosal waste of resources! Lets spend all this time making arrows and bows that do nothing. Lets make make 10 helms for archers instead of another suit of armour for an infantry man.

Why, if archery was so worthless, did the Franks develop tactics for fighting against light horse archers? Horse archers who's bows only had an estimated range of 250 feet.
Horse archers who's tactic was hit and run away.

That being said...I will conceed that archery is more effective against the unarmoured. Just as bullets work better against people with out kevlar vests.

And how many officers were killed in the line of duty last year?

I could say more but, frankly I'm tired of typing.

Sebastian

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:32 pm

Sorry Rhys....
Its all about interpretation...

I just dont see it that way...

I cannot beleive that all those nobles died to hand to hand combat and no records were made of the dead or wounded on the other side, nor stories of feats or deeds done that day recorded....

It makes sense that there would be none if many died to archers fire...

sebastian · Post by **sebastian** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:32 pm

As for the so called period tests.

I have yet to see one use period methods to make both the arrow and the armour.

Mostly I see Period arrow, Modern steel armour, made in the same style as period.

If you know of one please let me know.

[This message has been edited by Sebastian (edited 03-21-2002).]

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 11:27 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sebastian:
Well SyrRhys -

And if you think that the damage to the French calvary, was done by anyone other than archers, you might want to consider the fact that the infantry was about 250 yards away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they were... at the start of the battle. They then closed with the English lines. Remember the part about the BPs advisors sending to the King for help because the BP had been hard pressed? If they weren't in contact with the French hand to hand, they wouldn't have had to ask for help. Sorry, but you have to read all the facts.

You neglected to mention how, at Agincourt, once the french infantry advanced to the english infantry the english archers caused massive damage by first shooting them on the flanks, and then after causing massive damage and after running out of arrows, picked up weapons and cut down an enemy who was to snobby to fight the archers.

I didn't mention it because I don't believe it's true. *None* of the most recent sources of which I'm aware indicated that the arrows caused the "massive" damage you quote. I will concede that the English archers attacked the French troops from the flanks hand to hand, but why shouldn't I? all the chronicles support it. Why do you make that point? I never said the archers didn't attack hand to hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And before you start making claims of French infantry being snobby because the archers couldn't hurt them... It was a social custom for those of "honor and stature" to NOT engage the little people, as it were.

Which brings into question why it was permissible for Calvary to charge archers, but infantry could not.
Could the Calvary riders have been lesser nobles than the infantry? no that doesnt work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm... I have no idea what the second paragraph above's about: There was no cavalry attack on the English archers at Agincourt, so your point's moot. And the French infantry didn't attack the English archers because they weren't the dangerous part... the English men at arms were. And how do you know about the "social custom" you claim? I see no evidence for it; in fact, the French nobility attacked lower-class soldiers all the time, when it was tactically prudent to do so. Sorry, you need to show evidence for your claim.

OH WAIT I KNOW THIS ONE! Because calvary could close the distance and attack the archers before they got completely ripped to shreads by arrows!

I'm sorry, but someone's led you astray yet again. You see, the cavalry *didn't* charge archers. And the cavalry was actually *more* vulnerable to archery than were the infantry just because most horses weren't as thoroughly armored as were the men at arms. In addition, the archers usually interposed some barrier (often holes dug in the ground to break horses legs or stakes to deter horses who are too smart to run ont a pointed stake) between themselves and the cavalry before the battle. As a result, all of the major battles of the HYW after Crecy up to and including Agincourt were fought by dismounted troops on *both* sides (except for small bodies of cavalry used for special purposes; e.g., less than 300 English at Poitiers). See, the horses were terribly vulnerable and the French learned this to their sorrow at Crecy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Hmm could this be because they were smart enough not to ENTER a kill zone?

If a 100 people walk past an electric fence with 10000 volts, and they all realize the sign says "Danger 10000 volts. Do not Touch!"
Then the statement "No one appears to have been killed by the Fence, but progress was slow and confused..." would still hold true.
But is the fence any less lethal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, this section is just too confused for me to intepret.

SyrRhys don't tell me that you are foolish enough to subscibe to the "I didn't see it, so it never happened." mentality.

Nope.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If archery was so worthless, why take thousands of archers to a battle?
What a collosal waste of resources! Lets spend all this time making arrows and bows that do nothing. Lets make make 10 helms for archers instead of another suit of armour for an infantry man.

Why, if archery was so worthless, did the Franks develop tactics for fighting against light horse archers? Horse archers who's bows only had an estimated range of 250 feet.
Horse archers who's tactic was hit and run away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know why some of you folks don't bother to actually read what I write. I never said they weren't effective troops; they were *very* effective. I said they didn't kill armored men at arms with arrows. I'm not even going to bother re-proving this point until you actually go back and read it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That being said...I will conceed that archery is more effective against the unarmoured. Just as bullets work better against people with out kevlar vests.

And how many officers were killed in the line of duty last year?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, son, but your analogy doesn't hold water. Tests have shown that plate was much more effective at stopping arrows than bullet-resistant vests are at stopping bullets.

I could say more but, frankly I'm tired of typing.

Actually, you haven't responded to a single one of my arguments.

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 11:30 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sarnac:
Sorry Rhys....
Its all about interpretation...

I just dont see it that way...

I cannot beleive that all those nobles died to hand to hand combat and no records were made of the dead or wounded on the other side, nor stories of feats or deeds done that day recorded....

It makes sense that there would be none if many died to archers fire...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Sarnac, the chornicles are *full* of the deeds you mention for most battles (the exception being Crecy; Froissart says that a lot were missed because of the darkness).

And you can't use gut feelings to defeat research and experimentation. We've shown that tests show that arrows can't penetrate plate at any useful distance, and I've shown two (of many!) primary-source references that showed that in spite of heavy archery fire few men were wounded except when they left their visors off. Those facts are pretty unassailable. I'm sorry, but I believe you're guilty of believing it's so because you want it to be.

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 11:38 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:
All of the experiments of archery against armour, including well-padded mail, that I have seen have show the arrows bouncing off. There was a special on the History channel in slow motion which showed the arrow compressing to about half its size, then bouncing back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read about one experiment in which an arow penetrated a breastplate, but the distance was 25 *feet*, and the breastplate was 16-gauge mild steel. That distance is ludicrous, of course; most of the engagements took place at much greater distances. Also, mild steel isn't very representative of medieval armor, and 16 guage is *certainly* too thin for a full breastplate; Mac says that his researches have shown that the real ones were more like 14 gauge.

I think it is quite possible to kill a man in full armour with an arrow, but not by piercing the armour, but rather by it skating up into articulations.

I think you're absolutely right. I think this would be exceedingly rare, however, especially with all the stop ribs, etc., designed to prevent just that sort of thing. When Mac made my breastplate he made it with the faulds overlapping from top to bottom; when I asked why he did it that way, he said that's how it was done in the 14th C, the idea was to "keep out the rain" (meaning the iron rain of arrows).

I don't think they had "armour of proof" in the Crecy/Poiters/Agincourt part of the HYW, but I may be wrong.

Actually, Mac and I were discussing this yesterday. He said that a test had been done of the Pembridge great helm (c. 1375) which had shown that it was *very* hard. Of course, not all armor would have been this good, but I suspect much of it would have been. They may not have known *why* certain processes made armor harder, but they knew *how*.

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

Aelric · Post by **Aelric** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 12:09 am

The French did do a cav charge against the English archers at the onset of the battle. These were supposed to be flank charges but flanking was not possible. Of the seven score knights on the right cav charge only three men fell. One was the leader Sir William of Saveuse. These men were killed when their mounts hit stakes that held in the soft mud and took them down. They were not killed by arrows but they were killed by archers, archers with clubs and knives.

I for one think that if arrows were as effective against armour as guns were they would have driven armour out of use like the gun did.

Aelric

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 12:42 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aelric:

I for one think that if arrows were as effective against armour as guns were they would have driven armour out of use like the gun did.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops! Guns "drove" armour out of use *not* because they were particularly effective against it, but rather because it was ALOT cheaper to train and outfit a whole bunch of gun wielding soldiers than it was to train and outfit a single armored knight.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 1:13 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sieur Raymond:
Whoops! Guns "drove" armour out of use *not* because they were particularly effective against it, but rather because it was [b]ALOT cheaper to train and outfit a whole bunch of gun wielding soldiers than it was to train and outfit a single armored knight. [/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right! Actually, I would argue that polearms were more at the root of this than guns or bows; the heyday of the full-armored knight as the front-line soldier really ended before gunpowder was really worked out. It cost a lot less to put several peasants with halberds in th field than it did to put one kngith with full kit, and the knight wasn't a match for them.

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

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 6:18 am

Sir Rhys,

I agree with all you have writtten save the last bit. Polearms did not 'drive out the use of the armoured knight'. Your concentration on the 14th century and France has blinded you to what occured after. As I had typed out a list some time ago of engagements that were principly cavalry engagements post Agincourt, I won't type them out here. The list was long, but not exhaustive of the subject.

What "drove" the armoured lancer off the battlefield was the mounted reiter (armoured, and armed with pistols) - not pikemen. Men at arms & pikemen existed side by side throughout the Italian wars, which was the heyday of the offensive use of the pike. By the time the armoured lancer was driven off the battlefields of europe, the pike itself had been reduced to a secondary role of providing a defensive formation for shot.

I would reccommend Bertram Hall as having written the best study of the phenomenon. I would also reccommend you take a look at sources other than English ones, as what it is doing is giving you a very insular view of the subject.

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

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 7:13 am

"Sorry, Steve, but none of the HYW references posted made any mention of the killing of knights being done by arrows."

Hmm. What about:

"The French cavalry rode over their own crossbowmen in a charge, but were
shattered by the arc of arrows the poured from the longbow men. By
nightfall, according to contemporary accounts, "one thousand, five hundred
noblemen dead on the field.""

1500 dead noblemen, after being "shattered" by arrows. But I guess since it doesn't explicitly say that they died from arrows that they didn't. That "shattering" just left them mildly annoyed, I guess.

Or how about:
"Offirid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an
arrow, in a battle between the troops of that king and the united
armies of Mercians and Welsh"

Again, no specific mention of defeat of armour, but is the son of a king going to be going to battle with no armour?

How about:
"King James IV was also felled by an arrow through the chest in the
Battle of Flodden Field, 1513."

Here we have another poor, armourless king being layed low by an arrow.

Here's another one (didn't you read these?):

"It happened also in a battle, in the time of William de Breusa, as
he himself relates, that a Welshman having directed his arrow at a
horse-soldier who was clad in armour and had his leathern coat under
it, the arrows, besides piercing the man through the hip, struck also
through the saddle. and mortally wounded the horse on which he sat."

In this case we have a man in armour on a horse (obviously noble) who is shot through his armour, leather underneath, through him, and kills his horse!

Again:
"The earl of Douglas, who commanded the Scottish army in that action,
enraged to see his men falling thick around him by showers of arrows,
and trusting to the goodness of his armour, which is reported to have
been three years in making, accompanied by about eighty lords,
knights, and gentlemen, in complete armour, rushed forward and
attacked the English archers sword in hand. But he had soon reason to
repent his temerity. The English arrows were so sharp and strong, and
discharged with so much force, that no armour could repel them. The
earl of Douglas, after receiving five wounds, was made prisoner; and
all his brave companions were either killed or taken.""

All of his brave compnions, also in armour, were killed or taken (presumabely by arrows in the context). And this one specifically says: "The English arrows were so sharp and strong, and
discharged with so much force, that no armour could repel them."

The bottom line is this. The statement was made that there was no documentation supporting the killing of people in knightly armour by arrows. This is patently false.

Steve

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 8:56 am

"besides piercing the man through the hip, "

Depending on the type of armor...there might be little protection there.
It doesn't say, so we'll never know.
And at any rate, if all of the archers could shoot that well/had bows that powerful.....well, you get the idea.
Where are the accounts of this guys army just mowing other armies down?
There isn't because they didn't.
But if that kind of penetration were common, they WOULD have, right?
Sketchy documentation, AT BEST.

"1500 dead noblemen, after being "shattered" by arrows. But I guess since it doesn't explicitly say that they died from arrows that they didn't. That "shattering" just left them mildly annoyed, I guess."

Or having your horse shot out from under you made you feel less than chipper!
You've never fallen off of a horse, have you?
I have, while it was running.
Shattered?
Hell, that would have felt GOOD compared to how I felt!
I'm lucky I'm not dead.
Seriously.
And it wasn't even anywhere NEAR a full charge!

"Offirid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an
arrow, in a battle between the troops of that king and the united
armies of Mercians and Welsh"

Open faced helm?
WHERE was he hit?
You don't know, I don't know....

This one was good....
"The earl of Douglas, after receiving five wounds, was made prisoner; and
all his brave companions were either killed or taken."

Steve, think about it a bit more and get back to us.
FIVE TIMES?
And he LIVED?
Sounds like getting hit in weakly armored (gaps) spots to ME.
AND, he attacked "sword in hand"....what sort of RANGE are we talking about here?
THAT makes a good bit of difference here!
Nope, no good, sorry.

How about some archaeological evidence?
Once the plate armor starts turning up with bodkin holes in it, then I'll believe.
I can take the same quotes and come up with feasable, realistic, alternatives to your views....and it's not hard at all.

Lucky shots do not make the killing of armored knights common practice, no matter how much you WANT to believe it.

VvS

[This message has been edited by Vermin (edited 03-22-2002).]

Aidan Cambel · Post by **Aidan Cambel** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:20 am

Ummm.. just a thought here...

I keep hearing talk about arrows piercing plate, and its inability to do so, and how that relates to SCA combat archery.

BUT

the SCA covers 6th to 16th century, and the majority of the SCA population does not - from what I have seen - live in the high middle ages after the transitional period. I see, in my area, about 50% 10th-to-13th century, about 30% below, and the remainder above. So, we are talking about the majority of SCA, once again from what I have seen, to be living pre-plate armour.

So regardless of whether arrows will penetrate plate, it will penetrate what the majority of the populous wears.

In addition, the meridies armour standard is a riveted maille hauberk and conical with nasal (for waist up) which puts our armour standard roughly 12th century? It is very vunerable to arrows.

just my 2 cents.

Aidan

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:52 am

Sir Rhys,

See this is once again where we differ.
I do not "wish it to be so", as you say.
I am mearly willing to accept that it happened more often than not and do not completely write off the possibiity as you do.

I also am looking at it in a different perspective, as from a Easten and Asian view....
whose bows were much more powerful at an earlier time...and employed tatctics that employed them, which directly led to the success of their campaigns.

So...like I said...its a matter of perspective.

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:08 am

Aiden....good point, BUT-
WERE there longbows in use during the period that the armors you mentioned were worn?

No.

I'll use an analogy-
A round from an M-16 WILL go through plate.
It doesn't matter though, the two weapons were never on the field together.

We can't exactly have different bow classes, because I've got better things to do in combat that decide WHAT type of bow was used by the guy who just shot me.....
So, the assumed standard is the longbow.

Which is in direct conflict with the assumed armor standard.......

Which doesn't make sense, but hey, we're only here to have fun, right?
Nothing historical matters.....

VvS

Winterfell · Post by **Winterfell** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:18 am

Okay so if arrows were totally ineffective against full plate armour, then why were archers still used and why did they have long needle like armour peircing bodkins?
Can anyone explain why they had them if soldiers "knew" they were not going to work.
Are you going to bring that supersoaker 5000 to Afghanistan then?
Archers had a multitude of different arrow heads for different requirements. Including anti horse and anti armour.
From Rhys
"Sorry, son, but your analogy doesn't hold water. Tests have shown that plate was much more effective at stopping arrows than bullet-resistant vests are at stopping bullets "
Depends on the bullet and the gun.
A Kevlar vest can stop a .22 no prob, but a Black Talon bullet? Well there is a reason why they have been banned.
So the whole problem with the arguement is that you are all trying to encompass all archery as being effective against all armour.
However armour piercing bodkins had only one purpose, to go through plate armour.

As for Agincourt, there were a multitude of factors that gave the English victory.
They include, weather which turned the ground to mud, which slowed the arrogant french knights who were so packed together they could only move in one direction, who got stuck in the mud, half way across a field that funneled towards the english, which kept the Genoaese crossbowmen from getting a clear shot, and at the same time allowed the english bowmen full advantage to turn the sky dark with a cloud of arrows that peirced both horse and men alike. Then when most of the french were mired, drowning in mud, crushed under the wieght of other soldiers who were getting nailed with more arrows, was when the english counterattacked. The archers dropped their bows after running out of arrows and picked up what ever was handy and bashed the snot out of the french. All while suffering sever dysentery (sp?)which made them crap so much that some of them did not even were pants! (From two sources, which I will need to go home and check the exact titles since I am at work at the moment.)

So you guys can all bang each over the head with this, but it is a moot point since you all are not going to change each others minds about this.
Now that I have had this lovely rant I need to go do some work.
Ta.

------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:18 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aidan Cambel:
Ummm.. just a thought here...

I keep hearing talk about arrows piercing plate, and its inability to do so, and how that relates to SCA combat archery.

the SCA covers 6th to 16th century, and the majority of the SCA population does not - from what I have seen - live in the high middle ages after the transitional period. I see, in my area, about 50% 10th-to-13th century, about 30% below, and the remainder above. So, we are talking about the majority of SCA, once again from what I have seen, to be living pre-plate armour.

So regardless of whether arrows will penetrate plate, it will penetrate what the majority of the populous wears.

In addition, the meridies armour standard is a riveted maille hauberk and conical with nasal (for waist up) which puts our armour standard roughly 12th century? It is very vunerable to arrows.
Aidan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been posting about the HYW period because that's the period about wihich I know the most, and because the fellow who made the original post referenced that period.

The thing is that bows changed in the period just prior to the HYW. The English longbow (not Welsh!) first started appearing about this time, and it seems clear that a longbow with a bodkin point-arrow could punch through mail, at least some of the time at a reasonable distance. It's interesting to note that this coincides with the addition of lots more plate.

But in earlier periods you're talking about much lighter bows. Bob Charron has posted *several* primary-source references showing the ineffectiveness of these lighter bows against mail (look under the previpous threads on this subject and you'll see what I mean).

So, really, unless you're doing an impression of an unarmored peasant an arrow shouldn't have much effect on you mst of the time (note that nothing's perfect, and lucky shots did happen).

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:21 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vermin:
 How about some archaeological evidence?
Once the plate armor starts turning up with bodkin holes in it, then I'll believe.
I can take the same quotes and come up with feasable, realistic, alternatives to your views....and it's not hard at all.

Lucky shots do not make the killing of armored knights common practice, no matter how much you WANT to believe it.(edited 03-22-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for posting this response, Vermin. I thought the guy would get all this, but apparently not. You saved me a lot of typing.

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:27 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sarnac:
Sir Rhys,

See this is once again where we differ.
I do not "wish it to be so", as you say.
I am mearly willing to accept that it happened more often than not and do not completely write off the possibiity as you do.

I also am looking at it in a different perspective, as from a Easten and Asian view....
whose bows were much more powerful at an earlier time...and employed tatctics that employed them, which directly led to the success of their campaigns.

So...like I said...its a matter of perspective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sarnac,

I don't believe it is a matter of perspective. We're talking about armored knights, not Mongol soldiers or Bushi, etc. I, and others, have presented reasoned evidence showing the relative ineffectiveness of arrows against well-armored European knights. You say we're over-stating it. Well, consider the first two quotes I included from DeVries: In each, the primary-source material shows heavy archery fire but almost no injuries except open-face shots. That's a pretty good sense of how often archery worked against armor, right?

All you've said is "no, I think you're wrong". You have yet to supply evidence to show that we are. That's the reason I stated your arguments sounds like you're saying "it's not true because I don't want it to be true".

So many SCADians grow up believing the "facts" other SCAdians have taught them (I'm not sayin this is true in your case; for all I know you simply haven't read much about western European medieval history because you've concentrated on Mongol stuff) as if they were facts, and then they can't prove their assertions.

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:47 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Winterfell:
Okay so if arrows were totally ineffective against full plate armour, then why were archers still used and why did they have long needle like armour peircing bodkins?
Can anyone explain why they had them if soldiers "knew" they were not going to work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, do you know what percentage of arrows fired at Agincourt were bodkin points? I certainly don't.

Second, arrows *did* work. The killed horses (for which I don't believe they used bodkin points by choice, necesarily) which forced the FRench to march on foot (to your point below), they did cause some wounds (see what Vermin pointed aout about the fellow with five wounds) and possibly even made a few kills in lucky circumstances, they forced the French to march with their visors down (and we all know how hard that makes life!), and they prevented the French from using lightly-armored troops (such as the Genoes crossbowmen from Crecy) which could have been devestating to the English, they forced the French to march in tightly-packed columns in order to minimize the lucky shots mentioned above, and, for all of these reasons, the arrows were absolute *hell* on morale.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So the whole problem with the arguement is that you are all trying to encompass all archery as being effective against all armour.
However armour piercing bodkins had only one purpose, to go through plate armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you're wrong. Prove that. People keep making these unsupported statements. Show me the evidence. I believe that a bodkin point was designed to go through *mail*, not plate, and, as evidence I offer the fact that bodkin points don't work very well against plate (witness the test on the Discovery Channel and others). Where is *your* evidence?

And I'm not blind to various kinds of armor, but if you look at the primary-source references I posted in my first message, you'll see that the arrows simply didn't do much, regardless of the type of point or types of armor; are we to assume the archers in these cases simply forgot to use their anti-armor arrows? LOL! Come on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for Agincourt, there were a multitude of factors that gave the English victory.
They include, weather which turned the ground to mud, which slowed the arrogant french knights who were so packed together they could only move in one direction, who got stuck in the mud, half way across a field that funneled towards the english, which kept the Genoaese crossbowmen from getting a clear shot, and at the same time allowed the english bowmen full advantage to turn the sky dark with a cloud of arrows that peirced both horse and men alike. Then when most of the french were mired, drowning in mud, crushed under the wieght of other soldiers who were getting nailed with more arrows, was when the english counterattacked. The archers dropped their bows after running out of arrows and picked up what ever was handy and bashed the snot out of the french. All while suffering sever dysentery (sp?)which made them crap so much that some of them did not even were pants! (From two sources, which I will need to go home and check the exact titles since I am at work at the moment.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Buddy, you really need to re-check those references... The Genoese crossbowmen were used at Crecy, not at Agincourt!

And the French knights packed together not because they were arrogant, but in order to minimize lucky wounds from arrows.

And yes, the English bowmen did drop their bows and rush to fight the French hand to hand. Hmmm... let's see... If the arrows were so deadly, why did they decide to stop using them? Could it be because they weren't effective? Thank you for proving my point! LOL!

So you guys can all bang each over the head with this, but it is a moot point since you all are not going to change each others minds about this.

You need to read your sources much more carefully. When you are doing so, try to ignore how it is you *want* things to be, and make sense out of what happened. The last point above is a good example of how to do this. What we have from that period is often muddled and confused, so you need to think it through very carefully.

And no, we're apparently not going to change your mind. As my Unle Nelson used to say: "An Irishman convinced against his will is an Irishman, unconvinced still". So it seems to be here.

I've posted sources showing that people in period knew that arrows couldn't do much against armor, Bob Charron has done the same for the earlier periods. Several of us have posted references showing that modern well-done modern experiments supported this evidence. But so many people are so convinced of the "terrible power" of archery that we might as well just be talking the walls.

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

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:13 am

Rhys,

Well... I have to admit that I am not as versed on Western Europen documentation as I should be, as, like you stated, my primary interest is Asian and Mongolian history primarily.
What I do know is that in the time period of Mongol expansion across Asia and into Western Europe, the compsite bow of the Mongol and associated Tribes was one of the most powerful known to man at that time and was leathal in the hands of one of their bowman. There are digs and finds of dozens of different Mongol arrows...many of which were thought to have been specifically designed to penetrate armour.

Now...Honest question...

What European armour would have been used in the 1200 in central and Western Europe?

Specifically Poles and Germans in 1241

I ask because all the sagas and stories on the Battle of Leignitz talk of the Mongol forces wiping out the European forces with archers fire and heavy cavalry charges...

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 12:02 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sarnac:
What European armour would have been used in the 1200 in central and Western Europe?

Specifically Poles and Germans in 1241

I ask because all the sagas and stories on the Battle of Leignitz talk of the Mongol forces wiping out the European forces with archers fire and heavy cavalry charges...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Sarnac! I see no conflict whatsoever between the idea that the combination of archery fire and cavalry charges was effective and the idea that archery did not often seriously injure well armoured combatants.

1- Peasant levies and town militias were often poorly armoured or unarmoured. Other lightly armoured troops would also have been suseptible.

2- If your archers take out oppossing horses, you will injure falling riders, and give yourself a mobility and morale advantage.

3- Arrows adversely impact morale for reasons Rhys discussed above. To stand up to cavalry charges, ground troops need to oppose them with confidence. If their morale is shaken, they can easily break and run.

I don't think anyone is arguing that archery was completely ineffective. Rather the question is: in what ways was it effective and in what ways was it not effective?

Aidan Cambel · Post by **Aidan Cambel** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 12:31 pm

Please forgive my posts on this topic, I admit it is way deeper than my knowledge carries me. My previous post was more of a "this is how it appears on the surface" and trying to get more info. So please don't think my post is pro-or-con either way. I am a definate fenc-rider.

BUT...
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.

Thats just hte way my simple mind sees it.

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 12:36 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Or having your horse shot out from under you made you feel less than chipper!
You've never fallen off of a horse, have you?
I have, while it was running.
Shattered?
Hell, that would have felt GOOD compared to how I felt!
I'm lucky I'm not dead.
Seriously.
And it wasn't even anywhere NEAR a full charge!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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. Getting pulled down and hacked by several opponents would be another matter all together, however. And, while I have never experienced it, I have heard that 350 + lb crossbows pack enough of a wallop to knock you off your feet regardless of whether they actually pierce the metal. We need experimental archeology here. I know someone with a windlass-drawn crossbow, any volunteers for the vict-emmm...the one to wear the breastplate?

DanNV · Post by **DanNV** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 1:01 pm

Hmmm... Most of my books are still in storage. However, one of them has a picture of a helmet with three arrow holes in it that is now displayed with three shafts through the holes. Does anyone know which book the picture is in? It'll be months before I can find it.

Dan

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 1:32 pm

Anyone have a copy of Blood Red Roses handy (Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave From the Battle of Towton AD 1461
edited by Veronica Fiorato, Anthea Boylston, and Christopher Knusel, 277 pp, with illus, $49.50, ISBN 1842170252, mine is at home, but like most of us Iâ€™ll go from memory. It discusses the battle of Towton during Englandâ€™s War of the Roses. In the account of the battle only 2 men of note (i.e. noblemen) are reported to have died to arrow wounds, even though both sides had vast numbers of English long bowmen participated and there was a long period of arrow fire between the 2 sides during the battle(the authors state that close to 26000 men took part in the battle, several critics think that is somewhat high). In one case the noblemen forgot his gorget, in the other he lifted his visor to take a drink. (Now I will be the first to admit that Iâ€™m making an assumption that most men of note would have been in quality armour for the period, the assumption seems to be held up by the research in the book).

Does this make arrow fire ineffective, certainly not, but it does mean we have to be very careful about how we define effective archery fire. The expectations of what archery could do for you seems to have changed from period to period and place to place, and situation to situation. If what Sarnac says is correct, in Eastern Europe (which I know very little about which is why Iâ€™m asking) , when armoured European troops met Eurasian horse archers using composite bows they died in large numbers do to archery fire. But we have to ask ourselves what weapons were the European troops expecting to encounter? What type of weapons did was there armour built to resist? And after sustained contact, if there was any, how did their armour and tactics adapt. During the First Crusade, the armour of the Crusaders seems to have outstripped the archery technology of the Muslim troops by a significant degree â€“ how did that change with time and contact? During the 100 Years War how does the introduction of the longbow and more powerful crossbows effect the development of armour, when does it stop effecting it dramatically? Is there a description of what happened the first time bodkin tipped arrows from long bows were used against mail clad troops?

What we can say is that archery never drove armour from the field, or to incredible thickness as gunpowder weapons did. Instead improvements in armour seem to have kept pace with and at times outpaced improvements in weapons including archery, until effective personal gunpowder weapons. Armour remains a vital battlefield component to the end of the 15th century, and even beyond.

Archers in most European battles that I have read about, were not ineffective, they just didnâ€™t mow down armoured troops like reapers through a wheat field. They dispersed lightly armoured formations, force cavalry to charge or withdraw, and made it hell to cross or occupy ground within their range (not likely to kill or hurt you is a long way from not going to kill or hurt you). This is highly effective, particularly when you consider that the your troops are doing without exposing themselves to dangers of melee combat, and when they are a much smaller investment than heavy cavalry.

Asbjorn

Winterfell · Post by **Winterfell** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 1:58 pm

Don't you folks have better things to do then spend all day on boards like this getting into arguments about.... oh wait, me too, never mind.
hehehe

------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:21 pm

Going off topic to respond to something sorry guys.

"A Kevlar vest can stop a .22 no prob, but a Black Talon bullet? Well there is a reason why they have been banned."

Not true.

The NIJ certification of threat levels starts with IA being littl better than a stout leather jacket

and goes up to (i think) VI, which will stop .762 nato but is heavy as hell so it depends on the vests rating. Kevlar ain't the only thin k they make aniti-ballistic vests out of either,Tarwallon and Spectra Cloth and a few others.

#2 The "Black Talon" like all hollow point hand gun rounds is on of the worst things to shoot at soft body armour. They flatten out and open to create more hydrostatic shock (stopping power) and not to penetrate the body and bounce all over the place upon exit. To pierce soft BA you want a bullet that does not expand and can punch through the fibers, a steel jacketed round, often coated with teflon is the "cop killer" round.

Steel ammo actually predates modern soft body arnmour so the idea that the steel bullets were developed to kill police is just bunk. The myth of the ap hollow point is pure holywood and moron reporter hype.

Black Talons were no more dangerous than any other high grade hollow point. IMO they were actually not as good as the Fedral brand Hydra Shock round, or Speer's Golden Saber. They were just a mean looking black point on a high polish nickel casing so they were scary. Winchester stll makes the exact same bullet! It just has a brass jacket and no nickle plating on the casing. Same ballistics same moulds almost the same box. They just call it an SXT ( i think). They still don't sell well.

#3 They were not banned, well not by the feds anyway. They never got a major Law enfocrment contract with them and they were to expensive for most people to want to buy (nickle casing). A few idiot gang kids may have bought some because they bough the media hype . But they were hard to sell to most people, Hydra-Shocks were cheaper and had a bit higher energy transfer.

Winchester got sick of the villification by the press and cobined with the low sales, the "Black talon" went the way of the Webley Mag. They just quit making them, putting the money in the SilverTip line of ammo.

[This message has been edited by Murdock (edited 03-22-2002).]

Winterfell · Post by **Winterfell** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:54 pm

Ok, Not a big gun fan. shoot me.

bad use there.
what I was trying to point out was that the argument of ap arrows depends on the bow and the armour. It still is logical that armour and weapons upgrading goes hand in hand. As armour became heavier, someone devised a better weapon to beat them.

------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics