Observations on archery and it's effect on armour

[chef de chambre]

Hi All,

During the second day of our event, as I posted on the "Retreat to Calais" thread, I took the opportunity to experience being shot at with several different bows and a reasonably hefty arrow (bare shaft, covered with a rabbit blunt, wrapped in leather), to make what observations I can regarding the effects of archery on armour (gripping and striking power, rather than penetration - obviously) , and more ephemeral subjects such as effect on morale. The bows used ranged from a 25 lb LARP/35 lb Reenactment bow, to a half scale-pull weight Mary Rose bow (50 lb). I wore my brigandine, my full arm harness, pauldrons, and gauntlets from my white harness, and my chapel de fer and bevor, and a mail standard.

The excersise began as a request from Kennith (the genuine English archer) to try out an archery test done at some UK reenactments - firing at oncoming armoured men at arms. A difference between our experiment and theirs (to the best of my understanding), is that while they usually use indirect fire, I was willing to subject myself to direct fire, and at fairly close range (between 60 and 15 yards - I think the closest shot was that close). We first tried it out with a 25 lb bow - the previous day, I had allowed myself to be shot in the back with the very same arrows wearing no more than my arming doublet, in order to guage what poundage bows would be allowed in the tactical - the striking power inside of 15 yards is a little heavier than a paintball. Needless to say, the effect of the arrows on harness was nil, in that the strikes occassioned transfered no energy to my body underneath, or none that I registered. I moved from 60 yards to contact, and I believe he got off 2 , possibly 3 shots at me (2 struck).

We then tried with a higher poundage bow, the same excersise. At this point, everyone in the camp (practically) wanted to take a shot at me, and got in on the fun. Bernard, and possibly Peter(?) took turns at me with the Mary Rose Replica and a similar weight bow. Finally, I was shot at inside of 20-25 yards by Charlotte with the Mary Rose replica, as a stationary target. Having done this, I am unwilling to be a target for the full draw weight Mary Rose Replica (104 lbs), unless I am a. In a full harness with a visored helmet, and b. I have someone like Mac or Jeff or Patrick willing to set possible damage to that harness right (I believe a square shot on the cuirasse at close range - not a high probability given our tests - would dent it severly, and a srike on an articulated joint would likely deform and jam the joint. The portions of the harness mentioned are mild steel).

Keeping in mind this informal test does not guage penetration power itself, useful information can still be derived from it. It is important to note that the heads of the arrows (about 2/3 scale of a proper war arrow in shaft) are larger than the heads that would be used, and therfore have a greater chance to catch and 'stick' on the harness than would a bodkin or pile point - in plain English, an advantage that would not exist in reality is given to the bow.

Strikes on plate harness - almost none of the shots that hit my pauldrons, helmet, or vambraces struck squarely - 90% or more glanced off. I recall one strike to my left guardbrace, a glancing shot off my guard of the vambrace, two glancing shots off my kettlehat, a glancing shot off my bevor, and a glancing shot off my right rerbrace. One square solid hit was struck (by Bernard, with a 45 lb bow, on the crease of the throat of my bevor). I believe if the arrow had a head the shape or size of a pile-point, it would have glanced off, the strike was so solid as the oversized, leather-wrapped head stuck in an unnatural shot-trap between the chin of my bevor and the articulation of the bevor. No energy was transfered to me on any shot - including those from the half scale daw weight Mary Rose bow.

Strikes on the brigandine -

With bows up to 40 lb weight, no energy was transfered with any strike (they were numerous) - this was not true with the half scale Mary-Rose replica. When I recieved several shots to the body from said bow, they transfered force to my body as from a glancing punch. Given the trauma to my bare body, and comparing it to much more serious damage I have personally suffered in other accidents (and knowing the quality of the metal in my brigandine), I would conclude had I been struck with a pile or bodkinpoint from a full draw-weight warbow, I would have suffered serious blunt trauma - most likely a broken rib or two, and internal bleeding. I have no doubt whatsoever that the brigandine would have stopped that arrow - likewise I have no doubt the brigandine would have been damaged, with a torn cover and foundation, at a minimum, and possibly a cracked plate. A shot like that at closing range would likely have doubled me over, or possibly knocked me off my feet were I wrong-footed. Trying to scale up the force to 104 lbs, and to give a comparison, I would equate it to a glancing kick from a horse - I had a lovely recent hemotomah from such a source to make the comparison. The strikes were to the small plates - were it to the lung plates, I have every reason to believe they would have behaved as the plate harness, with the exception of the fabric foundation and cover allowing more force to be transfered than otherwise.

To wool clothing and arming doublet - Here is where I derive the data to make the comparison to potential damage to the body under harness. As I described at the beginning, I was in a light half-harness, with unarmoured legs. Were Charelotte an enemy bowman, and were we in battle, I would have been a casualty, despite the quality and quantity of my harness - possibly a post-combat fatality, or a combat fatality. Charelotte managed to stike me about 2" above the knee in the side of the thigh. I have a lovely hemotomah as a memento, a miniature version of the horse kick. Were that a bodkin point from a warbow, it would have either mostly passed or entirely passed through my muscle and ligament bundle at that spot. Even if it avoided my rear tendon, I could well have bled to death - when struck with such a shot I would have immediately been put out of action (and regardless of how Preux or physically stong a man at arms is, there is *no way* he could remain upright and fighting with a half inch thick ash shaft stuck through a leg ligament - the reality is he would fall over, and likely be crushed to death or suffocated in the press). The probability were I to survive the battelfield injury is that I would have died of infection. Charelotte also managed two strikes in a row on the inside bend of my right elbow. I didn't have any voiders there - in reality they would have been present. I have a light bruise to show where the arming doublet did it's job at dispersing the energy of the shot to some degree. Given the angle of striking (my arm was bent, the shot glanced off my 'skin', and rebounded from the vambrace), I seriously doubt that the mail voider that would have been worn would have been penetrated. Despite that, and scaling up the damage from a full scale draw weight, I would most certainly have suistained concussive damage to the joint, at the least a bleeding hemotohma, and possibly, given the two strikes, a damaged or dislocated elbow (remember, a glancing horse-kick). That would have rendered me incapable of fighting, even if the armour was not penetrated. I have also suffered a severe kidney stone, broken bones, a reasonably deep stab-wound (3/4inch to my thigh), so I have a reasonable variety of pain-related experiences to make some comparison).

In conclusion, I think the impromptu test underlines what the best modern research regarding armour has shown. 1. Armour is difficult to penetrate (because it is difficult to get a square strike with a tiney point on, given it's glancing surfaces). 2. Battlefield weapons were effective (as was armour, else it wouldn't be worn), and that even wearing a full harness of quality, the wearer is still quite capable of being injured (or killed) - even if penetration of the armour itself is not at all likely.

The test is by no means conclusive (but it gives decent suggestive data), but I wouldn't suggest a test with more powerful weapons, as being too dangerous. Firing at armour on a dummy cannot give you the same data as a living person can register and describe.

Postscript - the Ephemeral.

I have had the displeasure and discomfort of having been shot at (close misses) with modern rifles (a hunting accident while I was hiking - drunk hunters, a long story...), so I have some small basis to make comparison with my archery experience.

I am pretty stoic as a person, and suffer injury without complaint (excepting the kidney stone, when I thought I had burst my appendix), and I am pretty steady when facing adversity, not being phased too easily. I found it much more disquieting to be shot at with archery than with bullets - you can see the arrows coming - they make unpleasant noises and you can see them when they pass close to you, as one did under the brim of my helmet. You have more time to contemplate them - when you are shot at with a gun, the bullet is often past you before you hear the initial firing of the gun. I compare my experience with a study done by the Royal Army of the late 19th century, in interviewing soldiers who fought against natives armed with primitive weaponry. Those battle-hardened men found arrows to be more unnerving than bullets, and overwhelmingly prefered to face 'musketry' rather than archery - I will take their experience as being more appropriate, being veteran soldiers, in comparison with my experiance, as a soft civilian - maggot.

Magnify the effect of a few bowmen firing at you, to thousands darkening the immediate battlefield sky with arrows, and you have a potent psychological weapon.

One more thing to keep in mind regarding the physical aspect of this test - the vast majority of arrows from warbows were fired indirectly - the test was a direct fire test, giving greater advantage to the archer. At best one or two shots would be imparted in this fashion before a battle collieded with its opposite, and hand-to-hand fighting ensued (as is proven incontrovertably by the first hand accoutns of War of the Roses battles)

[/u]

[Charlotte J]

I gotta say, after witnessing and reading about all of the bruises and trauma suffered in the name of science, Chef, you rock.



-Charlotte

[chef de chambre]

I gotta say, after witnessing and reading about all of the bruises and trauma suffered in the name of science, Chef, you rock.



-Charlotte

Thanks Charlotte, for being my guinea-pig, or allowing me to be your guinea-pig. I figured as long as poeple were shooting at me, I should take mental notes. No serious harm was suffed by the animals under test

[Hubert]

Now that's a very interesting test Chef! I have a questions though.

Would you be able to draw an analogy from your experiences as to what sort of damage a high poundage crossbow would do? Still in the realm of blunt force, or do you feel there would be the possibility of penetration?

Also, and I may be under a misinterpration but wasn't the smaller surface point of a bodkin supposed to help with penetration or finding gaps?

[chef de chambre]

Now that's a very interesting test Chef! I have a questions though.

Would you be able to draw an analogy from your experiences as to what sort of damage a high poundage crossbow would do? Still in the realm of blunt force, or do you feel there would be the possibility of penetration?

Also, and I may be under a misinterpration but wasn't the smaller surface point of a bodkin supposed to help with penetration or finding gaps?

Hi Coenwalh,

Regarding point 1. A high poundage military crossbow of the 15th century has at least 2 1/4 times the draw weight of a corresponding warbow. There is no doubt that a steel stave military crossbow drawn by a canaquin or a slightly bigger one drawn by a windlass was capable of penetrating (or cracking, with a quarrel) a full harness - save the very few of the highest quality that survived proof tests against same (I would still not want to be hit by one, as I am sure the blunt trauma would be bad - as bad in full harness as the theoretical warbow to the brigandine). There are many references (Jean de Haynin, for example, with a penetrated cuisse) of such bows firing vitreons penetrating white harness.

Regarding point 2. - For a chance of penetration, a bodkin must strike square - less than a square strike in modern tests results in either a damaged arrow skittering off the harness surface, or a shattered bodkin point (like WWI British battleship shells shearing off in German battleship armour without penetrating). I seriously doubt a skittering arrow would be capable of penetrating a joint like a gap found (very, very tiney, in comparison to most modern armour, save those made by the very most expert armourers) in an articulated plate. The danger lies in the redirected arrow going for where the armour is not - the throat, face, inner thigh, ect - that is a distinct possibility. Half of the armour defeating crossbow rounds were quarrels, which were square headed with points to corners (describing the head is difficult), intended to strike tempered plates square, and crack them open - and impart the greatest possible blunt trauma to the wearer. A bodkin point penetrating white harness is unlikely - the best modern tests against flat sheet (direct fire, as well, at close range) show best possible penetration to likely be no more than 1/4" - against a flat sheet. When the shape of the armour is taken into account, a penetration on a piece as thick as a helmet or breastplate becomes as likely as your chances are for winning tonights powerball - you have decent prize on a scratch ticket odds, of minor penetration to a thin plate like a vambrace (and documentary evidence for this occuring historically as well). It is important to keep in mind that to date (and given the evidence of how arrows were procured, and the sources the arrowheads were procured from), that the quality of the metal of the armour was on average far superior to the quality of the metal of the tens of thousands of arrows hurridly produced for a campaign.

I think it likely (given the eyewitness account of the battle of Browershaven) that a square shot at close range from a warbow is likely to crack a tempered breastplate, or heavily dent an unhardened one, but cause no serious harm to the wearer - given the shaping of the cuirasse, and the gap between keel and chest.

[Mike Garrett (Orc)]

Hail And well met again Chef!
So - to continue a previous thread - behold the power of the long/war bow!
I applaud you for your fortitude in the face of incoming fire! As you say - you'd not like to be on the recieving end of a full poundage bow.
Interesting read and hopefully will engender a little mor respect for the bow - which has had a bit of a pounding on this forum at the hands of those that think that Plate = invulnerability! - despite the fact that some battles which they cite were actually fought wearing transitional harness and not cap a pied.
Hope you are good and that the bruises are healing.

Stay Well!
Mike

[Michael B]

Regarding the psychological effects, I have faced massed archers shooting blunts in the following scenarios, both with mail and open face nasal helm (as pictured to the left). My analysis is not quite as erudite as Chef's, and some of the details (such as distances) have faded with time:

Hastings 2000 (UK): I was in the Norman side, advancing up the hill and carrying a large kite shield. I believe there were only about thirty Saxon archers, at least on my side of the battle. Primarily, the archers lobbed the arrows, to minimal physical effect as most fell short. Due to the large number of targets on my side compared to the limited number of archers, and the ability to see the arrows in the air, allowing me to judge the risk and raise my shield as needed, I did not feel threatened, either by the risk of physical injury or the risk of "having to take a shot".

At a later stage, when the shield walls were in contact, I was hit in the thigh by a horizontal shot - it was not intercepted by my mail. I had no idea it was coming, and, while I knew it was a possibility, I had not seen many such shots and due to the number of Normans and Saxons milling around I didn't think I was exposed enough to be hit - so no real psychological effect there.

I imagine it would have been far different if the archery was used more effectively - here, it was really for show more than for tactical reasons.

Abbey Museum show, 1999(?) (Australia): I wrote a scenario for the finale of the show. It involved my group (only about eight people) as the remnants of an army, retreating into the centre of the field and taking up a position in front of a large wooden castle (yes, rather dodgy, but it actually looks quite impressive - if not quite right - there's a few pictures at http://www.abbeytournament.com/) waiting for the gates to open.

We were then shot at by 30+ archers - both direct and lob shots - each with 10 to 20 arrows. For safety reasons, and because it seemed the only logical thing to do, we knelt down, locked our shields (mine was a metre wide round), and weathered the storm.

It was quite stressful, feeling the thuds of the arrows on our shields, others whizzing past, and others hitting the wall behind and bouncing back at us from behind. There was certainly no way we were going to peep around the shields to see what was happening. The noises are what I remember the most, as well as the worry caused by the fact that we had not tried this before, and that I had dragged my fellows into the situation - as a few arrows came through the gaps between the shields, it felt like there was a real risk of injury.

Obviously, I would have been a hell of a lot more worried if the arrows were real and our shields were more on the authentic side of thickness.

Just a few impressions.

Michael B
Reafan

[Postscript: Perhaps all that distinguishes my experiences from those such as the SCAdians who regularly practise combat archery is the amount of exposure of unarmoured body parts - ie. face, lower arms and lower legs.]

[chef de chambre]

Hail And well met again Chef!
So - to continue a previous thread - behold the power of the long/war bow!
I applaud you for your fortitude in the face of incoming fire! As you say - you'd not like to be on the recieving end of a full poundage bow.
Interesting read and hopefully will engender a little mor respect for the bow - which has had a bit of a pounding on this forum at the hands of those that think that Plate = invulnerability! - despite the fact that some battles which they cite were actually fought wearing transitional harness and not cap a pied.
Hope you are good and that the bruises are healing.

Stay Well!
Mike

Hi Mike,

You will note that the conditions the bows were fired in were optimum, and not commonplace on the battlefield due to standard English tactical deployment (the use of the warbow as a rapid fire-indirect fire denial weapon to create a beaten ground), in the condition of indirect fire, the shots would be less likely to cause such damage, and less likely to strike a specific target. The sort of shots we undertook would be the last one or two shots before battles collided. Plate would have, if not been invulnerable itself (not it's wearer, who could be shot down by a chance shot to where the armour was not), the next thing to near invulnerable (again - *not* confering invulnerability to it's wearer) to that sort of plunging shot.

This is why most of your gentry and nobility on the losing sides in the 1460's & 70's were able to try to scarper off , to be collected up later for execution by the winning side, rather than being killed in battle directly.

That said, I shudder to think what it must have been like for the majority of partially armoured men, who made up the vast bulk of any host - me as a case in point in this particular excersise, where I would have been maimed or killed outright - taken out of action in a minute from a crippleing/killing blow - to where my armour was not.

[chef de chambre]

Regarding the psychological effects, I have faced massed archers shooting blunts in the following scenarios, both with mail and open face nasal helm (as pictured to the left). My analysis is not quite as erudite as Chef's, and some of the details (such as distances) have faded with time:

Hastings 2000 (UK): I was in the Norman side, advancing up the hill and carrying a large kite shield. I believe there were only about thirty Saxon archers, at least on my side of the battle. Primarily, the archers lobbed the arrows, to minimal physical effect as most fell short. Due to the large number of targets on my side compared to the limited number of archers, and the ability to see the arrows in the air, allowing me to judge the risk and raise my shield as needed, I did not feel threatened, either by the risk of physical injury or the risk of "having to take a shot".

At a later stage, when the shield walls were in contact, I was hit in the thigh by a horizontal shot - it was not intercepted by my mail. I had no idea it was coming, and, while I knew it was a possibility, I had not seen many such shots and due to the number of Normans and Saxons milling around I didn't think I was exposed enough to be hit - so no real psychological effect there.

I imagine it would have been far different if the archery was used more effectively - here, it was really for show more than for tactical reasons.

Abbey Museum show, 1999(?) (Australia): I wrote a scenario for the finale of the show. It involved my group (only about eight people) as the remnants of an army, retreating into the centre of the field and taking up a position in front of a large wooden castle (yes, rather dodgy, but it actually looks quite impressive - if not quite right - there's a few pictures at http://www.abbeytournament.com/) waiting for the gates to open.

We were then shot at by 30+ archers - both direct and lob shots - each with 10 to 20 arrows. For safety reasons, and because it seemed the only logical thing to do, we knelt down, locked our shields (mine was a metre wide round), and weathered the storm.

It was quite stressful, feeling the thuds of the arrows on our shields, others whizzing past, and others hitting the wall behind and bouncing back at us from behind. There was certainly no way we were going to peep around the shields to see what was happening. The noises are what I remember the most, as well as the worry caused by the fact that we had not tried this before, and that I had dragged my fellows into the situation - as a few arrows came through the gaps between the shields, it felt like there was a real risk of injury.

Obviously, I would have been a hell of a lot more worried if the arrows were real and our shields were more on the authentic side of thickness.

Just a few impressions.

Michael B
Reafan

[Postscript: Perhaps all that distinguishes my experiences from those such as the SCAdians who regularly practise combat archery is the amount of exposure of unarmoured body parts - ie. face, lower arms and lower legs.]

Hi Michael,

Something I should add regarding the psychological factor - it would be extremely discouraging to be struck in good armour, and injured through it (without armour penetration). Going back to the strikes on armoured areas not plate - Having suffered broken shortribs from a fall off a horse, and knowing what I could and could not do (I immediately got back on, as soon as my wind returned and rode a short distance, so the mare would not get it into her head that throwing a rider got her out of being ridden) -

Had I recieved the strike to the brigandine and the inner elbow that I did from a full strength warbow, I am quite sure the armour would have held (albeit been damaged), but having broken ribs and internal bleeding, and my elbow damaged, possibly dislocated, I am fairly certain that I would have sought to withdraw from the fight at that point - I would have been unable to fight, and I would have been highly motivated to get my extremely painful (if non-lethal) injuries tended. If that option were unavailable, I would certainly have been reluctant to press forward, and in fact would have been of no use in the fight.

Just putting more thoughts out there.

[Marshal]

Chef,

I am not sure how far we can generalize the disabling effects of pain/injury received accidentally or medically to those received in the midst of a full adrenaline dump such as one would probably experience in a battle.

But it's a very interesting account of your experience and impressions. How much less would you estimate to be the impact force from an indirect-fire ( ie falling ) arrow than from the sort of shots you received?

[Corey]

Great data chef! It's just one more puzzle piece to add to the pile, and a damned nifty one at that.

Having given praise, I have one thing left to say. Better you than me!

[Russ Mitchell]

Chef:

Very good stuff. Are you willing to make up a full, formal write-up? I would like to refer to this test when I do the publication version of my recent tests... with the exception that most of our medium bodkins made "trivial penetrations" rather than glancing (usually before the shafts snapped!), this accords very well with my data, and I'd very much like to be able to either refer to it, or else cooperate with you in the future on further assessments. The paper-bound among my peers had their eyes seriously opened when I referred to the raw impact energies involved in my tests, and I am growing more and more convinced that differences in metallurgy and the ability of the horse-archer to engage in long-term direct fire explains much of the differences in effectiveness between your context and mine (let alone, of course, the time separation between Calais and Lake Meli).

I am currently (this morning) finishing up dimensional measurements on some arrowheads, and hopefully will have more metallurgically-correct heads made up for a second round of testing.

[Hubert]

Thanks for the extra info Chef. Once again just wanted to say that was a very interesting and enlightening experiment. And your points about the bodkin tips make a great deal of sense.

I'm not sure if I missed it, did the Mary Rose strike the heavier armour solidly at all, if so was there any armour damage whatsoever or just a little scratch?

[chef de chambre]

Chef:

Very good stuff. Are you willing to make up a full, formal write-up? I would like to refer to this test when I do the publication version of my recent tests... with the exception that most of our medium bodkins made "trivial penetrations" rather than glancing (usually before the shafts snapped!), this accords very well with my data, and I'd very much like to be able to either refer to it, or else cooperate with you in the future on further assessments. The paper-bound among my peers had their eyes seriously opened when I referred to the raw impact energies involved in my tests, and I am growing more and more convinced that differences in metallurgy and the ability of the horse-archer to engage in long-term direct fire explains much of the differences in effectiveness between your context and mine (let alone, of course, the time separation between Calais and Lake Meli).

I am currently (this morning) finishing up dimensional measurements on some arrowheads, and hopefully will have more metallurgically-correct heads made up for a second round of testing.

Hi Russ,

I'd be more than willing - I don't know how formal I can make the assessment - it was an off the cuff bit of lunacy, rather than a planned test. I wrote it down while it was still fresh in my mind, and my bruises were present, so as to have the best recollection I could of it before time faded the memory. Let me know how I should write it up.

I found the shaping of the armour made it difficult for the comparitive whopping big blunt with the leather - texture of which in conjunction with the surface of the arrowhead (which I think should have given it more of a chance to grip rather than skitter) to find a point of purchase on the armour. This was not true with the brigandine.

In point of fact, I was surprised by the concussive effect to my body under the small brigandine plates - I had not taken into account that naturaly the defense being more flexible is going to have an effect on shedding an arrow or the impact damage from same. I wish I had been wearing my brayette of mail, to see how that might have modified the damage done to the strike on my right thigh.

I would concur after suffering close range direct fire that a powerful composite horse bow, fired at a moderate range and comparitively flat tajectory, is going to have a more serious effect to the target than a typical ranged trajectory from shotbows and warbows as employed in Western Europe. Since the best protection I found was the solid, shaped armour of the white harness, and a more flexible defence to impart to the wearer concussive damage, I have trouble seeing how a solely mail harness would serve it's wearer as the best defence under such direct fire. I suspect that this is why we see in the Middle East many fabric/mail layered defences, and I wonder what sort of fabric defence would be under the mail - obviously, if it wasn't an effective defence in that sort of warfare, it would not have been worn, and it seems to have been one of the primary defences of the horse archer.

Obviously we need a series of studies showing the comparitive strengths of Middle Eastern and Eastern and Centeral European bows (I suspect that the composite bows were both more efficient and powerful than the self bows - even of the most powerful sort, commonly used in the West), alongside of an examination of the layers of defence found worn by the horse archers in these differing societies. Rationaly, I must assume that each society derived a reasonable defence against it's primary weapon, and that mail played a large part in that defence given its large presence in art of those regions.

[chef de chambre]

Thanks for the extra info Chef. Once again just wanted to say that was a very interesting and enlightening experiment. And your points about the bodkin tips make a great deal of sense.

I'm not sure if I missed it, did the Mary Rose strike the heavier armour solidly at all, if so was there any armour damage whatsoever or just a little scratch?

Hi Coenwalh,

Yes, the Mary Rose bow (remember, a 1/2 scale 50 lb draw weight - not the 104 lb full scale draw weight in the truck - were I hit on the bare leg with a blunt with that above my knee, I would be writing you wearing a cast for my dislocated knee right now, instead of nursing a hemotomah) struck me solidly twice - once on the bevor below the chin ('stuck', and bounded off - the piece is high carbon made by Robert Macphereson), and once on the mild steel gardbrace of my left pauldron made by Jeff Hedgecock - that shot skittering off to my left hand side). In neither case was any damage done whatsoever to the armour - not so much as a scratch. (given that the rabbit blunts were padded with a layer of leather, a scratch isn;t really likely)

Now, had I been struck with a 104 lb bow with a blunt in the bevor, I would likely have neck trauma - were it a solid strike with a bodkin point, (I doubt penetration, given the quality and shaping of the armour), it might well have crushed or bruised my larynx. I do not think I would have even gotten off with so much as a bruise on the gardbrace hit - it is an additional plate on the front surface of the pauldron, so there is additional space even to absob the energy of the blow. Were it penetrated, I doubt penetration of the pauldron underneath - the two layers in combination being too thick to penetrate to a depth to really injure me, given the data from Leeds.

[Russ Mitchell]

Given that the Scots at Halidon Hill were mail-clad, shield-bearing spearmen, it certainly makes it understandable how they became so closely packed together -- the instinct to cringe away from the flying hockey pucks must have been overwhelming.

As to the fabric defenses, we've got a lot of mixed bags going on there, partially because the archery itself was by no means homogenous even with horse-archers. It is one thing to defend yourself from lightweight Byzantine bows with a mail shirt, another to fend off Turcoman and Arab short arrows from a bow of moderate pull, and another thing entirely to deal with the same thing, only with half again the bow strength, and a 3x as heavy arrowhead, as one finds in East-Central and Eastern Europe in the remnants of old Khazaria... in which case felt is as much the issue as fabric is... your shield was your friend, and for the era right before yours, imnsho anybody who forgets to put that in the mix (like the guys who pick on the crossbow's demerits based on Crecy, not realizing that the results of that battle might have been very, very different had the Genoese not been ordered into battle without their pavises), I think is dooming themselves to missing at least a third of the picture.

As to a formal writeup, all it would need to be would be much of what you wrote, combined with a small description of the half-plate and brigandine, and the date... my first test on these lines was not all that more formalized than yours was; the point was just to do it.

[Cliff Rogers]

Dear Chef,

I was very interested to read your experiences being shot at. One key question I had was the weight of the arrows employed. Can you offer any information/thoughts/corrections on the following:

Were the arrows you were being shot with lightweight modern shafts, or medieval-style war shafts, half an inch in diameter and made of dense ash? Mark Stretton's heavy bodkin arrows weigh in at around 4 3/8 oz, and his long bodkin at 3 oz. By comparison, a standard light/medium hunter's arrow intended for a 50 lb bow would, according to an archery website I looked at, weigh about 300 grains = 0.69 oz, i.e. less than 1/4 as much as a 3 oz arrow. Stretton's long bodkin (this is from a 144 lb bow, mind) flew at about 155 fps, vs. about 180 fps would be typical for a bowhunter's arrow (according to another website). I.e. compared to a modern hunting arrow from a bow similar to the half-weight Mary Rose, the KE of his long bodkin would be about 3.26 as great and the MV would be about 3.74 x as great. His heavy bodkin (1925 grains, 134 fps) might have 3.5 times the KE of the hunting arrow and 4.77 times the MV (!)

Moreover, you mentioned that the arrows you were being shot with had leather covers over rabbit blunts. Wouldn’t the consequently increased air-resistance reduce the speed significantly (and hence the KE substantially-squared)?

When you were mentally trying to “scale upâ€Â

[earnest carruthers]

Brave man Chef.

Cliff has asked the question I wanted to ask, the mass of the arrows used.

I know the morale effects of shooting are important but in reality the liklihood of you being injured severly by any of the arrows in your armoured state will diminish the moral effect somewhat.

We used to do what you conducted at a line of approximately eight or ten fully harnessed men, shooting 30lbs draw bows and lighter arrows - but full draw mainly for visual effect. At one time we had the military captain hold a microphone behind a buckler the tinkling sounds we heard were often magnified and transmitted to the audience. Visually it was very interesting as at quite close ranges you couldn't fail to hit someone on some part of their body, if even a quarter of the hits were counted as disabling wounds the guys would not have made it to the archer line - note the archers were the same in number as the advancing harness wearers.

We test shot a target arrow with target pile (50lb draw weight) at a brigandine - one made by Brother Gedeon and it only lightly penetrated for obvious reasons, but mark it did, a similar test with a sharp bill point settled the issue - a neat hole.


I guess we will have to wait for someone to use a decently made harness to actually shoot at with high draw weight bows, any takers?


But one thing you must stop saying is that you fire arrows - you don't - you should know that - it is as heinous as saying Chainmail - tut tut bad boy

[Aonghus]

Chef,

The slow missiles are bit unnerving aren't they? Paintballs are the same way. Sometimes you can see them coming, but you really can't do anything about it. You know it's going to hit you, but because of foot placement, bracing, or movement, you can do little to avoid the blow. It does get the adrenaline pumping a bit to KNOW that there will be a hit and then a bit of uncomfort, sting, or pain.

I would also make the guess that massed archery was meant to have as much impact AFTER the battle as during. Even non-life-threatening injuries to your enemy's soldiers (especially during the Middle Ages) would cause slow attrition in his ability to make war at a later date. Sometimes a wounded enemy is more useful than a dead one, because the wounded soldier needs to be treated and cared for; the dead one need only be burried.

[Josh W]

...and so the English Longbow subset of the Ethnic Badass Weapon crowd rallies in spite of the lack of evidence for their position that arrows could in fact regularly defeat plate armour. I swear, this myth may prove even harder to eradicate than the katana-fanboy stuff.

[Aonghus]

...and so the Plate-Armor-makes-me -INVINCIBLE crowd rallies to take a pot shot at a well-made-but-only-truly-overpowering-in-certain-situations-weapons crowd.

I don't think anyone here is saying that the Longbow is some super Ninja weapon Josh. I think the power and usefullness of the longbow (or any bow) in certain situations could not be denied.

[chef de chambre]

Hi Cliff and Grimstone,

I'm glad you revisited this topic, as I am trying to put it into a more formal paper, to go up on the ARS society webpage. I also have learned more since I posted the topic.

I laboured under the misaprehension that the highest draw-weight bow was 50lbs, in reality, I am told by the owner it was 65lb. The arrows themselves were not the average 'flou-flou' arrows employed in reenactment - I would have to ask Kenneth Meade, who made them their usual mass. They had horn knocks, and smaller fletching than the usual arrows, and were made to be shot out of a 50 lb bow. I would say they were maybe 2/3 the mass of a war arrow. from my recollection (and I am intimately familiar with bodkins and flights shot from them, we had a 104 lb draw-weight Mary Rose, with proper horn nocked bodkins - 1/2" diameter ash shafts, fletched with goose feathers, proprely fletched. A UK smith had hand forged the heads - Hector Cole, I believe). Of course they would be slower moving, but I would not be being fired at on the level inside of 20 yards either, and I would not be the sole target in combat.

I am pretty certain my brigandine would have fared much better than your example you destructively tested, under actual impact. It's plates are made of springsteel, hardened and tempered, so it would represent more closely a expensive brigandine of quality, and not the viij. s munition brigandines John Howard was buying out of Southwark in 1464. Those would no doubt have suffered penetration, assuming a square on hit.

Regarding expected long-term effects on armies, sustaning casualties well along - from my study of Medieval warfare, I think you are looking to a level of planning not considered by a Medieval commander. Consider that the bulk of casualties inflicted seem to have occured when the losing side broke and fled, and were cut down by the victors - the wounded men would be least likely to be able to escape, and most likely to end up with their skulls smashed in repeadedly, and in a grave trench.

I have since been under fire by more numerous, lighter weight arrows, but without any reasonable precautions taken by the maker to prevent injury - the smallest blunt heads I have seen, normal fletching and poplar or fir shafts (I would say they were helf the weight or less than a war arrow, but the bows they were shot from ranged from 45-85 lbs draw weight, and the simpletons firing them in the first scenario were firing direct fire, full draw or extended draw - it really was amazing nobody was really hurt). I happened to be put in the position of a junior officer, keeping a formation of billmen advancing across a field in some sort of order, and I rarely if ever noticed any of the archery. I was too busy keeping people in order, and from tripping over one another. The only time I noticed the vollys at all was when one of the archers grazed my sallet, which was a minor annoyance to me.

What I did have time to do, and mostly dealt with, was the effects on morale of the body of men advancing, which was of course detrimental - especially when a nco went down like a pollaxed steer, after clearly taking a face shot (he had no serious hurt, and was playing along, but a lot of people thought he was really injured) They had substantially less armour, and although they weren't going to be killed or seriously injured from the alleged "blunts", I'm told they had some impact.

If my 'minder' (my wife, who objects to some of my experiments) isn't around at an event, to prevent my enthusiasim, I might be convinced to undergo fire from higher draw weight bows, at normal combat ranges. I would of course want to be completely harnessed, and be wearing a cup.

[Mike F]

Ah, Chef, you've made my day. I missed this thread the first time around, so I'm glad it came up again.

I'm certainly glad you've taken the time to look into this, and I'd say, from your experience, that a direct shot from the 105# is something you shouldn't try to take. I'm sure you knew this.

I'm quite interested in any further testing, and I look forward to your paper.

As a side question: Did you consider the difference between a bow and a crossbow? The length of draw on both (and thus the "power stroke" so to speak) are markedly different. I'd actually be interested to see how that affected things.

[Mike Garrett (Orc)]

This point has no doubt been made already, but wasn't the fearsome reputation of the English/Welsh warbow gained during the 100 years war, an era of transitional armour, ie more maille and less plate? So less complete coverage by solid metal. I'm perfectly willing to accept that arrows loosed at gentlemen in full plate were far less effective than those loosed at knights in transitional harness - obviously
I am not aware of any accounts of high warbow effectiveness in the era of full-plate - not to say it wasn't used with good effect, just less so than in earlier times

[Russ Mitchell]

Cliff,

First, may I say that it is a *real* pleasure to see you here. Thanks for dropping by.

Chef and I plan to do some continued experimental work together as soon as we are able to master the twin demons of time and money.

Having reviewed the latest data published in the Great Warbow, I would have to say that I find Strickland and Hardy's arguments regarding bow weight to be entirely convincing. (As an aside, what this means is that the arrows used in my test would be relevant solely to the Abbey arrow, and definitely *not* relevant to the Mary Rose finds.)

I believe that what lies unaddressed, and is critical for your question, is this: how relevant are the Mary Rose arrows to those used in 14th-15th century warfare? Although Hardy asserts that the Abbey arrow was spined out to be able to be shot from a heavy warbow, he does not describe how this was tested, nor how the age of the wood was accounted for in testing, which is troubling insofar as no destructive testing at all was allowed. It is also relevant, because said arrow is no heavier than any modern hunting or target shaft, arrowhead included, and that makes a critical difference for understanding what strength bow it could have tolerated.

We also have chronicle data that makes this an important question, due to the French cavalry's apparently complete lack of chagrin at voluntarily standing stock-still with their horses under constant archery barrage in order to allow passage to more lightly-armed footmen (and this *must* have been direct fire, or else the presence of the cavalry would have afforded the footmen no protection whatsoever). If we posit that over time the English bows generally grew more powerful, and the arrows in general more massive, then these material and written records are all in agreement.

If, on the other hand, it turns out that the Abbey Arrow is a historical outlier meant solely for target or hunting use, and the 14th/15th-c. arrows were every bit as massive, and shot from equivalently powerful bows as those contained on board the Mary Rose, then one must immediately agree to re-assess Edward's archery capability as a real monster capable of doing immense damage to anyone under fire. If that is the case, however, then the chronicle reliability regarding Poitiers must be re-examined -- which, as you know, is a study of which I'm not really capable.

(If, with your much better contacts than I, have already squared that circle to determine the answer, then **please** let me know, so that I don't waste research funds re-inventing the wheel.)

-Russ Mitchell

[Josh W]

FWIW, I'll gladly volunteer to stand next to chef in my own harness and suffer pelting by rubber-headed arrows shot from 100-pound+ bows. I can't imagine it'd be much worse than getting clubbed with a thick piece of rattan wielded by a large man in the SCA...

[Mike Garrett (Orc)]

FWIW, I'll gladly volunteer to stand next to chef in my own harness and suffer pelting by rubber-headed arrows shot from 100-pound+ bows. I can't imagine it'd be much worse than getting clubbed with a thick piece of rattan wielded by a large man in the SCA...

Can we use fire arrows?

[Josh W]

I think the power and usefullness of the longbow (or any bow) in certain situations could not be denied.

Plate armour's military usefulness outlived that of the longbow. The accounts of the battles of Brouwershaven and Flodden, aas well as the later writings of Sir John Smythe are particularly damning to the argument that the longbow was a great armour piercer. Something tells me that the guys pulling 190-pound bows like the fellow in Primitive Archer magazine's flawed test a year or two back were probably not the norm on the medieval battlefield...

As Mike Garret says, after the tail end of the "transitional" mail-and-plate period, one doesn't see any more "longbow victories" that the Anglo-toxophiles can crow about. Where was the longbow's vaunted armour-piercing capability at Patay when the English longbowmen were trampled under the hooves of the very full plate armoured French heavy cavalry whose bane they supposedly were?

[Mike Garrett (Orc)]

[quote="Aonghus I think the power and usefullness of the longbow (or any bow) in certain situations could not be denied.

Plate armour's military usefulness outlived that of the longbow. The accounts of the battles of Brouwershaven and Flodden, aas well as the later writings of Sir John Smythe are particularly damning to the argument that the longbow was a great armour piercer.

As Mike Garret says, after the tail end of the "transitional" mail-and-plate period, one doesn't see any more "longbow victories" that the Anglo-toxophiles can crow about. Where was the longbow's vaunted armour-piercing capability at Patay when the English longbowmen were trampled under the hooves of the very full plate armoured French heavy cavalry whose bane they supposedly were?[/quote]

Damn those Frenchies and their full-plate! Cheating scoundrels. Ah well, I suppose by that time they were due

[chef de chambre]

Ah, Chef, you've made my day. I missed this thread the first time around, so I'm glad it came up again.

I'm certainly glad you've taken the time to look into this, and I'd say, from your experience, that a direct shot from the 105# is something you shouldn't try to take. I'm sure you knew this.

I'm quite interested in any further testing, and I look forward to your paper.

As a side question: Did you consider the difference between a bow and a crossbow? The length of draw on both (and thus the "power stroke" so to speak) are markedly different. I'd actually be interested to see how that affected things.

Not inside of 20 yards anyway. I'm willing to be clout shot at about 200 yards, 150 yards, 100 yards, and maybe semi-direct fire at 50 yards, at least once - if the archers are good enough, and promise to aim at my armour and not my squishy-bits, because that would seriously hurt.

Oh, yes, I've considered the difference between a bow and crossbow, and mid to late 15th century military crossbows are something I would *not* be willing to stand the fire of, even if fireing blunts, inside of combat ranges. There is a reason the best armours were proofed against crossbows.

The effectiveness of the warbow depends on two things, in my estimation 1. a commander with the wit to realise the strengths and weaknesses of the weapons, and how they need to be deployed to be effective (and when they won't be), and 2. steady archers trained to volly fire, and work under the command of the master bowman. It is terribly easy to overshoot the target when you aren't in the mode of direct-fire, and so being able to clout shoot properly would be of ultimate military importance, to be able to create the beaten ground that seems to have been the desired effect.

[chef de chambre]

I think we need to consider several things when discussing the effectiveness of English archery. It is important to note that other forms of archery will have different effects, and all military archery should not be lumped together.

Firstly, the longbow itself is not the ultimate individual all-destroying weapon - what it is was a highly effective military weapon when properly employed, in favourable conditions. It was not the maxim gun at the Somme, but really, it was the closest medieval technology was able to achive in effect on the battlefield.

Once we realise the longbow was a weapon of reality, useful and good, and not a mythical titan like the imagined machine-gun barrel slicing katana of teenagers wet-dreams, and put it into a proper perspective, we can get a useful understanding of the weapon, and why it was so effective for such a long time. We can also logically examine why it fell out of use.

In reality, the principle reason for it's dissapearance in largest part from the 16th century battlefield was not because it was no longer a useful weapon - if it could have been employed en-masse, it could have been decisive againt tercios of pikes and arquebuses.(Benjamin Franklin was an advocate for it's use as late as the American Revolution) The problem was, and always had been from it's effective employment, was that for such a deceptively simple weapon, it took a lot of practise to master, at a level that made it militarily useful. From the reign of Edward III, the very reign where it's tactical innovation recieved fame, we have laws being passed by the crown, complaining of the 'decay' of archery, and forbidding sports detracting from the practise of archery. It took a dedication not found in the average Tom, Dick, or Harry in their normal daily life, to master the bow to the point it was most militarily useful. As gunpowder weapons became more useful and common, and powder became cheaper, the average fellow would be more inclined to place any military requirement into such a weapon he could 'master' with sporadic practise, and less comparitive pain.

The other point we must realise is that no armour conveys invulnerablity - end of subject. It cannot completely encase a person, even if it's plates are invulnerable to the individual shot - something that could in no way be guarenteed, even regarding the best manufactured armour, due if nothing else to the lack of complete control of an armourer over the hardening and tempering process, and the spottiness of the raw materials he had to work with. Keeping in mind it never fully encases a person, I was surprised how often I was struck in our little experiment where my armour was not. While I would have been weaing mail voiders in most of these areas, the force of impact alone could have easily disabled me, at least temprarily, say if I was struck in the inner elbow. As to penetration, yes, we have the example of Browerhavn,, where Duke Phillip and his core of probably some of the best equipped knights in Europe were unharmed (although their armour was often not), subject to direct arrow fire. John Pastons experience at Barnet has him wounded through his vambrace, and there were far mopre fully harnessed men in armour of the quality John Paston was likely wearing, as opposed to the household of Phillip the Good, the richest potentate in Western Europe.

Now, John Paston was hardly killed - merely comparitively lightly wounded - he was in fear of his life from disease or infection, as we know from his letter , but let us assume a similarly harnessed man with less luck, under heavy repeated vollys of arrows. While it is unlikely the plates of his armour would be penetrated to a depth to kill him outright, or disable him, a number of minor wounds could well cause him to bleed out, and die from blood loss.

A small percentage of men were fully harnessed, the bulk of any medieval army would be in the equivalent coverage of torso and some arm protection, and a helmet of some sort. They would have a lot less of "not armoured", and be much more vulnerable to a rain of arrows - this is fairly proved by what we know of most mid 15th century English engagements, where one side is finally galled by arrows to close, just to end the volleys, regardless of the wisdom of closing. Archers themselves, firing upon other archers would be amongst the most vulnerable, a man at arms, or a french pavisier can always look down at least, and duck, the archer must expose his face and body to effectively fire indirectly - my supposition is that the chief victim of arrows during the Wars of the Roses was the archers themselves.

The mere fact that full harness did not convey invulnerability, merely a lot of security, heightening substantially the odds you would get to close with your opponents (lets say even that it might give you the 90 percentiles odds of surviving to close) during a brief period, say 1440-1500, the trend of continental warfare, and the increasing use of the arquebus led to a shedding of armour - longbows would have been very effective on the mid 16th century battlefield, could they have been properly employed with enough trained archers, and commanders who understood the weapon, and had the wit to properly use them. The problem is that they were not available in the neccessary quantities, because of the always existing intrinsic difficulties of properly trained men, and then compounded by a lack of proper bow timber for the optimum form of that sort of bow..

At any rate, those are some of my rambling thoughts on the subect.

1. remember it wasn't a superweapon, merely a very good weapon when circumstances favoured it, and

2. remember there is no such thing as invulnerable armour. although there is armour I would favour wearing if I had to undergo the lunacy of the medieval battlefield for real.

[Aonghus]

Josh,

Notice, I mentioned "in certain situations". How would the French horseman have faired if the English archers would have been firing from a protected position...say behind a wall of spears or from a prepared position.

The Longbow / crossbow / short bow / horse bow / gun, etc. is only as useful as the people using it and those commanding those who use it. It is not an ALL POWERFUL weapon system, but then again, niether is the lance-toting, mounted, fully-armored knight, the pike wielding, armored Swiss Pikeman, or even the SAW carrying U.S. Navy SEAL. Each has its / their uses in differing situations.

[Aonghus]

What Chef said!

This is why I usually keep my mouth shut here...others say it far more eloquently than I...I don't usually have to bother.

[Mike F]

Chef: As someone who's studied Agincourt and is facinated by the period, I find that every word rings true. I can't say it's all right because, rightly, I don't know, but I'd put my money on your analysis. Thank you.

As a side note, Agincourt had less to do with the longbow than the terrain, but the whole was greater than the sum of the parts anyway.

[Alcyoneus]

[quote:"Chef de Chambre"]
John Pastons experience at Barnet has him wounded through his vambrace, and there were far mopre fully harnessed men in armour of the quality John Paston was likely wearing, as opposed to the household of Phillip the Good, the richest potentate in Western Europe.

Now, John Paston was hardly killed - merely comparitively lightly wounded - he was in fear of his life from disease or infection, as we know from his letter , but let us assume a similarly harnessed man with less luck, under heavy repeated vollys of arrows. While it is unlikely the plates of his armour would be penetrated to a depth to kill him outright, or disable him, a number of minor wounds could well cause him to bleed out, and die from blood loss.[/quote]

Louis XII suffered a wound to his knee, apparently through his armor, in action against the Swiss. It wasn't serious, but did give him at least a brief cause for concern. The biography of him that I read (from documented sources) did not specify exactly what the arrow hit, or penetrated. It could have been a bodkin point hitting a gap, or penetrating to give a little more than a pin prick, it did not say.

[quote:"Josh"]Plate armour's military usefulness outlived that of the longbow. The accounts of the battles of Brouwershaven and Flodden, aas well as the later writings of Sir John Smythe are particularly damning to the argument that the longbow was a great armour piercer. Something tells me that the guys pulling 190-pound bows like the fellow in Primitive Archer magazine's flawed test a year or two back were probably not the norm on the medieval battlefield...[/quote]

It took less time to train a person to fire a gun, or a crossbow is the reason the longbow went out of fashion, more than its relative effectiveness (compared to crossbows, anyway;) )

You only say the test was flawed because it worked.