Interesting to see how self-supporting it is Luka. How stiff does it feel on?

Hi Guys,

Slightly piqued my interest by this thread, so I made a film....

3 types of bolt heads and three types of flexible armour - what happens?

https://youtu.be/Uoz0eggQen8

I hope you enjoy it.


Tod

Interesting results. My conclusion would be that almost impenetrable combination against all types of arrows would be light padding, mail over it and thick jack over mail. Pretty much what crusaders are described wearing when surviving Saladin's rains of arrows.

Thanks Tod. You and your fans might be interested in the true text and translation of the French royal ordonance (most of the online versions are incomplete and more 'retellings' than translations) and some of the detailed written sources on the construction of aketons, pourpoints, and gambesons in the 12th and 13th century

Could you tell us what the stubby four-sided 'plate cutter' point was based on?

I think we have been dissed! The next video tells people who wonder what the so-called plate cutter is based on to "go look in a museum."

I have never seen anything like that head, but I am not a specialist so I would would love to hear "type 52 in the typology published in ... they commonly show up on battlefields, destruction layers, and in arsenals and rarely in residential sites."

Sean Manning wrote "I think we have been dissed! The next video tells people who wonder what the so-called plate cutter is based on to "go look in a museum."

Don't be silly, I wouldn't be such an arse. I filmed that second video a couple of days after the first and it was genuinely that I had been thinking about the results of the first and just rolled on and that was based on some comment or other on the original video. So many comments on the Arrows v's Armour video were along the lines of "why didn't you use a bodkin" sort of thing I guess ~I was just bored of it.

I will try to pull out some appropriate pictures, but Leeds has many heads of a similarly stubby type form and again you see them fairly often in museums; of course of various angles, but this relatively blunt form is not uncommon. But why there is a difference between crossbow and arrow I don't understand. Arrow usually has a square section and a bit pointier, crossbow usually has a diamond section and a bit blunter.

More importantly than that, I was really intrigued by the effect of the waxing on fabric armour. - thoughts?

Tod

How many heads have been found with the shaft intact? If only the head remains, how can anyone tell whether it came from an arrow or a crossbow bolt?

What evidence do we have that these stubby arrowheads were actually used to compromise armour? Does the term "plate cutter" exist in any contemporary document?

Is there any reason why every one of these stubby-type heads couldn't have come from crossbow bolts?

I have the impression that YouTube does not let you turn off comments, and taking the time to edit in a photo from a catalogue or a museum visit definitely adds to the cost of producing a video! But a quick "you can see several hundred of these from Yorkshire in the Royal Armouries at Leeds" would be more helpful. Like you said, crossbows are hard to research because there is no book which brings all the different evidence together and tells you where it comes from. (I'd like to have a look at Mike Loades' new Osprey but they have a pretty tight page count).

Leo Todeschini wrote:

I will try to pull out some appropriate pictures, but Leeds has many heads of a similarly stubby type form and again you see them fairly often in museums; of course of various angles, but this relatively blunt form is not uncommon. But why there is a difference between crossbow and arrow I don't understand. Arrow usually has a square section and a bit pointier, crossbow usually has a diamond section and a bit blunter.

It looks like the place to start for medieval arrowheads in England is:

Oliver Jessop, "A New Artefact Typology for the Study of Medieval Arrowheads," Medieval Archaeology, vol. 40 (1996) pp. 192-205 https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/med_arch/contents.cfm?vol=40

is there something similar for bolts? That might help us see what you are talking about.

While we are talking crossbow bolts, I noticed this article

For our purposes, worth a look at the various drawings of crossbow bolt heads and their forms (scroll through - there are lots). Some are squat but others both flatter and more lanceolate. I wonder how they would fare in tests?

We have multiple sources all around the world telling us that "steeled" arrowheads are needed for armour penetration. We have surviving compact broadheads (Type 16) that are made from hardened steel so it is likely that they were intended for armour penetration. Do we have any so-called "plate cutters" made from hardened steel?

Dan Howard wrote

Quote:

We have multiple sources all around the world telling us that "steeled" arrowheads are needed for armour penetration. We have surviving compact broadheads (Type 16) that are made from hardened steel so it is likely that they were intended for armour penetration. Do we have any so-called "plate cutters" made from hardened steel?

I know of sources that show 'steeled arrow heads' but none that discuss them in the context of armour penetration and the requirement thereof. Could you point me? Specifically European 14th-16thC

We do indeed have some 16's (but not loads) with steel on them, but as yet I have not shot a steel 16 at steel/iron - has anyone else and what happens?

No 'plate cutters' made from hard steel as far as I know. I guess the inference here from you is that they were not for use against armour. To be fair armour with holes in it does tend to have square/diamond holes in it rather than the slit a 16 would leave, but there is so much we don't know, I think stating anything as more than 'best guess' is a bit tricky in this area.

Tod

Dan Howard wrote

Quote:

A lot of those square holes were made by spikes on hand weapons, not projectiles.

Almost certainly yes. But what proportion? Are we certain? How can we ever know? To state something as fact when nobody can know it is fact, is misrepresenting what we do know and what we don't. We do know lots of holes in armour (pre gun) are square. We do know holes in armour usually are not slit shaped and from thi9s we can make some heavy inferences, but cannot state a fact. Thats about it.

Something made the holes and it is reasonable to assume that some would be projectile of some kind and also of course some would be hammer and staff weapons.

Were steel type 16's used against armour specifically? No idea, but if the slit shaped holes are evident then probably and if they are not, then probably not. Can't say either way for sure though.

Tod