| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Randall Moffett
|
 Posted: Thu 08 Sep, 2011 3:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Gary,
I am not sure I'd use Byzantine armours as a norm for what was used in the western parts of Europe. They have fairly different systems in place on some occasions.
RPM
|
|
  |
 |
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
most people here are talking about plate in the battle of agincourt and vernuil.
but what about the armour quality at the battle of crecy? ii imagine it would be inferior tothe plate in agincourt, or the milanese knights at vernuil.
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poitiers was only a decade after Crecy (1356). Geoffrey le Baker wrote that those with the best armour were immune to English arrows:
"Standing in front of their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards…"
The only reason England won that battle was because of a perfectly timed cavalry charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is one of the main issues with this discussion, the fact we all have a handful of accounts that are used for either side of the argument even though the same sources often include multiple sections where the opposite it true. Baker from the last reading I did of Poitiers maybe a week or two ago has 1.3 accounts indicating success to ever one where it does not out of about 7 incidents from Poitiers of archery.
In fact toward the end Baker says the arrows were what defeated the armed men, indicating Le Baker did think they we very successful against the armed men. It is important to note he does not say defeated their horses but the men. Whether they penetrated armour is unstated at this account but he is clear the armoured men at arms suffered at the hands of the archers arrows.
Personally the way the account rolls out and indicates casualties seems logical to me as the armed men at arms grow closer they are under more threat, earlier on and further away safer.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | and indicates casualties seems logical to me as the armed men at arms grow closer they are under more threat, earlier on and further away safer. |
That's kind of my take on it, and this would bear that out:
| Quote: | An appendix in The Great War Bow by Mathew Strickland and Robert Hardy contains some interesting data on the impact energy of arrows at various ranges. For a 95.9 gm (3.3 oz) arrow with a long bodkin point from a bow of 150 lbs draw, the results were as follows, based on measured initial velocity and recorded range and drag coefficient estimated based on the observed values for initial velocity, range and launch angle. The initial kinetic energy was 134 joules.
Range(m) Impact Energy(J)
50m 115J
100m 98J
150m 85J
180m 80J
200m 78J |
The one thing Bane made a point of that makes sense - the only real shortfall in the Williams tests seem to be the lack of testing of different types of arrows, onlyusing something that mirrored the short bodkin.
If indeed (and this part of Bane's study does seem to make sense) the needle bodkin and the type 16 broadhead peirced better than the short bodkin, the amount of joulles needed to penetrate with these arrowheads was likely less (Though Bane should have used an unhardened needle nose bodkin)
So if the type 16 perhaps only needed for arguments sake 90 joulles to penetrate and significantly injure someone wearing mail over padding, They would be at risk at 50m of serious injury, at risk of minor wounds at 100m, and pretty safe at ranges beyong that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Baker from the last reading I did of Poitiers maybe a week or two ago has 1.3 accounts indicating success to ever one where it does not out of about 7 incidents from Poitiers of archery. |
the only thing I'd say here Randall - an arrow not penetrating armour might be duly noted in armour testing.
However, when telling a story about a battle, arrows that do penetrate make for a more exciting read 
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | This is one of the main issues with this discussion, the fact we all have a handful of accounts that are used for either side of the argument even though the same sources often include multiple sections where the opposite it true. Baker from the last reading I did of Poitiers maybe a week or two ago has 1.3 accounts indicating success to ever one where it does not out of about 7 incidents from Poitiers of archery.
In fact toward the end Baker says the arrows were what defeated the armed men, indicating Le Baker did think they we very successful against the armed men. It is important to note he does not say defeated their horses but the men. Whether they penetrated armour is unstated at this account but he is clear the armoured men at arms suffered at the hands of the archers arrows.
Personally the way the account rolls out and indicates casualties seems logical to me as the armed men at arms grow closer they are under more threat, earlier on and further away safer.
RPM |
one question im wondering more about arrow dynamics. is., for example. mike loades in his armour test using an air cannon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m746lj90izs shown herea
suggests that only at ranges of 20 metres or less (and this is with a 150# bow shot by, none other than mike stretton.) could the longbow have a chance of reliably penetrating armour of that period. though, if im not mistaken, at that time wasnt plate worn like COP i.e over a hauberk?, if your arrow punctures the breatplate, no way in hell is it getting through the hauberk. infact, as dan has pointed out, an arrow will have a fair struggle getting past a well supported hauberk even.
interestingly though, a norman needle point bodkin doesnt NEED to actually burst the links or be hard to beat maille, since all the bodkin needs to do is pass through the ID of the rind and pierce the man underneath, and have enough velocity to force the rng open. plate of course is a different story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | suggests that only at ranges of 20 metres or less (and this is with a 150# bow shot by, none other than mike stretton.) could the longbow have a chance of reliably penetrating armour of that period. though, if im not mistaken, at that time wasnt plate worn like COP i.e over a hauberk? |
Depends on the period for the COP. In the earlier time of the 100 years war, this could have been worn over mail, in the later period you are looking at true plate.
On thing about the 150# draws of Longbows - The Mary Orse bows seemed to have averaged that, but I'd hate to take this as a basis for all longbows. The other finds of longbows have been closer to 100 pounds in draw.
The other thing - there is really no true evidence (other than a couple of found bows) for this one way or another, but it's possible earlier longbows were of a lighter draw than those of the Mary Rose.
Armour evolved in thickness and hardness through this period. Crossbows became of a heavier draw during this period. Other weapons evolved as well, so is it likely that Longbows were as well part of this arms race?
The other found bows are closer to 100 pounds, and about 6 feet in length, as opposed to those of the Mary Rose that are 6'6" in length on average, and 150 pounds or so in draw.
The Flodden bow is almost a red herring here for this line of thought, 6' in length and an estimated 90 lb pull.
What would be nice if all the bows were estimated in draw eight according to the same procedure. Could the FLodden bow's estimated 90# draw be like the lighter estimates of the Mary Rose bows, where they were thought to have more in the line of a 100-110# draw?
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
yeah, thats what i thought watcing the test again after reading this whole thread.is that exact fact, that said mike admits that he is represnting the very top end of the longbow poundages
that said, while it does pierce the armour and aketon, i dont think this man will be felling dead from his horse, though he wouldnt be a happy man in any case.
bu on that basis alone, regarding the spread of longbow poundages, im thinking the chances of reliably penetrating armour as being fairly slim, even at that 20 meter rang, but whats more interestin is the test he does for the episode on armour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk this is a test against heat treatedand toughened breastplate, o replicate those worn bynthe milanese knights at the battle of vernuil,.
but even at that 20m range using that 150# bow.while it did PIERCEthe breastplate, it did so only just, and didnt at all damage the man underneatj.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William,
The arrow is crucial to this. Some heads will present a better chance of penetrating one defense over another. The main issue is I think that is why some arrowheads become common as they were just generally better. I think a gent in a aketon with a hauberk and a COP would be fairly safe perhaps even relatively close but I do not think the COP should be looked at as majorly more difficult than any other plate armour. Overlap likely is very minimal of plates and we have COP plates that are very thin to near 2mm so once again lots of play. I think Mike Loads testing is hard to qualify as none of the variables, thickness, hardness or anything are given. That said anything hardened is in th minority of medieval plate armour. Check out volume I and II of the Royal Military Colleges work on the topic. Volume I is available from the Royal Armouries.
Gary,
I think the MR bows are the closest we will get to a medieval longbow. The others have 0 real evidence of being used in war but local legends. They could just as easily been used by a teen learning the skill or archery or for the hunt. At least the Mary Rose bows are of military find, not random ones that have very dubious military context. I could easily believe the range or warbows is near 150lbs, at least for the pro to semi pros- such as Henry VIII would put on a flag ship. Still nearing 100 I think that would still be low.
There is no evidence that plate grew drastically thicker during this period. Only in Italy do we really see this around 1500 as they ditch heat treatment more or less completely and trade in thicker plates. The bulk of Europe remains fairly static for some 50 years or so after.
I think really we have some major issues in such testing as the basic variable of medieval armour and archery remain on a nuts and bolts level unknown and unresearched.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Sep, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | William,
The arrow is crucial to this. Some heads will present a better chance of penetrating one defense over another. The main issue is I think that is why some arrowheads become common as they were just generally better. I think a gent in a aketon with a hauberk and a COP would be fairly safe perhaps even relatively close but I do not think the COP should be looked at as majorly more difficult than any other plate armour. Overlap likely is very minimal of plates and we have COP plates that are very thin to near 2mm so once again lots of play. I think Mike Loads testing is hard to qualify as none of the variables, thickness, hardness or anything are given. That said anything hardened is in th minority of medieval plate armour. Check out volume I and II of the Royal Military Colleges work on the topic. Volume I is available from the Royal Armouries.
Gary,
I think the MR bows are the closest we will get to a medieval longbow. The others have 0 real evidence of being used in war but local legends. They could just as easily been used by a teen learning the skill or archery or for the hunt. At least the Mary Rose bows are of military find, not random ones that have very dubious military context. I could easily believe the range or warbows is near 150lbs, at least for the pro to semi pros- such as Henry VIII would put on a flag ship. Still nearing 100 I think that would still be low.
There is no evidence that plate grew drastically thicker during this period. Only in Italy do we really see this around 1500 as they ditch heat treatment more or less completely and trade in thicker plates. The bulk of Europe remains fairly static for some 50 years or so after.
I think really we have some major issues in such testing as the basic variable of medieval armour and archery remain on a nuts and bolts level unknown and unresearched.
RPM |
im gonna agree its hard to qualify, can you guys recognise what type of arrowhead mike is using? by the way, when did theso called 'plate cutter head' come into existance?
but considering the expertise and the people he employs to help recreat material for testing, i get the feeling its probably a much better test than those done by most shows,
of course this doesnt mean its a good test overall.
considering the results he gets are from shooting a 150# bow and thats the extreme top end as he describes, that means that on the bell courve of poundages that would exist on a battlefield i get the feeling only a minority would hope to replicate that result
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Sep, 2011 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | There is no evidence that plate grew drastically thicker during this period. Only in Italy do we really see this around 1500 as they ditch heat treatment more or less completely and trade in thicker plates. The bulk of Europe remains fairly static for some 50 years or so after.
|
No reason it should change, in response to archery. Once the bow-arrow-human system is fairly optimised, it isn't going to get that much better so as to demand major changes in armour, because the main limit in the system is the human. That is, you aren't going to get a lot more energy out of the bow than 100-150J, because the human isn't going to put more than 150-250J into the thing in the first place. (And if the archer with the stronger bow uses the same arrows as the archers with the average bows, they'll have lower efficiency - a 150lb bow won't deliver 50% more energy than a 100lb bow.)
And a more general comment, on the discussion in general:
A triangular or square pyramid is close to optimum for penetrating steel or iron plate, and the more acute the angle, the better. That is, long needle-pointed heads are ideal. Well, that's assuming that the long needle-point survives the impact - if it curls or crumples, then it's ineffective. Thus, especially against hard armour, a shorter, blunter, pyramid can be better. In addition, a head where the base of the pyramid is wider than the shaft gives less friction for subsequent penetration into the softer parts under the armour. So, you want a minimum base width (which depends on your shaft). A longer, pointier, pyramid with this same base will be heavier than a shorter stubby pyramid - how heavy do you want your arrowhead to be?
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Sep, 2011 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Randall Moffett wrote: | There is no evidence that plate grew drastically thicker during this period. Only in Italy do we really see this around 1500 as they ditch heat treatment more or less completely and trade in thicker plates. The bulk of Europe remains fairly static for some 50 years or so after.
|
No reason it should change, in response to archery. Once the bow-arrow-human system is fairly optimised, it isn't going to get that much better so as to demand major changes in armour, because the main limit in the system is the human. That is, you aren't going to get a lot more energy out of the bow than 100-150J, because the human isn't going to put more than 150-250J into the thing in the first place. (And if the archer with the stronger bow uses the same arrows as the archers with the average bows, they'll have lower efficiency - a 150lb bow won't deliver 50% more energy than a 100lb bow.)
And a more general comment, on the discussion in general:
A triangular or square pyramid is close to optimum for penetrating steel or iron plate, and the more acute the angle, the better. That is, long needle-pointed heads are ideal. Well, that's assuming that the long needle-point survives the impact - if it curls or crumples, then it's ineffective. Thus, especially against hard armour, a shorter, blunter, pyramid can be better. In addition, a head where the base of the pyramid is wider than the shaft gives less friction for subsequent penetration into the softer parts under the armour. So, you want a minimum base width (which depends on your shaft). A longer, pointier, pyramid with this same base will be heavier than a shorter stubby pyramid - how heavy do you want your arrowhead to be? |
and the key word is, 'if they could survive the impat' and thats why needle bodkins wernt used against plate, but i think a longbowmen kept a few in the quiver for purely mail clad men. plus broadheads for the unarmoured men.
ill try and dig it up but i was told before about how the plate cutter head works
A plate cutter has a short, 4-sided, almost pyramidal shaped front which creates the initial hole, the 4 sides of the massive lozenge head then create small cuts enabling the metal to split & curl back out of the way. The head is thick to stop it bending or curling like a needle bodkin. The head is wider than the shaft to allow the shaft to slip through the hole without further friction. The Towton head was just one type found at the site. I imagine it was a general purpose head.
and he pointed me to an example, http://www.evado.co.uk/Hector%20Cole/Arrowheads/index.html its item number 26 on his list i think. though he gave me this inforation as well Here is the kind of head I was trying to describe. It's the first one shown on the 6th row, titled "Heavy War Bodkin". The plate cutter I was describing has a shorter, stubbier front point to it, then a longer and less eliptical body, but you should get the basic idea...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Sep, 2011 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: |
A triangular or square pyramid is close to optimum for penetrating steel or iron plate, and the more acute the angle, the better. That is, long needle-pointed heads are ideal. Well, that's assuming that the long needle-point survives the impact - if it curls or crumples, then it's ineffective. Thus, especially against hard armour, a shorter, blunter, pyramid can be better. In addition, a head where the base of the pyramid is wider than the shaft gives less friction for subsequent penetration into the softer parts under the armour. So, you want a minimum base width (which depends on your shaft). A longer, pointier, pyramid with this same base will be heavier than a shorter stubby pyramid - how heavy do you want your arrowhead to be? |
and the key word is, 'if they could survive the impat' and thats why needle bodkins wernt used against plate, but i think a longbowmen kept a few in the quiver for purely mail clad men. plus broadheads for the unarmoured men.
ill try and dig it up but i was told before about how the plate cutter head works
A plate cutter has a short, 4-sided, almost pyramidal shaped front which creates the initial hole, the 4 sides of the massive lozenge head then create small cuts enabling the metal to split & curl back out of the way. The head is thick to stop it bending or curling like a needle bodkin. The head is wider than the shaft to allow the shaft to slip through the hole without further friction. The Towton head was just one type found at the site. I imagine it was a general purpose head.
and he pointed me to an example, http://www.evado.co.uk/Hector%20Cole/Arrowheads/index.html its item number 26 on his list i think. though he gave me this inforation as well Here is the kind of head I was trying to describe. It's the first one shown on the 6th row, titled "Heavy War Bodkin". The plate cutter I was describing has a shorter, stubbier front point to it, then a longer and less eliptical body, but you should get the basic idea... |
It's a standard design. For comparison, look at some Japanese arrowheads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fleches-japonaises-p1000615.jpg . Number 4 from the left is a very common arrowhead, and has a stubby pyramid point. If you want points this short, you're expecting to hit hardened armour, and hoping to go through it. Number 8 is the Japanese version of the "plate cutter" you describe, although usually somewhat flattened rather than square. Number 6 is a general purpose compromise head, which should be OK against armour. Heads similar to 6 were common in China (alongside broadheads); I haven't seen any specialised purely armour piercing Chinese/Manchu heads (firearms doing the job of heavy-duty armour piercing?).
Triangular section is better than square section (iirc), but harder to forge. With bronze heads, I see a larger percentage of triangular heads, since they're cast.
Long needle heads predate the problem of metal armour, since heads of this shape predate common use of metal arrowheads - bone, antler, hardwood, and bamboo heads are often done as long needle points.
For those interested in some of the research done on cutting/penetration, there's a good chapter in Atkins, The science and engineering of cutting , and arrowheads are specifically considered in Eddie Cheshire, Marco Rossi, Tony Atkins, "Perforation of sheets by pyramidal weapons such as arrowheads", International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 35, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 457-470.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Sep, 2011 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | This is one of the main issues with this discussion, the fact we all have a handful of accounts that are used for either side of the argument even though the same sources often include multiple sections where the opposite it true. Baker from the last reading I did of Poitiers maybe a week or two ago has 1.3 accounts indicating success to ever one where it does not out of about 7 incidents from Poitiers of archery.
In fact toward the end Baker says the arrows were what defeated the armed men, indicating Le Baker did think they we very successful against the armed men. It is important to note he does not say defeated their horses but the men. Whether they penetrated armour is unstated at this account but he is clear the armoured men at arms suffered at the hands of the archers arrows.
Personally the way the account rolls out and indicates casualties seems logical to me as the armed men at arms grow closer they are under more threat, earlier on and further away safer.
RPM |
Jean Froissart says that at Poitiers, after noticing their arrows were having little effect, the English archers moved to where they could shoot the French horses in their flanks.
Much of the arrows effect would have been the kiling and injuring of horses. I suspect Crecy was pretty much the same story.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Sep, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | Jean Froissart says that at Poitiers, after noticing their arrows were having little effect, the English archers moved to where they could shoot the French horses in their flanks.
Much of the arrows effect would have been the kiling and injuring of horses. |
I don't think anyone who has studied the evidence seriously thinks that armour is truly impervious to arrows. What it comes down to is whether there were enough arrows punching through armour to have a noticable impact on a battle. In my opinion there were not. Archers affect a battle in other ways. This has been discussed ad nauseum before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Sep, 2011 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think the MR bows are the closest we will get to a medieval longbow. The others have 0 real evidence of being used in war but local legends. They could just as easily been used by a teen learning the skill or archery or for the hunt. At least the Mary Rose bows are of military find, not random ones that have very dubious military context. I could easily believe the range or warbows is near 150lbs, at least for the pro to semi pros- such as Henry VIII would put on a flag ship. Still nearing 100 I think that would still be low. |
I tend to agree here with respect to some of the longbows founds, particularily those under 100 lbs of draw.
The theory though I have (not really looking for an answer, as it's very difficult to do anything but nformed speculation because of the lack of bow finds) is this -
The Normans were Danes when first establishing Normandy in 910. 150 years or so later at Hastings, they made extensive use of the bow. It would be logical to assume they continued to use the "Viking" bow, no reason to assume they went to a shorter bow like the Welsh bow, as they had not had a ton of contact with them. There was not really shorter non composite bow use happening in western europe at the time, other than perhaps the Welsh and Irish. If they had adooted another culture's bow, it likley would have been the crossbow used in France.
A few hundred years later, we have the Welsh and Scottish wars. Archery SEEMS to have become less popular, and the crossbow has some into some use. But the archers used against the Scots - should we assume they gave up the use of the Viking bow and began using the shorter Welsh bow - again I do not think so.
I would suspect that the long viking bow remained in use, though there was some use of the Crossbow. There were some 13th century assasinations were various bows were used (Referenced in an article from Clifford Rogers) where a few bows were used. Now most of them mention a "Turkish Bow". This would indicate a composite bow, I think England knew of the composite well since the crusades, and a few of the others mentioned were about 6 feet in length.
So the 6' bow was in use in England in the 13th century, prior to the supposed era of the "Longbow".
Reason why I mention all this - The Longbow seems to have been the old Danish/Scandanavian bow, kept on with varying degrees of military usage. This bow, according to two finds in of roughly the 11th and 10th century was 6' to 6'3" in length, and draw weight was estimated at a little under 90 lbs for one and over 100 lbs for the other.
So it seems in the 11th century, the Danish (and likley Norman) bows were of 6' or so in length, and a draw approximately around 100 pounds or so. By the 16th century, if we view the Mary Rose as a statement of Longbow length and draw of the time, they were over 6' in length with a 150 lb draw or so.
So when did this increase in length or draw weight happen? Gradually, over time, or all at once in the 14th century?
That's my real question, when did this "change" happen, and how sudden.
| Quote: | | I think really we have some major issues in such testing as the basic variable of medieval armour and archery remain on a nuts and bolts level unknown and unresearched. |
I'd agree. We have a small sample base of lonbow and viking bow finds for the above, and almost nothing from the 12th-15th century regarding Norman and English bows.
| Quote: | | There is no evidence that plate grew drastically thicker during this period. Only in Italy do we really see this around 1500 as they ditch heat treatment more or less completely and trade in thicker plates. The bulk of Europe remains fairly static for some 50 years or so after. |
I thought plate grew thicker, based on some of the different meansurements, but I will defer to you.
Even if plate did not get thicker though, there was an evolution in armour, going from predominantly mail, to a coat of plates over it, to plate over it, etc.. etc. (an oversimplification I know, but somewhat accurate).
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Sep, 2011 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jojo,
Yes it does. But this is only a small segment of the story, and missing the most important parts. The issue is unless we read the entire accounts and take the time to figure out how the placement of the men and how this changes as the battle continues these snap shots are limited in use of pointless even. Froissart, Baker and a number of chroniclers of the time mention this change but most agree it is only one small force of the English archers at Poitiers who move, perhaps as few as maybe 50 no more than perhaps four times that. The bulk of the archers remained at the top of the hill behind the hedges. To me the battle makes sense. Of the perhaps 1,000-2,000 archers the bulk stays atop the hill and behind the hedge shooting straight on the entire battle. Baker as well as other seem to indicate they have success against 'the armed knights' that were dismounted in the largest body of soldiers. The small body of the archers is led around to the side earlier on and get to where perhaps the armour will be less protective. Toward we have a mixed men-at-arms and archers on horseback come around the back of the french and attack. The battle seems to go on for a time after but the last battle pulls back leaving the first two to their fate and getting the duke called a coward and traitor later. The entire battle works fairly smoothly considering how not all the accounts, even by the same author are perfectly matched.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Sep, 2011 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
One other thing on the testing of the Mary Rose Bows - I forget where I read this, but in the tests that came up with average draw weights in the 150-160 lb range, were these not tested at 32" or 33"?
By far the most common arrow lengths were 31", correct?
Which would indicate a draw length of closer to 30" than 32-33".
If this is correct, these bows that averaged a 150160 pound draw would be more in the 140 lb draw range.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Sep, 2011 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not exactly. I am fairly sure they are giving 31" and the arrow shaft length not total arrow, so it is 31" at the bow or close to it. The average draw according to the info they have up right now at the Mary Rose is average draw was 30" so give it an inch or two for the bit of shaft and head over the bow and you are pretty darn close to 32"-33" Biggest one had a 31" inch draw.
Do not forget that many of the arrow heads rusted away so we are often looking at incomplete arrows as well.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a