[Ben P.]

Is it true that full plate makes it hard to use a bow? How does armor effect the use of a bow?

[M. Oroszlany]

The gauntlets pose a problem for sure. I can't imagine being able to put an arrow on the string wearing one of those. Also the elbow piece on the bow hand would probably be in the way of the string. Other than that, I don't see a problem. Well, the helmet might get in the way too maybe.

[Hugh Knight]

I don't think there's much evidence for using a bow in full harness; you might see a picture of elite guardsmen called "archers" wearing plate, but their role, while wearing plate, was to use their poll weapons. In war most archers fought in fairly light armor (if any at all). European gentlemen of coat armor, of course did *not* use bows at all in warfare (although they did so in hunting): "A coward was he who first used a bow, for he feared to close with his enemy" (from the 10th-century Chanson de Geste de Girart de Roussillon.)

As for your second question, the effects of archery on armor, this is a question likely to cause extreme dissention because many people have been brought up to believe in the deadliness of the bow as a result of of the writings of historians far more concerend with the outcome of battles than they were with the conduct of those battles. Here are some notes that might help:

"…recently two military historians, John Keegan and Claude Gaier, have cast doubt upon the thesis of the English longbow “invincibility.” In particular, Keegan, in a study of the battle of Agincourt, has shown the tactical use of English archers at this battle, and, for that matter, in all of the battles since the beginning of the fourteenth century, with the longbowmen either skirmishing in a “shoot-out” with their opponents’ archers or flanking their infantry troops, could not have caused the losses of life attributed to them by historians. In fact, there is little evidence that the longbowmen, needing to fire with an extremely steep arc to cover the distance between themselves and the enemy and thus unable to penetrate their opponents’ armor, did any more damage than the killing of a few horses and the wounding of even fewer men. While the archers did not kill many men, however, they did harass their enemy to such an extent that they broke into a disordered charge, a charge narrowed by continual flanking fire until it reached and stopped at the solid infantry line. This then caused the victory—not the archery fire itself, but the archery-induced disordered charge into a solid infantry line, which was neither penetrated nor defeated." (Devries, Kelly, Medieval Military Technology, Broadview Press, 1992, p. 38)

The following quotes are taken from Kelly Devries’ Infantry Warfare In the Early 14th Century:
Bannockburn: English and Scottish archers also engaged in the battle. But they had very little effect, at least according to John Barbour, who is the only source which mentions their participation in detail: the Scottish archers only annoyed the English cavalry, while the English archers might have been more effective had not Robert Bruce sent a contingent of horsed warriors … to successfully disperse them (p. 81)

Boroughbridge: The Earl [of Lancaster’s] cavalry, when they tried to cross the water, could not enter it because of the number and density of arrows which the archers discharged into them and their horses. No one appears to have been killed by the archery assault, but progress was slowed and confused…(p. 96)

Dupplin Moor: The infantry was greatly aided by the archers on their flanks. It seems that most of the Scottish soldiers either wore no helmets or helmets unequipped with visors, and that the disinherited archers…’blinded and wounded the faces of the first division of the Scots by an incessant discharge of arrows.’ This may have caused little death, but in fact is so disrupted the Scots that their attacks fell on the infantry with disarray and confusion. (p. 119)

Halidon Hill: The archers again played a role in this defeat. As at Dupplin Moor they attacked the Scots as they rushed into the infantry lines, and they continued to fire into their flanks and rear as the fight continued. In this, as at Duplin Moor, they blinded many of the Scots, creating disorder in their ranks and adding to the slaughter. The Lanercrost chronicler writes: “Now the Scots approaching in the first division were so grievously wounded in the face and blinded by the host of English archery, just as they had been formerly at Glendenmore (Dupplin Moor), that they were helpless, and quickly began to turn away their faces from the arrow flights and to fall.” (p. 124) Further: It was at this point in the two battles when the archers made their presence felt. Although it may be too much to say, as Jonathon Sumption does, that these battles ‘were [both] won by the archers,’ the archers did play a major role in the battle, although not the one – as a decisive killing machine – which has been bestowed on them traditionally by scholars. (Sumption is in error on pp. 125-26 in describing ‘some thousands of Scots [dying] of arrow wounds.’ There is no record of this in the contemporary battlefield narratives. (p.127)

Crecy: {Referring to the killing of the Genoese—HTK} Most importantly, claims Giles li Nuisit, the Genoese could not withstand the English archery onslaught as they had no armor and carried no shields. (p. 169) {This implies that if the Genoese had had their armor they wouldn’t have suffered the same level of casualties.—HTK} Further: Most commentators report that the arrows of the English longbows caused the death of many men and horses. However Geoffrey le Baker, the Grandes Chroniques, and the Chronigraphica Regum Francorum report only the wounding and slaying of horses during this part of the attack. (p. 170)

(All the above are from: Devries, Kelly, Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century, The Boydell Press, 1996.)

Moreover, to add to the evidence in the above chronicles, actual experimentation supports what they tell us. Allan Williams (the foremost expert in the world on medieval European metallurgy) and the Royal Armouries and some others recently did a series of tests in controlled circumstances, taking an 'average' thickness of plate , a mechanical press, and a bodkin point arrow - the metals of both corresponding to the normal range of tensile strengths for early 15th century armors and arrowheads. Then they figured out how many joules of force were generated by an average warbow using the Mary Rose bows as an example for a reconstruction.

The flat plate was laid out in the press, so the bodkin point was given *optimum* conditions for penetration—a strike against a flat surface at 90 degrees (which almost never happens because armor was, as a rule, curved). The end result was the bodkin failed every time. A snippet of the videos of these tests appears on the Series "Battlefield Detectives", the Battle of Agincourt episode.

Part of the confusion lies in the fact that people believe that the "bodkin point" arrow was designed to penetrate armor, which it was: Mail armor. But when it came into widespread use plate armor was developed to counter it. It was not developed to penetrate plate armor, nor would it have done so: "Most surviving … bodkins seem to be of iron, which test show curl up when they strike plate. If they struck mail they would burst the rings apart as they went through." (Gravett, Christopher, English Medieval Knight 1400-1500, Osprey Publishing, 2001, p. 32) [NB: Gravett was senior curator of armor at the Tower Armouries when he wrote this, so don't just dismiss it because it comes from an Osprey book.]

What did arrows do, then, and why were they so crucial for some kinds of combat? They dismounted your opponents (even the best horse armor has huge gaps that make them very vulberable to arrows, and few knights had comprehensive horse armor anyway), they caused your dismounted opponents to close their visors and march long distances (which was exhausting) jammed up together (and jamming them together prevented effective weapon use as th French discovered), they were devestating to morale, they prevented the enemy from using lightly-armored support troops (as with the Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy) and other things. What they did *not* do, however, was penetrate plate very often, nor did they kill many knights.

I hope that helps to answer your questions.

[James R.Fox]

Sirs-Dont forget the many knights were too poor to afford full plate,the average knight wore a helm gorget ,back and breast plate and eked out the rest with mail. Also, the brigandine and gambeson plus helm and gorget plus some plate on arms and legs was also popular among poor knights. In short, many knights and rheir horses were vulnerable to crippling wounds, which is why Edward III's thousands of welsh archers wore little armour and carried a heavy dagger or hatchet they were counting on meeting dazed, crippled men. The tough ones they left to the english foot carrying swords,bills, lead mallets(very populsr for bashing dismounted french)and so on. The archers won battles by softening up the enemy, and for that the longbow with it's high rate of fire was perfect. A ratchet-wound crossbow could penetrate plate but the longbowman was getting off 6-8 aimed arrow while the crossbowman was getting ready.And the longbowman was required by law to practice at 220 yards, once he reached 18 on penalty of a very stiff fine for each shot not 220 yards.

[M. Eversberg II]

Are we sure about bodkin points being used to pierce maille? I was under the impression that their popularity came from their cheapness and ease of manufacutre. The gap between maille links is small, and if an arrow is coming down from an arc, doesn't it begin its fall with no power left from the bowshot?

M.

[Gary Teuscher]

Most or all found needle nosed Bodkins were of unhardened iron, as opposed to the chisel type bodkins and broadheads, which are found in both states. Would seem the needle nosed type were the easier to make cheaper arrows.

There is a theory (IIRC by the Royal Armoury) that due to this the Bodkins may well have been flight arrows, as opposed to anything else, used more in the longrange bombardment, switching to broadheads at closer ranges.

One thing though about the less velocity at extreme ranges - if you look at arrow ballistics, they actually have more velocity at their more extreme ranges, as a 45 degree angle and gravity actually makes them faster on impact with a high arcing trajectory. Of course they are best in velocity at close ranges, but I forget exaclty where the break point is. But IIRC, they have more velocity at say 240 yards then at 150 yards.

There have been very few (almost none) tests that are not biased in some way about arrows penetrating ability. They either use the wrong weighted bow, inferior mail, no padding, etc. etc., so it's tough to say.

From looking at various tests, my guess is a 100# or so longbow should pentrate average mail and quilt (the type worn as harness, not to cover openings in the plate which would seem to be a bit more vulberable) at maybe 50 yards or so, but not with a ton of power left over.

Of course you here everything from a knight pierced where only the fletching is sticking out to arrows bouncing off or pincushioning the mail armoured troops. My guess is beyond 50 or at the most 100 yards, they are not going to do much of anything. Of course I've also heard turkish horsebowmen would sometimes loose arrows at the 10-30 foot range, this would seem to be able to go through mail and wound the person beneath pretty well.

One interesting thing - it seems though much shorter, the turkish bows had the same drawlength of longbows, which would give them similar power . Their brace is about the same, and they use material which were probably more efficient.

They only thing here that is in the favor of the longbow perhaps - I have heard they used heavier arrows, whcih would correspond with the fact turkish bows seem to outrange them, so they would have a bit less range but probably a bit better penetrative ability. I'm not sure though if this comparison is just using turkish flight arrows - have no idea if they had the heavier type for closer range or if they used the equivalent of a longbow flight arrow in weight.

[Hugh Knight]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Randall Moffett]

To balance Keegan and Devries you should read Cliff Roger's ‘Agincourt’ in 100 Years War a different vista. He gives a wide array of primary sources that balance the debate very well. I’d take a looks the Royal Armouries Article on the Royal Military Academy Findings regarding arrows and plate. They have their short comings but the testing it to me the best that has been done, much fairer than most. The Great Warbow is also a good place for info on penetration but as Hugh said it is hotly debated so you will not get a simple answer.

I for one was not convinced by all of Keegan's interpretation of Agincourt. One is by forcing modern military methods and tactics on the battle which in some ways is fine but others less so. But the main weakness to me was he employs a very limited selection of primary sources on a battle that has more primary sources than you can shake a stick… or a sword at. I own the book and reread it every so often but there you go. Kelly Devries in my opinion does not balance all the primary sources on many of the events in regards to this theme so his conclusions are off to me at times, Boroughbridge and Bannockburn being clear examples but I do not want to hijack this thread too much. In general Kelly is awesome in his articles and books and they are very readable. So for sure as Hugh recommended looking into his works is good for balance on the topic.

The same can be said in the opposite direction though so you need have a care with the 'patriot missile' longbow arrow as well. Sadly this is a very 'camp' issue, especially among reenactment, LH and such so it is doubtful you will get a very direct answer. You'd need to get a wide amount of reading in to get even up-to-date. Then you need to get your feet wet in primary sources to get any further as most people quoting primary chroniclers give you only one line of an entire section so you miss 90% of the context which is crucial to understanding. Distance and such is key in the debate


As Hugh said I am not sure if archers were ever normally fully armoured. That said there are some guys who can pull heavy weight bows with a fairly complete harness but the question if it was common in medieval battlefields would look to be no,

Good luck!


Lafayette,

The welsh stuff is really just modern assumptions regarding Welsh army makeups. A friend of mine has studied the Welsh in the 14th to early 15th and the idea that North or South Wales provided one or the other (spear/bow)is just not true. Once his current project is done I'll put a link to it up. The men of Cheshire were well known for archers by mid 14th as well. The short distance archery is a mistranslation according to Strickland and the latin it came from does translate easier with it meaning strong and far instead of strong but not far.


RPM

[Josh Warren]

[Randall Moffett]

That’s fine. I never said he was the end all be all only that it balanced Keegan and Devries equally. Since you decided your point before reading it I am not surprised you got little out of it.

Once again to critique your sources- Maybe I should save this to put up along side yours when you place it up?

The Agincourt conclusion you have that most died as captives is 100% unfounded and not backed up by any historic sources. I linked you to several sources on this last time you brought this up. New evidence indicates even less than a few score were killed as Henry halted them killing as soon as he was no longer worried of a new French attack. Even sources that give huge numbers killed after captured have 10 times that killed in fighting. The more you repeat this does not make it any more founded. This is 100% BS. Read the primary sources of Agincourt in full and we will talk. Until then there is no point in debating this.

Patay…. Josh, Josh, Josh. Been here too. Patay was a surprise battle. Archers had not time to prepare or get in order. That is why they were ridden down. Armour penetration actually requires a large number of arrows which was not something they were able to do, undefended in a place where cavalry can and did ride them down. This is the selective history I am talking about. Missing 90 (in this case 99%) of the context to prove a point.

The statement that arrows did more damage to men in no armour is obvious. By the 17th century there is no way an arrow could get through a proofed breastplate. They are 5-7mm easily. That said Venetians reporting on English armies of the mid 16th tell on their official senate reports that the longbow could piece the average cuirass and corslet of the time of steel.

Saying the terrain won the battle is just as bad as saying the longbow did it. They are all elements that add up to victory. No one element independent able to do so.

Flodden I will give you in general as there are far more going for the armour sustaining the arrow storm though there is evidence in the contrary they are few. I have not had time to read all the sources so cannot tell what the context is in them all.

War of the roses…. Now that is selective and missing how the battles were fought. One of the most common tactics was archery duel (with cannons at times). Victor then turned their arrows on the side that now had no archers. Almost universally in period sources you see the phrase and the arrows forced them to attack etc. St. Albans is another that has clear accounts of men in full armour killed by archers, though at point blank, the king’s armour even failing though in this saving his life.

Spanish account been there as well. No one is arguing that ‘good armour’ could withstand arrows. The point is that most armour was not in this category.

I am not going to get a sources match on this as Cliff has a huge number in his recent publication of Agincourt and I am not going to copy it to put up every time you put up a list of selective histories. If they failed to convince you is irrelevant as they clearly exist. Plenty of people have placed them and others up and the armour crowd turns a blind eye to them as they must or the armour invincibility cannot be sustained. Even your Dr. Michael Lacy states that in the 15th it did piece armour. You use a few clear examples to negate armour penetration for all situations which is a poor argument.

Like I said if you want a balanced answer to Keegan, Devries and the stuff Josh has there read the other side of the argument as they are missing 1/4-1/2 the picture. The sources are out there by people who have read the sources in full and are familiar with them. Some might sweep those that do not support their argument under the carpet but it is still important to be familiar with them.

It's funny I am not of the opinion that the warbow was magic or that 90% of the time it even penetrated in most cases but posts like that remind me why I could never join the armour camp....

RPM

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Moffett]

Hugh,

That is 100% true. Almost no sources will state that arrows killed a specific person by piercing their armour. The problem goes back to period sources. When armour is penetrated it is done in a very soap opera way for the WOW factor. The reason is most accounts are for fun. Men of class want to hear of great deeds. This also lessens the ability of archers though as no one cares about them. To be fair though in 99% of the time men that are said to be killed are left without any detail on exactly how they died. Then the problem then is that the men just died while fighting victim to no weapons blow. The argeument that because it specifically did not say the arrow pierced their armour, then mail, then arming coat then them is that is not common in any period text for any weapon on any armour.

I question Kelly on that interpretation as in the Scalicronica it clearly states armour was pierced as does the The Lanercost Chronicle. Both I think are in ENglish in full. Kelly uses one specific reference in general which I think is well too broad a use.

I am not saying that armour was always defeated. Far from it. My guess is that most bounced or glanced off. Likely a great number of them. But my contention is that it was impossible and was not part of period texts as it is clearly.

As far as Keegan. Like I said I like his book and own it but I think the danger is turning a medieval battle into a WWII text book tactics without looking into general trends of the period. This does what Burne's did. He used his time as an artillery man and imposed it on the archers. I would not fault the general idea of Keegan's section only the manner he went about it. I think Kelly used a good amount of sources but I think he used them with exclusion to important texts in them... He did the same with Bevenshout. Read the period source and 0 men are said killed by the gun but in his account of the battle it won the day killing men right and left.

Like I said I am not a patriot missile warbow fan but think the unbalanced look with regards to armour is also a danger.

RPM

[Hugh Knight]

[M. Eversberg II]

I may have lost focus, but it appears as if both of you are arguing the same point. You both, correctly, believe that arrows are an unreliable anti-armor weapon, which they are, because arrows defeating plate is a rare occurrence.

M.

[Ben P.]

How does a cuirass and pauldrons influence archery? Draw, parthian shot, etc.

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Ben P.]

Theorectically if someone was wearing a cuirass and pauldrons how would that effect it?"

[Randall Moffett]

M.,

Yes Hugh and I do agree so you are not lost there. I think the issue of penetration in the end is not the battle winning factor. In the end it is casualties inflicted. On its own the warbow won very few battles. Men at arms were essential to the English systems just as archers were. In fact several of the largest English losses during the HYW are in great part that the lack of Men at arms to cover archers. There are just some things that stakes cannot do.

I do not know statistically or exactly how low or high the casualties of men hurt or killed by arrows or those killed or wounded by arrows penetrating armour in any given battle. I doubt anyone can authoritatively answer this with real numbers. While I think plenty of men at arms died by arrows I do not know percents, not what percent of that percent were killed by armour failures. If I had to guess in most cases it would be fairly low. That said As Keegan points out total casualties do not have to be massive to cause a route. I think it is fair to say by Agincourt that men at arms were inflicting a great part of the casualties of enemy men at arms. I do not know if one can accurately say 50-50, 60-40 or 70-30 or even more. What I do know is that arrows killed indiscriminately though as Hugh points out the lighter infantry would suffer the worst. So no I doubt the longbow was developed specifically for men at arms nor was it perhaps the most effective for fighting them but as Hugh said killed them to some degree. I think it was not as much an anomaly to be a bit pedantic but only that in say maybe 1 in 10 (or even 1 in 100) chances of success (this is a guess maybe too high or too low). Still important for the final casualty count of wounded and killed just as the spear, sword, pole axe, halberd and other weapons were.

Question two-
Since European mounted and armoured knights do not seem to use bows that’s a very hard question. Pauldrons, vambraces, couters, gauntlets etc. could easily get in the way depending on the style. I bet lance rests would be really an issue as well. It is possible that with the right harness it could work I suppose. You’d need very low profile gauntlet cuffs and either a fully enclose couter or fanless one. You’d also need shoulder protection that would not snag the bow string. Since Samurai did use bows with armour might be worth looking at how they get around it. As Hugh said European archers for the most part were lightly armoured. You see minimum requirements in various places, in 15th century England it is sallet, jack, sword, bow and two sheaves. Some archers seem to have worn some form of gauntlets, arms and leg armour and brigandines but I am not sure wearing a full harness would be very effective or possible in many cases.

RPM