Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Gary Teuscher wrote:
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.

I suggested this a few years ago and most people laughed at me at the time.
Froissart shows archers in the lower portion of this painting, in what may be typical armour.

Some of the archers here are shown with full arm harness including shoulders, and brigandines or covered breastplates.


 Attachment: 85.83 KB
Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg
Battle of Crecy by Froissart
Steven H wrote:
Froissart shows archers in the lower portion of this painting, in what may be typical armour.

Some of the archers here are shown with full arm harness including shoulders, and brigandines or covered breastplates.


Note that he also shows the men at arms of both sides fighting on horseback when in reality almost all of the English were on foot. Note, too, that they are shown in late-15th-century armor when the battle actually took place in the early 14th century. You can't take those paintings at face value.
How about any accounts of the Crossbow penetrating plate?

One of those 1000# draw types, even with their short draw length generate a ton of kinetic energy - but would even these be able to penetrate plate?

Of course there are tons of variances in armour, but I'm thinking of two seperate types, the 1mm or so of plate cuirass over mail over quilt circa 1275, and the later 15th century or so plate cuirass over the undergarment. IIRC, at this time it was more a 2+ mm thickness.
Post deleted: I was mistaken, see Randall's post below

Cheers,
Steven


Last edited by Steven H on Wed 21 Jan, 2009 10:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Most of the copies of Froissart with artwork come from the 2nd half of the 15th. If we can find the exact MSS I can look them up when I am at work. There are several 14th century ones but most are later. As Hugh said those posted on here are likely 1450 or after.

Gary,

I doubt a 100lb crossbow could pierce much of anything. Its the 800lbers you'd have to worry about! :eek: There are plenty of accounts with crossbows killing men in various types of armour. Joan of Arc's armour was pierced by a crossbow but it ended up saving her life.

RPM
Randall Moffett wrote:
Most of the copies of Froissart with artwork come from the 2nd half of the 15th. If we can find the exact MSS I can look them up when I am at work. There are several 14th century ones but most are later. As Hugh said those posted on here are likely 1450 or after.


Hmm, I did not know that the art and Froissart's text were separate things. I'd always thought that the paintings were by him as well.

I learn something new each day.

Cheers,
Steven
Randall Moffett wrote:

Quote:
Gary,

I doubt a 100lb crossbow could pierce much of anything. Its the 800lbers you'd have to worry about! There are plenty of accounts with crossbows killing men in various types of armour. Joan of Arc's armour was pierced by a crossbow but it ended up saving her life.


Actually, I mentioned a 1000# crossbow :D

A 100 pounder if made might be good for small game, that's about it ;)
Were 1000lb crossbows ever used on the battlefield or just on walls during seiges? It is important since it will help determine the typical distance at which these were fired at the enemy.
The 1000# crossbows I mentioned were mentioned being used by Crossbowmen on Itialian Galleys in ship to ship fighting, and were hand held. This reference was to fairly late crossbows, I don't recall the exact dates but I was thinking 15-16th century.

The source is not real specific though, so I would hate to use it as cut and dried fact be any means.
Steven,

It is not just the artwork but the text as well. Froissart was copied over and over again as many people wished to own copies. We have several different versions of Froissart in existence. Many of the later ones are copies of editions he wrote earlier. Since they were hand done each is different in artwork but the text will follow one of Froissart’s chronicles. I think there are over 5 versions.... something saying 6 but I cannot remember and do not have the book in hand to verify. Needless to say the events stop c. 1400 but the existent editions are mostly from after the date of his death.

From Harvard Classics intro (italics are my own)
‘JEAN FROISSART, the most representative of the chroniclers of the later Middle Ages, was born at Valenciennes in 1337. The Chronicle which, more than his poetry, has kept his fame alive, was undertaken when he was only twenty; the first book was written in its earliest form by 1369; and he kept revising and enlarging the work to the end of his life. In 1361 he went to England, entered the Church, and attached himself to Queen Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward III, who made him her secretary and clerk of her chapel. Much of his life was spent in travel. He went to France with the Black Prince, and to Italy with the Duke of Clarence. He saw fighting on the Scottish border, visited Holland, Savoy, and Provence, returning at intervals to Paris and London. He was Vicar of Estinnes-au-Mont, Canon of Chimay, and chaplain to the Comte de Blois; but the Church to him was rather a source of revenue than a religious calling. He finally settled down in his native town, where he died about 1410.’

Here is Wiki- cannot say how sound it is but some more info. Claims there are over 100 of Froissart's chronicle around in some form and that there are 4 different books each later one including a bit more with some changes to earlier sections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froissart's_Chronicles

Dan,

There are a few instances where 1000lbers are used in field combat. Supposedly Edward II employed them and springalds in his Scot campaigns and in the war of St. Sardos but I have not followed the secondary sources up to make sure. I know he brought something like 200 springlads of 2 sizes there so that is possible. Very few field battles took place in St. Sardos, though there are some fights outside fortifications.

Since no one has done much research into the total weight to draw weight of crossbows I do not know what the real relationship is. This is all I could find off hand. Leibel states that the great crossbows (well over 2000lb draw) were 100-200 pounds, the difference being steel prod to composite. Estimates on the average 1 foot crossbow to 770lbs(horn)-990lbs(steel), 2 foot crossbow 1760lb (per Harmuth). The latter two types being hand held though Leibel states that the two foot crossbow was more often used outside fortresses that the larger types (springalds and great crossbows) it could not have been carried over too great of distances by one man as the smallest type could. So according to Harmuth and Liebel yes over 1000 was not uncommon. The one foot crossbows (smallest) being not far off from 1000lbs. It seems to me that the averages that both Liebel and Harmuth use could be seen on the high side if not upper end but I have not had the privilege of handling so many period crossbows as both Liebel and Harmuth have. Those I have seen were steel prod and usually 16th century but were not massively heavy and estimated to have been 600-800lbs. Not much help but the best I have. I do not have a copy of The Crossbow handy to see what P-G has to say about it.

Gary,

I do not doubt that the large crossbows on the ships were the larger great crossbows that Liebel talks of. He states 1760lbs as their average (see above) draw weight. Philip the Good, Charles the Bold father required a great number of large crossbows on his naval fleet as well (more than firearms actually into the 2nd half of the 15th). I think is at close range they'd be very likely to pierce armour but it seems great crossbows also were used early on in naval engagements to 'soften' the enemies up. I am not sure what the distance would be but Liebel gives the impact at 1782 joules though I cannot find his given distance. Under this amount of energy I think it would have a very high probability of defeating armour.

Springalds and Great Crossbows is really worth the read. Only Ł10 from the RA!

RPM
Randall, I have to reread the info, but IIRC the way it was phrased was these were of the hand held portable types that were being mentioned.

A 990# crossbow (average 1 foot per your info) is pretty similar in numbers to 1000#, so it would make sense.

The 1760# bows are a fair amount heavier than 1000#!
Vicious power on those crossbows. It's a wonder warfare didn't become a crossbow shooting match!

M.
M. Eversberg II wrote:
Vicious power on those crossbows. It's a wonder warfare didn't become a crossbow shooting match!


Bows that powerful were expensive to make and very slow to reload; you could either shoot them down while they did so (as the English did at Crecy) or ride them down.
Quote:
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.)


This isn't strictly true. Knightly attitudes toward missiles weapons varied from culture to culture and period to period. A few 13th- and 14th-century pieces show horsemen using composite bows in a military context. King Olaf of Iceland supposed drew a mighty bow. Richard the Lionheart fought with a crossbow while sick. Later on in England, members of the minor gentry commonly served as archers initially, then becoming knights.

Quote:
You can't take those paintings at face value.


By the same token, you shouldn't discount them out of hand. It's not just illustrations from Froissart. Heavily armored archers appears repeatedly in 15th- and 16th-century artwork. If this never happened, why would they have depicted it so often?

Textual evidence shows that archers sometimes had considerable defensive gear. English archers in Italy were expected to have either a helmet or bascinet and a mail coat or breastplate, along with mail gloves. According to Gilles le Bouvier, the French archers mostly wore brigandines, leg armor, and sallets. Archers of Charles the Bold also wore brigandines, forearm protection, and a sallet and gorgerin. A 15th-century list of fencible men lists a fellow with a harness who intended to fight as an archer. You see the same in other similar lists. During the same time, Dominic Mancini described the better sort of English archers as having breastplates and suits of armor.

I could go on, but I imagine that's enough to demonstrate that archers could at least wear robust protection for the head, torso, arms, and legs. We know they did this. The artwork includes such kits along with bowmen in nearly complete harness. While I'm certain the former was much more common, I see little reason to rule out fully armed archers.
Ben P. wrote:
How does a cuirass and pauldrons influence archery? Draw, parthian shot, etc.



I don't know a ton about the other things, but a Parthian shot usually refers to shooting backwards off of a horse, and I've never heard of an English longbow being used on a horse. They were always used on foot.
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Quote:
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.)


This isn't strictly true. Knightly attitudes toward missiles weapons varied from culture to culture and period to period. A few 13th- and 14th-century pieces show horsemen using composite bows in a military context. King Olaf of Iceland supposed drew a mighty bow. Richard the Lionheart fought with a crossbow while sick. Later on in England, members of the minor gentry commonly served as archers initially, then becoming knights.


King Olaf of Iceland wasn't a European knight; he came from a different culture. And Richard didn't fight with a crossbow, he shot a quarrel or a few quarrels for spite's sake when he couldn't do anything else. And those horsemen were mounted archers, not gentlemen of coat armor. You've been led seriously astray.

Quote:
By the same token, you shouldn't discount them out of hand. It's not just illustrations from Froissart. Heavily armored archers appears repeatedly in 15th- and 16th-century artwork. If this never happened, why would they have depicted it so often?

Textual evidence shows that archers sometimes had considerable defensive gear. English archers in Italy were expected to have either a helmet or bascinet and a mail coat or breastplate, along with mail gloves. According to Gilles le Bouvier, the French archers mostly wore brigandines, leg armor, and sallets. Archers of Charles the Bold also wore brigandines, forearm protection, and a sallet and gorgerin. A 15th-century list of fencible men lists a fellow with a harness who intended to fight as an archer. You see the same in other similar lists. During the same time, Dominic Mancini described the better sort of English archers as having breastplates and suits of armor.

I could go on, but I imagine that's enough to demonstrate that archers could at least wear robust protection for the head, torso, arms, and legs. We know they did this. The artwork includes such kits along with bowmen in nearly complete harness. While I'm certain the former was much more common, I see little reason to rule out fully armed archers.


The English archers were considered the best commoner troops in Europe after the HYW and many of them were hired for a variety of roles, often as private guards. Such men often had significant armor, but they wore it when using poll weapons--bills and halberds. And yes, some archers had armor, just as I said in my first post: Brigs, helmets, jacks (some with jack chains), even some leg armor (among the mounted archers usually). But full pauldrons, gauntlets and plate arms? No. That wasn't the way it was, I'm sorry, but you've been led astray again.

I can't find an online picture of them, but there's a picture on p. 24 of Osprey's The English Archer 1330 to 1515 that shows the Duke of Burgundy with the Archers of his Guard, and yes, they're wearing fairly complete harnesses. But they're all holding swords and gaives--not a single bow to be seen. Could there have been a freak exception? Maybe, but in history we have to talk of the norms, not the weird exceptions.

Yet why do some iconographic sources show them with armor? Hmmm... Maybe for the same reason so many sources showed other things that didn't happen, like infantry battles between dismounted knights shown being fought on horseback, or giants in antique kinds of pseudo-Roman armor, or swords passing through plate armor.

You show me evidence of significant numbers of *knights* using bows and arrows routinely (not some freak occurance; I can probably find someone who dressed up as a clown for a business meeting today but that doesn't mean that's how it's normally done) and I'll agree with you. You show me hard evidence, as in a chronicler's account, that archers wore heavy plate (I don't mean weight, I mean significant coverage) on a routine basis (again, not some weird special situation) and I'll agree with you there. Until then, sorry, but that's not at *all* what the evidence shows.
Quote:
King Olaf of Iceland wasn't a European knight; he came from a different culture.



What are you talking about? The only Olaf who could remotely be called King of Iceland was Ólafr Hákonarson (Olav IV of Norway and Oluf II of Denmark). He died right in the middle of the HYW (1387), at a time when Scandinavia was fully integrated into European culture.

However, the point may be moot, since he died at 17, and I have found no reference to him shooting a bow anyway.
Xan Stepp wrote:
Quote:
King Olaf of Iceland wasn't a European knight; he came from a different culture.



What are you talking about? The only Olaf who could remotely be called King of Iceland was Ólafr Hákonarson (Olav IV of Norway and Oluf II of Denmark). He died right in the middle of the HYW (1387), at a time when Scandinavia was fully integrated into European culture.

However, the point may be moot, since he died at 17, and I have found no reference to him shooting a bow anyway.


My error; I thought I remembered a much earlier king (perhaps from one of the other northern cultures?). Thank you for the correction.
Quote:
I thought I remembered a much earlier king (perhaps from one of the other northern cultures?).



In that case, you were probably thinking (and also Ben Abbot) of either Ólafr Tryggvason or Ólafr 'helgi' Haroldsson, who were both kings of Norway in the Viking Age. If this is the case, it probably does support your initial point.

I did a quick search, and in Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar 103, there is a reference to Ólafr Tryggvason using a bow in a naval battle, and in Ólafs saga helga 3 it mentions that Ólafr was trained in the bow. But neither of these examples could really be compared to later eras in terms of armor, and neither is exactly a 'standard' battle situation.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Page 2 of 4

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum