| Author |
Message |
|
Ben P.
|
 Posted: Sat 19 Sep, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: Maille against Crossbow |
 |
|
The title is says all.
Okay now according to http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spot_ghelm19.jpg this image the dude with the ax is ignoring the crossbowbolt sticking from his armour. How accurate is that? Can Maille shrug off Crossbow bolts as well as Longbow arrows, direct hits from lances, etc.? If so then why did Plate replace it?
Also the crossbowmen attacking the castle look very heavily armoured. How accurate is that?
|
|
  |
 |
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Sep, 2009 11:19 am Post subject: Re: Maille against Crossbow |
|
|
| Ben P. wrote: | The title is says all.
Okay now according to http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spot_ghelm19.jpg this image the dude with the ax is ignoring the crossbowbolt sticking from his armour. How accurate is that? Can Maille shrug off Crossbow bolts as well as Longbow arrows, direct hits from lances, etc.? If so then why did Plate replace it?
Also the crossbowmen attacking the castle look very heavily armoured. How accurate is that? |
It all depends on crossbow, paricullary it's draw weigth, lenght, distance, angle, mail quality and so many things that cannot be told from such picture... There's no such thing as "standard" crossbow either...
Interesting and rather well known
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041
article by Dan Howard should give some answers to the question about Plate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darryl Aoki
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Sep, 2009 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you got hit with a crossbow bolt, or for that matter, an arrow, at an oblique angle while wearing maille, it's entirely possible that the bolt'd just get wedged in the armor. It might wreck a few links, but it probably wouldn't do much damage to the wearer. On the other hand, a similar oblique shot would probably just bounce off a suit of plate, which would be an advantage to plate. It seems to me that glancing blows would just tend to skitter off plate, but would tend to get arrested by maille, just due to the different smoothnesses of the two media. Admittedly, if the glancing blow skitters off toward a relatively-unarmored joint or something, this ceases to be an advantage.
As a side note, that's a really big person in the tower in that picture. I think the axeman's going to have more pressing concerns than the bolt in his back in a few seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Sep, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Interesting scale armor on one of the invaders.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom King
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Sep, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
based on the manuscript, it looks like the defenders are using wooden crossbows, which are inherently weaker than thier metal counterparts, so maile could usually stop a bolt pretty easily. Of course when you double the length of the bow, like an english warbow, then a wooden bow will penetrate maile and in many cases plate armor.
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Sep, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom King wrote: | | based on the manuscript, it looks like the defenders are using wooden crossbows, which are inherently weaker than thier metal counterparts, so maile could usually stop a bolt pretty easily. Of course when you double the length of the bow, like an english warbow, then a wooden bow will penetrate maile and in many cases plate armor. |
It would be interestng to learn about the "many cases" of bowshot penetrating plate armour, to my knowledge there is no real proof to such claims.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Sep, 2009 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Oh no, not again...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Gilleland
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Sep, 2009 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's please keep on topic, which does not seem to reference plate armour being pierced by arrows. If we must dredge back into a debate on historical evidence for arrows piercing plate, then let's find one of the numerous topics already devoted to it. But to be fair to Ben, let's simply try to answer his questions to the best of our knowledge.
Agreed?
Seek Honor before Wealth,
Truth before Honor,
God Before all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Gilleland
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Sep, 2009 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Maille against Crossbow |
|
|
| Ben P. wrote: | The title is says all.
Okay now according to http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spot_ghelm19.jpg this image the dude with the ax is ignoring the crossbowbolt sticking from his armour. How accurate is that? Can Maille shrug off Crossbow bolts as well as Longbow arrows, direct hits from lances, etc.? If so then why did Plate replace it?
Also the crossbowmen attacking the castle look very heavily armoured. How accurate is that? |
It seems to me that the picture is depicting one of several options:
a. the axe man is reeeaaally tough and is simply going on with his attack.
b. the arrow failed to fully pierce the chainmail and is simply wedged in the rings, or was stopped by the padded gambeson seen underneath the chainmail.
c. the picture is showing an action shot in which the axe man was just hit, and the angle of his back os showing him doubling over in pain. This could be supported by the rocks hanging in mid air and about to brain the second attack from the left.
I would lean toward either a or b, but it certainly is up for debate or correction. As to chainmail "shrugging off" a direct blow from a lance. I don't think there's a chance of that happening. Even if the chainmail held up, there would be atrocious internal injuries (broken bones, hemorrhages, internal bleeding, collapsed lungs, etc.).
Seek Honor before Wealth,
Truth before Honor,
God Before all
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Sep, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Gilleland wrote: | Let's please keep on topic, which does not seem to reference plate armour being pierced by arrows. If we must dredge back into a debate on historical evidence for arrows piercing plate, then let's find one of the numerous topics already devoted to it. But to be fair to Ben, let's simply try to answer his questions to the best of our knowledge.
Agreed? |
Do not take it upon yourself to tell other posters how to act. Leave that to the moderators. Thank you.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Sep, 2009 4:35 pm Post subject: Re: Maille against Crossbow |
|
|
| Nathan Gilleland wrote: |
I would lean toward either a or b, but it certainly is up for debate or correction. As to chainmail "shrugging off" a direct blow from a lance. I don't think there's a chance of that happening. Even if the chainmail held up, there would be atrocious internal injuries (broken bones, hemorrhages, internal bleeding, collapsed lungs, etc.). |
Read Usamas' memoirs. There are plenty of accounts of mail shrugging off lance attacks. I have compiled a few of them in an article submission I made to myArmoury. Hopefully it will be published soon.
Here is one in which Usamah jumped his horse over a hedge and solidly struck a Frankish knight with his lance such that...
He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head... he then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him.
People assume that medevial warriors were fools. They wouldn't have bothered with the weight and expense of mail if they didn't expect it to provide good protection against most threats on a battlefield.
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Sep, 2009 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: Maille against Crossbow |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Nathan Gilleland wrote: |
I would lean toward either a or b, but it certainly is up for debate or correction. As to chainmail "shrugging off" a direct blow from a lance. I don't think there's a chance of that happening. Even if the chainmail held up, there would be atrocious internal injuries (broken bones, hemorrhages, internal bleeding, collapsed lungs, etc.). |
Read Usamas' memoirs. There are plenty of accounts of mail shrugging off lance attacks. I have compiled a few of them in an article submission I made to myArmoury. Hopefully it will be published soon.
Here is one in which Usamah jumped his horse over a hedge and solidly struck a Frankish knight with his lance such that...
He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head... he then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him.
People assume that medevial warriors were fools. They wouldn't have bothered with the weight and expense of mail if they didn't expect it to provide good protection against most threats on a battlefield. |
Well that does not mean the warrior in question might not have recived internal injuries that would have manifested themselves later I think. After such a hit, I belive, that some such inuries would be almost inescapiable. On the other hand, he would have probably survived the experience so...
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Sep, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Psellos’ Chronographia talks about an attack on Isaac Komnenos (1057AD) in which his armour protected him from two lances striking simultaneously:
Some of our men saw him (they were Scyths from the Taurus district, and not more than four at that) and attacked him with lances, driving in on both flanks, but the iron shafts proved ineffective… Meanwhile he budged in neither direction, for as they pushed him with equal force this way and that, he remained poised and balanced in the middle. To Isaac this seemed a favourable omen, when attacks from right and left both failed to dislodge him.
We know that Komnenos suffered no internal damage since he was actively involved in the campaign after this incident and lived for years afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Sep, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan-
While I agree that mail usually prevented penetration by lances I t hink it would be overstating the matter to say that mere survival equals no internal injury at all. A broken rib would hinder a person for a month or two but usually not kill him.
Cheers,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Sep, 2009 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of weird things can happen in a battle. Arrows can skip off a shield or wall and then hit something with minimal force. The person shooting my loose prematurely as he is drawing back. There is a statistical probability that there would be a number of guys on a battlefield that get hit by skimming shots that get caught in their armor.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Sep, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | Dan-
While I agree that mail usually prevented penetration by lances I t hink it would be overstating the matter to say that mere survival equals no internal injury at all. A broken rib would hinder a person for a month or two but usually not kill him.
Cheers,
Steven |
And I think that "atrocious internal injuries" is severely understating the effectiveness of mail armour. That is the claim to which I was responding. Very few people would come out of a battle unscathed.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben P.
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Sep, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That was interesting, although I wonder how accurate that Mail was.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Sep, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben P. wrote: | | That was interesting, although I wonder how accurate that Mail was. |
Not even remotely accurate. The same with all TV docos.
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Sep, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Ben P. wrote: | | That was interesting, although I wonder how accurate that Mail was. |
Not even remotely accurate. The same with all TV docos. |
And that is the problem - accurately made mail costs so much that if you can afroad one, you are not going to risk it with any testing that might be even remotely destructive. Meaning - no testing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic