[Alain D.]

[Glen A Cleeton]

[Doug Lester]

Mike Loads did a great presentation on the effect of arrows from war bows in his production on Medieval culture that just aired on the History Channel. He armoured a manikin that had a pressure sensor to measure the force of strikes with maile over padding and had them shot at with replica long bows and matching arrows. The bows were in the 140lb draw range. Where the manikin was hit where it was just covered with maile, the arrow pieced it to a depth that could have cause death or serious injury. Where the arrows hit over the sensor that was covered with the mail over the padding there was no penetration but it recorded strikes equal to about the force of a .44 magnum round.. He concluded that several hit like that would be debilitating from the force of the concussion. I recall that the range was restricted to about 40 yards.

[Dan Howard]

And yet again we have a flawed test because the mail was not representative of what was actually worn at the time. Some general data might be gained regarding the impact involved but any claims about penetration should be disregarded.

[Joshua R]

[Ralph Grinly]

You can run all the "reconstructions" you like..and find different answers , depending on what the tester is attempting to prove. There is only ONE fact...the longbow WAS a decisive weapon, else the English wouldn't have persevered with it. The english only had a relaltively small pool of knights, compared to the French, so they needed something to give them an edge..and the longbow was what they chose..and it seemed to work , for a fair while. You can't argue with the results. There's never just ONE reason for a battle being won or lost..it's a combination of inter-related events, some major, some minor..but all neccessary to occur when they did, to produce the results they did. As far as arrows penetrating breastplates go..an arrow doesn't HAVE to penetrate a breastplate to incapacitate ot kill a man..there are lots of other places an arrow can strike..between the joints, on the arms, or legs, drive through a vision slit or ventilation hole. There were LOTS of arrows flying..with a fair percentage of hits on man or horse, in various places..some of them would have had a definite effect on the target.
The only really valid tests that matter, would be to have a group of TRAINED archers using full weight bows, GENUINE medieval arrow heads , firing at a GENUINE armour of the period at proper battle ranges. See how many hits you get, where they hit, if they penetrate, etc. I doubt anyone will ever try to run a test like this- for many reasons, mainly the lack of genuine arrowhead ans armour. I know, yes..there are many around..but who would risk loosing/damaging them simply in a test ?

[Randall Moffett]

Referring the Longbow article from the A and A Journal the bow was 140lbs (pg. 7) but they really should have done more testing on the bows themselves but more so more test plates. We have 1.15mm plate which seems to have had some very serious penetration of around 80mm (which is past the lethal depth over much of the chest- imagine sticking you longest finger in you and that should be about the right depth) and then 2mm which had light to no penetration, I think an inch or just under was around the deepest penetration. So huge variance here and since most armour likely is in this range the most important as well.

What interests me is that even 2" penetration, about just over 1/2 the deepest penetration of the plate, over parts of the chest is lethal but more so every where else would likely keep one from being effective in a conflict if at all.

Like you I do not understand the hang up with this issue. The A and A journal showed some likely limitations and likely possibilities. I do think BFT need more work though.

If any one wants to get some high, medium and low quality mail and plate samples together I might be able to head something that will further this but I did a cost estimate of this project a few years ago and it was well over what I make over several year, years with all the samples needed, tech gear and specialists.

RPM

[Ian S LaSpina]

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Ralph Grinly]

I'm curious..just where are they getting the 1.5 to 2 mm plate thickness's from ? From *surviving* armour's ?? I'm wondering if this is all that helpful, for one reason. Surviving armours are surviving for one main reason..they were usually the top of the range models..built for the higher aristocracy. Can we be sure they are a true representation of what the *average* men at arm's wore - the lesser nobility which would have made up the bulk of the knightly forces ? And are the armours quoted correct for the period.
Also..many armours were "proofed" against the main projectile weapon of the day..and marked as such to show they'd passed the test. People of the day wouldn't have taken much notice of such tests if they were'nt well aware of the potential of the weapons being tested against. If you had the money, you'd go for the best you could get. If not, you'd get less expensive suits and keep your finger's crossed

[Luka Borscak]

I would like to see an arrow piercing a plate armor with all of its curves designed specifically to resist penetration by glancing, ridges for thickening many parts of it, and also being in a battle situation, so not being stationary target... And with amortization of arming clothes under it...

[Alain D.]

[Ian S LaSpina]

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Nat Lamb]

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

My 2 cents.

Some things against the effectiveness of bows.

1) In a real battle injuries are often felt less than if you were hit while simply standing. One could get 10 2" deep penetrations and go on fighting. And just die in an hour. There were multiple accounts of people receiving more than one handgun bullet (I think one guy received as many as 14 .40 caliber bullets), continuing to act aggressively for extended periods of time and then surviving. And I think there are recorded accounts of maille-clad warriors being hit with lances and continuing fighting. I think a mounted lance has more energy than a warbow arrow.

2) While a hit to maille can be debilitating, plate armor is entirely different. I probably wouldn't even feel a 1" deep dent in my breast plate.

3) (this is somewhat speculative). When firearms became wide-spread armor got thicker. So why didn't it get thick enough earlier if a warbow was such a good anti-armor weapon? And why didn't knights often use large shields to protect themselves from the arrows? Maybe that's because they considered their armor to be good enough?

4) (again somewhat speculative) And who said that bows found on Mary Rose are a good representation of an AVERAGE warbow? They should be the best of the best. And from another century I think. So shouldn't we compare one best only to the other best?

5) (a reply to why archers were tortured etc.) Archers were non-noble. I think any non-noble warrior had very few chances of being treated well if captured. And in addition to being non-noble they were a real nuisance for a knight.

And some things for effectiveness of a warbow.

1) Not everyone had full armor.

2) Not all armors were equally good.

3) Even in case of best armors not all parts were equally thick

4) There were HORSES! And horses usually had very little or no armor. Kill a lot of horses and you make a field almost impassable for cavalry. And if that cavalry is stupid enough to try and pass this field (hey, we've seen it somewhere, haven't we?) you've got a good opportunity to kill even more horses. And horsemen.

5) Speed of a charging knight is added to the speed of an arrow. In case of heavy slow-flying arrows it could add quite a lot of energy=penetration.

6) Even without killing arrows can wreck havoc on the enemy. Just try standing still while being hit by a whip. One can easily survive 100 hits, but enduring them is not a joke. You are very likely to seek for cover and that would mean a defeat with the following massacre of the fleeing army.

So guys, what are all the arguments about? There have been made quite a few tests to make a conclusion. And the conclusion would be that an arrow shot from a warbow is very unlikely to penetrate areas covered by the strongest armor (usually torso and head). And if it fails to penetrate, at least in case of plate armor, it does not deliver any serious would. But there are always areas covered by thinner armor or not armored at all, there are unarmored horses, and there is an effect of missile fire on enemy morale, maneuvers and ability to fight effectively. How much effect would archers have on the outcome of a particular battle, whether penetrating armors or not, is an entirely different question and the answer would depend on a hundred of different factors such as chosen tactics, disposition of forces, morale, weather, terrain, number of different troops in opposing armies, etc. Archers were obviously effective troops, or they simply would not have been used, but they were not ultimate fighters, or there would be no need for cavalry, crossbowmen, etc.

[Josh Warren]

[Randall Moffett]

Aleksei,

Maybe true but you will find that these are exceptions not rules. I spoke with an army doctor about this at one point and he said to his understanding adrenaline is often over valued in such arguments of men taking on dozens of rounds and just going along. He did say he knows of several accounts where this happens but many others were sadly it was not. Sure it happens but much more often this is not the case. Keegan in his book on the History of Warfare covers this in fair detail. He states that these types of non-fatal injuries often were major factors in what turns an army. So yes it could happen I do not think one can count on it.


Josh,

Lets now start the one sided sources game again. There are plenty of accounts for battles well into the age of plate that include fair descriptions of men at arms being severly wounded or dying through plate armour, Such as Douglass at Homildon Hill. One of the best accounts of the time states not withstanding his fine armour he was pierced by many arrows. Walsingham states, "The arrows pierced the armour, perforated the helmets, pitted the swords, split the lances and penetrated all the Scots' equipment with ease." He goes on to say "Despite his elaborate armour the Earl of Douglas took five deep wounds". He is fairly clear in that many armed men died by arrows and considering his previous statement seemingly some by penetration of armour.

At Agincourt the Clerk's account is also clear this was happening and several French accounts indicate thinks they did to prevent this. INto the early 16th, there are royal accounts in Scotlant at the time of Flodden that mention pavaises in use by the Scots. The armour argument is flawed. These guys were tanks. Several English sources mention shields in use as well. This is not surprising as first off we do not see a radical thickness increase in plate till after this and throughout the 14th and 15th men promote shields against archers. I figure they must have been some type of shoulder shield like the swiss used but One cannot be sure.

Thomas Ruthal, Bishop of Durham, in a letter to Thomas Wolsey dated 20 September 1513 states it was not the armour but the fact the Scots were prepared with a plethora of things to defeat the English Archers:

"The said Scots were so surely harnessed with complete harness, German jacks, rivets, splents [forms of body armour], pavises, and other habilments, that shot of arrows in regard did them no harm; and when it came to hand strokes of bills and halberds, they were so mighty, large, strong, and great men that they would not fall when four or five bills struck on one of them at once. Howbeit our bills quitted them very well, and did more good that day than bows, for they shortly disappointed the Scots of their long spears wherein was their greatest trust; and when they came to hand stroke, though the Scots fought sore and valiantly with their swords, yet they could not resist the bills that lighted so thick and sore upon them."

That said we know James, King of the Scots seems to have died with an arrow in the face so the archers clearly were useful there, even against the heavies. I am not keen on the constant placing of words in the chroniclers mouths by moderners like Strickland who assume an arrow to the face means these gents were raising a visor. Any time they see this in a chronicle they state this, almost every time without evidence. Visors often were fairly thin. I have seen several that were on fairly nice helmets of the 16th and all under 1.5mm. So it is not implossible it penetrated or perhaps entered the occular or breaths. It is much easier to push metal out of the way when there is already a hole and some visors have dozens of such opening. So we cannot say any more than the authors of these works did but assume all possibilities are not invalideted by simple personal preference.


The sooner people get away from the agrument of I have sources that says it is or it is not and figure out how they all work together the betterour understanding works. Plate armour was at times compromised. That is the sad truth. The real issue is how often, what situations, etc.. For the most part I think by careful consideration of the accounts and testing it looks like armour was often effective at repelling arrows but clearly not always.

As well Agincourt is not the last Longbow victory of the Hundred Years War. Ultimately the French victories are tied to their increased use of their own archers and the fact the English Monarchy was simply inept. Nothing to do with better plate armour. There are dozens of other reasons the French won high above better plate.

RPM