Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Effectiveness of ranged weaponry against armour? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 
Author Message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 8:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Pieter,

I tried to find anything like that and can up empty handed. I have no idea where he got that but that is nto in the commissions of arrays I have seen and I spent a very health part of my PhD reading over them all from 1300-1500....

As to how they were setup this has been debated for some type Burne I thinkis the first to come up with the block of MAA and archers on the wings.

Another choice is that each battle had this setup

Or that all the group was mixed somehow.

I think it likely varies. Some of the later Burgundian accounts seem to indicate archers were to learnt o fight with bows from behind the MAA!

Barwick and Smith both exaggerate the weakness or value of archery so you need to be careful. Just like today they seem to have gotten a bit emotional in their debate. I think the reality is you have a much higher chance if dying or bad wounds where you have no armour so that is sensible. Monstrelet mentions shields as well which makes the hundreds of shield you see in the accounts going to war make sense.

RPM


The way the French guy described the setup seems more or less what Master WA depicts in his Sketch of Burgundian archers, stakes in front and polearm armed troops behind the archers allowing them to shoot clearly and be protected from cavalry. I know that one of the ordonance's tells officers to train their archers and pikemen to work together. The pikemen were told to lower their pike to the height of a horse's back bend over a little to allow archers to shoot over their back. As far as I can tell those pikemen were arranged in a single rank and acted as a mobile row of stakes. I do not recall MAA acting as such in those ordonances but if you know an account where they do I'd like to hear about it.

The Ordonannce of 1471 also has some stuff on the thickness of padded garments which you may find interesting.

http://legioburgundiae.unblog.fr/category/ord...s-de-1471/

Quote:
L'archer sera monté sur un cheval de 10 écus au moins, habillé d'une jaque à haut collet tenant lieu de gorgerin, avec bonnes manches; il portera une cotte de mailles ou paletot de haubergerie dessous cette jaque qui sera de 12 toiles au moins dont 3 de toile cirée et 9 de toile commune.


Quote:
The archer will be mounted on a horse worth at least 10 ecu, wearing a high collar jack in lieu of a gorget, with good sleeves; He will wear a coat of mail or a hauberk/gon overcoat below the jack which is to at least 12 layers thick of which at least 3 are waxed/oiled and 9 of common canvas


It does not saying anything about the presence or absence of stuffing nor what is to be worn under the mail itself.


The later Ordonannce says something a little different.

http://legioburgundiae.unblog.fr/category/ord...s-de-1472/

Quote:
La jaque qui couvre le paletot de haubergerie sera de 10 toiles (au lieu de 12)




As for those English writers. I noticed that they had something 'invested' in their discussion but it's not the actual usefulness of longbows in the late sixteenth century I was talking about. I just found it striking their response to an arrow shower seems to be identical and thereby more likely to be true.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Thu 23 Jul, 2015 4:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter,

I will have to dig around for it. Someone on this forum or the AA put it up and I scratched it down. I think we were discussing the infantry being mixed and how they were used when it was put up. I want to say it was something to the effect that they learned to shoot over the men-at-arms as it they were shooting over a wall.

Yes those English guys were very 'invested' in their debate... reminds me of political debates...

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Thu 23 Jul, 2015 5:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Pieter,

I will have to dig around for it. Someone on this forum or the AA put it up and I scratched it down. I think we were discussing the infantry being mixed and how they were used when it was put up. I want to say it was something to the effect that they learned to shoot over the men-at-arms as it they were shooting over a wall.

Yes those English guys were very 'invested' in their debate... reminds me of political debates...

RPM


Think political debates are bad?

Try theological ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort and all those Lateran councils.

Hey Randall you read a fair number of documents relating to the recruitment of English armies haven't you? I recently learned some made a distinction between Hommes d'armes and hommes armes, the latter apparently having the further distinction of a pied or a chival (pardon my French). Have you ever come across them and if so in what number did that appear in relation to other troops such as archers and MAA?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 24 Jul, 2015 6:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

hommes d' armes, gens d armes, are men at arms. it really is a catch all for commoners, knights, people in the knightly class and nobles fighting on foot or in particular mounted who are armed head to toe basically. The most common term for the hommes armes, I think I have seen it more in the Latin which is Armati. For sure they seem to have the difference between mounted and foot. By the 15th the Armati largely are used for guard duty and boats and such. They also seem to be drawn from commoners more often than the MAA can be common or from the knightly or noble classes.

In the mid 14th the percentage of MAA to archers hovers around 1 to 1, later in the 14 century it can rise at times to 1 to 3, MAA to archers. But on big campaigns where battle is being pushed like Crecy the number can be very archer heavy, 8k of the 12k or so there or more were archers. In the 15th it often follows a 1 to 3 or 1 to 5 but can be as high as 1 to 21.

Other groups in English armies start out higher. Early in the 100 Years War there are far more hobelars, knifemen, spearmen, armati and such. As the war goes on these groups largely disappear but for specialized jobs. So at Crecy campaign there were up to 2k non MAA and archers. As you get to the End of EDward III's reign this has largely taken place as mounted archers rise. Andrew Ayton has much work done on this. Some assume it is because hobelars are added into the mounted archers group. I do not think this is what happens. I think the mounted archers can do much of what was needed by the armati and hobelars as they tend to be better armoured and equipped and capable of doing all the jobs of the three class types.

We see Hobelars and armati in English records all the way into the 15th. It is interesting that by the 15th when armati becomes more popular in use is when the bill is becoming more common in England. I suspect that is why we do not see billmen very often in royal accounts.

But much changes in 200 years so I tend to assume the terms might as well and try to find evidence for this... which sadly is often rather vague.



Oh yes... religion can be another very fun topic of debate. No doubt,

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Fri 24 Jul, 2015 8:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
hommes d' armes, gens d armes, are men at arms. it really is a catch all for commoners, knights, people in the knightly class and nobles fighting on foot or in particular mounted who are armed head to toe basically. The most common term for the hommes armes, I think I have seen it more in the Latin which is Armati. For sure they seem to have the difference between mounted and foot. By the 15th the Armati largely are used for guard duty and boats and such. They also seem to be drawn from commoners more often than the MAA can be common or from the knightly or noble classes.

In the mid 14th the percentage of MAA to archers hovers around 1 to 1, later in the 14 century it can rise at times to 1 to 3, MAA to archers. But on big campaigns where battle is being pushed like Crecy the number can be very archer heavy, 8k of the 12k or so there or more were archers. In the 15th it often follows a 1 to 3 or 1 to 5 but can be as high as 1 to 21.

Other groups in English armies start out higher. Early in the 100 Years War there are far more hobelars, knifemen, spearmen, armati and such. As the war goes on these groups largely disappear but for specialized jobs. So at Crecy campaign there were up to 2k non MAA and archers. As you get to the End of EDward III's reign this has largely taken place as mounted archers rise. Andrew Ayton has much work done on this. Some assume it is because hobelars are added into the mounted archers group. I do not think this is what happens. I think the mounted archers can do much of what was needed by the armati and hobelars as they tend to be better armoured and equipped and capable of doing all the jobs of the three class types.

We see Hobelars and armati in English records all the way into the 15th. It is interesting that by the 15th when armati becomes more popular in use is when the bill is becoming more common in England. I suspect that is why we do not see billmen very often in royal accounts.

But much changes in 200 years so I tend to assume the terms might as well and try to find evidence for this... which sadly is often rather vague.



Oh yes... religion can be another very fun topic of debate. No doubt,

RPM


Thanks for the answer,

I only had a peak at a few secondary sources that list them. One had 100 MAA and 300 armed men (of which 100 were crossbowmen) assigned to naval duties. Other times London was tasked to provide 100 MAA and 500 armed men while making no mention of archers.

I am quite interested in learning a bit more about those bill armed armati in the 15th century. Were they retained men on contract or 'levied' via the commissions array and provided by towns? Why is it that they do not show up often in the royal accounts, I think I kind of missed your line of thought there. Did the English kings from Henry V onward employ royal archer guards instead?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 24 Jul, 2015 1:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter,

Most I have seen are levied but for the most part levies are massive. There are times when indentures can total pretty high numbers but major campaigns often rely on the levy for the bulk of the soldiers. There are levies with well over 10k men raised. The reality is some likely did not show but we have limited records for them as the king only pays after a certain period. As well if they are used for defense the rules change. If inside your own county your county basically will indefinably foot the bill. If outside it can be paid for by the king but he often tries to stretch your service as long as he can at the dime of someone else.

So with retinues he pays from the get go on paper, reality is the captain often foot the bill until the king repaid him. With commissions of array the county pays for the first few months.

In indentures they almost always list archers and men at arms but on occasion there are variations but not many. For the most part armati come up less and less and I think I have seen then at chance in a few indentures but I could not think of or find one after a quick look with anything other than archers and men at arms of the ones I have copies of, largely 1340-1399.

If you look up my profile on Academia.edu I have a slide show on coastal defense that looks at some of this.

Basically in England you have-

The general levy- all men 16-60
The General Array- a picked group of men meeting the obligation of the levy but a set amount, not every man in a county
Maritime Land- These often are tied to land ownership inside coastal lands- So a lord will provide more than a commoner there.
Indentures- Agreements between king or lords and a captain for a specific number of men of set types.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Fri 31 Jul, 2015 1:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I just realized that Henry V and Henry Hotspur were both shot in the face during the same battle (Battle of Shrewsbury) while fighting on opposite sides.

I've been thinking, were there more great lords/magnates or nobles killed by arrows in the later War of the Roses? The cause of death of the rank and file soldier has not often been recorded, occasionally we hear something but it's rare. Deaths of nobles get recorded a bit more often. The only arrows victims of the WotR I can think of are:


John Clifford, 9th Baron de Clifford, shot in the throat after taking of his bevor/gorget
Henry VI of England, allegedly got wounded in the throat by an arrow at the battle of St. Albans




Randall Moffett wrote:
Pieter,

Most I have seen are levied but for the most part levies are massive. There are times when indentures can total pretty high numbers but major campaigns often rely on the levy for the bulk of the soldiers. There are levies with well over 10k men raised. The reality is some likely did not show but we have limited records for them as the king only pays after a certain period. As well if they are used for defense the rules change. If inside your own county your county basically will indefinably foot the bill. If outside it can be paid for by the king but he often tries to stretch your service as long as he can at the dime of someone else.

So with retinues he pays from the get go on paper, reality is the captain often foot the bill until the king repaid him. With commissions of array the county pays for the first few months.

In indentures they almost always list archers and men at arms but on occasion there are variations but not many. For the most part armati come up less and less and I think I have seen then at chance in a few indentures but I could not think of or find one after a quick look with anything other than archers and men at arms of the ones I have copies of, largely 1340-1399.

If you look up my profile on Academia.edu I have a slide show on coastal defense that looks at some of this.

Basically in England you have-

The general levy- all men 16-60
The General Array- a picked group of men meeting the obligation of the levy but a set amount, not every man in a county
Maritime Land- These often are tied to land ownership inside coastal lands- So a lord will provide more than a commoner there.
Indentures- Agreements between king or lords and a captain for a specific number of men of set types.

RPM


Those papers were great. The 5 pound for a mounted archer and 10 pound for hobelar are numbers I have also seen in articles talking about the Northern England (Scottish marches). The number of 25 pounds for a man-at-arms seems somewhat lower than the 40 pounds I hear from time to time. I am kind of curious how much land would be needed to generate a yearly revenue of 5 pounds, of course this depends on soil conditions, location etc.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 31 Jul, 2015 6:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter,

I am glad you enjoyed them. As to the knights by wealth. It varies. It can jump around from 20-40lbs in England between the same reigns. It really starts in Edward I's reign but Edward II is sort of desperate to get more men knighted. The problem is far more than just war. It is also administrative. Coroners, arrayers, members of parliament many of these men were knights.

Land is tricky for the reasons you mentioned. There is some interesting info on this.

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/guide/feu.shtml
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/deta...mp;catln=2

If you can find Susan Reynold's Fiefs and Vassals it is an interesting read.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Fri 31 Jul, 2015 6:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

What is the book about if I might ask?

I am sure I can get it at the university library but there's a reading list of mine that keeps getting bigger and bigger.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sun 02 Aug, 2015 6:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

is called Fiefs and Vassals.

http://www.amazon.com/Fiefs-Vassals-Medieval-...0198206488

Hope that helps,

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sat 21 Nov, 2015 11:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Once again I brought some primary, secondary and tertiary sources which show how both unnamed masses and valiant knights either killed, wounded or unharmed due to facial protection. After this thread was posted Tobias Capwell raised some of the same points I have brought forward in an interview with Matt Easton. He also showed some of his testing of non heat treated armor against ranged weaponry, the denting and damage is mentioned by one source too.

The interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY

Second part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewwhjUYEPQ

The whole video is worth watching but the juicy part of both video's starts at 7:00 minutes.




The first is a rather fanciful account of Sir Thomas Dagworth engaging a band of armed robbers from the chronicle of Le Baker. It is stated he was killed by being run through with a sword which could indicate he was either unarmored or lightly armored. What the account states in regards to the crossbow bolts reaffirms an idea I have held for a while, namely that crossbows tend to be more accurate than bows.

Quote:
"While he was engaged with at least sixteen of the armed robbers, he was suddenly surrounded by the rest of them from the wood, but, with his own men standing firmly beside him, he put to rout many of the enemy, in fact more than three hundred of them, according to the reports of those watching from the castle. Even after five crossbow bolts had lodged in his bare face and with all his men slain, he was still unwilling to surrender..."



Here is another bit from Le Baker on the battle of Poitiers.

The way I read it the shields (pavises?) seem to be important just like not staring into an incoming hail of arrows.

Quote:
Then the threatening mob of crossbowmen darkened the sky with a dense mist of bolts, and the archers replied with a hail of arrows from the English side, who were now in a state of desperate fury. Ashwood javelins flew through the air to greet the enemy at a distance, and the dense troop of the French army protecting their bodies with joined shields, turned their faces away from the missiles. So the archers emptied their quivers in vain, but, armed with swords and shields (bucklers), they attacked the heavily armed enemy, anxious to buy death dearly since they expected to meet their end that day.


Then there is a bit from the book of Richard Vaughan on the battle of Brouwershaven, a noticed a small bit was already posted in this thread http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=139...p;start=22 But the author of that post failed to include another interesting part. The dented armor is something that Tobias Capwell also showed although he has not given the specific details of the test he performed. Again the person dying to arrows had no helmet which seems to be a dangerous thing to do when facing ranged weaponry.

Quote:
"...they (The English) returned fire with their deadly long-bows and drove the Dutch back in disorder. However, arrows could make no impression on Philip and his heavily-armed knights, who now arrived on the scene. The chronicler points out that Andrieu de Valines was killed by an arrow in the eye because he was not wearing a helmet. Duke Phillip was there in person, his banner carried by the lord of L'Isle Adam, whose armour and the shaft of the banner he was carrying, were soon festooned with numerous arrows that had lodged in them; and arrows dented or damaged many a cuirass. Eventually the English were driven back onto, and then along, a dyke, where the Dutchmen slaughtered them mercilessly, so that scarcely a single on escaped. 'The poor English archers leapt into the ditches and were either drowned, or else they were cut down as they tried to clamber out of them.' So ended the battle of Brouwershaven, a little known chapter in English history, but the first resounding victory of Burgundian arms in Holland."



I suppose my list of "famous" people killed or wounded by arrows or bolts hitting them in the head gained to more entries, though it should be noted it seems like neither were wearing a helmet. As concluding remarks I would have to say I am now fairly convinced that the main killing effect of arrows or bolts was due to 'headshots'. Denting armor with arrows might have happened but as of yet we lack evidence for a person being killed by an arrow going through chest armor, the list of named people killed by headshots (both armored and unarmored) is now reaching something like a dozen or more. To me it seems that armor being compromised by arrows was no big worry of the people wearing it while being hit with arrows where armor was not present (chiefly the face on men-at-arms) was a concern. I believe hitting those areas was the main goal of archers and crossbowmen shooting horizontally, the former achieving the goal of hitting their mark through sheer volume of projectiles while the latter might have relied more on accuracy.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Effectiveness of ranged weaponry against armour?
Page 7 of 7 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum