[Jean Thibodeau]

Jaroslav;

Just a personal welcome to this site ( I'm just an ordinary member and not a moderator. )
Without taking sides, I find your contribution very interesting and hope you continue contributing on this and other subjects. From your posts and personal experience of seeing an arrow piercing substantial plate I too would have serious doubts about how protective is maille.


( General comments not addressed specifically to Jaroslav. )

For some reason this specific topic always attract strong opinion and emotion: And confusion by me!? Reading what I'm sure are honestly held views, that are at 180 degrees from each other !

I'm keeping an open mind and hope that some objective scientific tests eventually confirms one or the other of the views that maille is almost a perfect defence and the opposite that it is weak against a penetrating thrust by a sharp pointy thing moving fast.

In any case reconciling these contradictions is impossible unless there are some specific variables that would make both extremes possible under some specific conditions.

[Greg Griggs]

Kevin, thanks for the concern, but it's not a problem. Instead, the discussions brought on by my post have been quite fun.
I believe my original question is un-answerable. I had sent this question to 4 different professional historians, one of which is at the museum in Edinbourough, and finally received replies this week. The only thing they all agreed upon was that no one really can say, because what evidence is available is contradictary.
As for all the replies and discussion from this post, it is all very interesting and enlightening. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and that is formed by what we read and learn from others. For myself, and I hope everyone else that has put their two cents worth in, it's been a wonderful debate on ideas and ideals. It's good to see people passionate about the past, and of how it fascinates and can apply to modern thinking. I'm sure it's been said several times before but even with all the written histories, the archeological finds, the living histories in ancient artifacts, the drawings, pictographs, etc.....as it was put to me so plainly recently "The knowledge of the past is 10% all these things and 90% merely good old guestimation". Have a great day everyone, and thanks for your input!

[Dan Crowther]

I too asked a question similar to THE ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT STARTED THIS THREAD. (5th C. Irish/Scottish bow use) because I was learning how to make self bows and wanted to make one that matched the living history era I'm involved in.

After some short "I don't know; I don't think they used them" answers I was directed to the owner of Irish Arms (irisharms.ie)

Although he confirmed that current evidence shows no use of archery in this time period, he DID indicate that there was a "fletched spear" that was used by the Irish during this time period. And it may have been propelled with a 'thrower' of some sort. I'll try to dig up his return email to me, since I believe he gave some sources for it.

While I can understand not using the bow as a martial weapon I would have thought it would have been kept for hunting.

[Dan Crowther]

[Dan Howard]

Jaroslav,

I can put a pencil through a car door. What does that have to do with mail?

Regarding the effectiveness of mail there is plenty of evidence in the primary sorces to suggest that mail can be proofed against arrows (this does NOT mean that ALL mail was proof against arrows). How about the Chronicon Colmariense (1398), in which the author states that men at arms wore, “…an iron shirt, woven from iron rings, through which no arrow fired from a bow could cause injury.” It is quite explicit and is not the only source.

You are falling into the trap in thinking that all mail is the same. You are ignoring the fact that mail is a composite defense intended to be worn with padding. You forget that most mail was made from wrought iron which has very different mechanical properties to modern steels. If you are genuinely interested in this subject, perhaps you could start here. http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41041

[Jaroslav Petrina]

Well,
if you want to just make a bow of style and time, it will be longbow with oval, round or ovoid section about six feet long or little more, with thin and elegant tips and either pin nocks or one side nocks. The draw weight could be anywhere between 55# to 75# depending on the quality of wood you can have - that made of yew..Sapwood on back, heartwood on belly, growthring on back not chased, but the general outline will be followed and pins respected....
Arrows long from 28 -32´´, but longer are better....
This is about universal setup,(for everywhere - even in central europe such bows have been found) unless you want a copy exact artifact.




Jaroslav

[Patrick Kelly]

Play nice people.

Everyone needs to monitor their tone and make a concerted effort to stop being hostile and condescending.

Make it happen.

[Jaroslav Petrina]

Dan - yes and even more written evidence of mail being shot through......There is NO such thing as arrowproof chain mail altough penetration with few types of heads is limited as one of my more knowledgeable friends says. But heck.. Mark shot even half moon cutter through a mail.
If you are not an archer and havent done the thing practically, your expertise is very much limited to what you have read and that has to be put in correct frame of refference.

What exactly I should learn in this thread you are pointing me - to read again your note which is based on incorectly understood historical refference? We must always grasp who is writting the things and for what reason?! In which political relation was the writer to either side of conflict?
Is he trustworthy in other subjects?

There is very much cited refference from Girardus (Gerard of Wales) about anglo-welsh wars, just because it was made relatively early on internet and everybody is citing him. What these people are failing to grasp is that he was one of greatest liars and fabulators among mediaval chroniclers.
This example shows how shall an chronicler be examined.

There are very much cited notes on mail sales which say such as : " a coat of mail proofed against any blow" - which off course is to be taken by a pitch of salt, because these are sales records!

Let me cite Thomas Walsingham in his account of Azingcourt :"volleys of arrows struck helmets, plates and cuirasses. Many of the Frenchmen fell pierced by arrows, here fifty, here sixty"
(Again one have to ask - who was the writer, but taking in mind the carnage inflicted upon the FRench and alied knights of period by bow and arrow one might take this as trustworthy)

Suggested reading - Beowulf,Heimskringla, Njala, Egills (Which are for detail actually much more acurate than some of later mediaval reports), Appendices to Hardy´s "Longbow", The Glade "Mediaval arrowsmithing", Articles by Hugh Soar - the historian, Matthew Strickland "The Great warbow" -(Attack and defence : armour, arrow penetration and wounds)
Sugested pictorial refference is Bayeux tapestry, Macieowski bible, Froissart chronicles for later types of armour.( I actually really like the pictures heavy armoured head to boot mail clad knights in Macieowski bible killed by clean shot through chest)

The tests have been conducted by various persons such as a former custodian of New York museum and some new by Mark Stretton arrowsmith and archer. There is many more testing done of which wast majority showed mail to be easy shot through by an arrow.
Technologicall determinist such as you might say much about demonstrability of such tests and I will agree to point, but that has nothing to do with a fact, THAT THERE WAS NO TEST CONDUCTED BY ANYONE WHICH PROOVED MAIL ARROWPROOF (for which correct bow, arrow and respectable archer was used - to say at least)

The truth is that Chain mail is highly suspectible to piercing damage, being padded or not and that its protecting ability against an arrow is inferior, altough padding might need 30 to 40 aditionall joules of energy to achieve clean penetration. What most people dont understand is that energy is not main factor of penetrative abilities of any projectile such as arrow, but a momentum is. What the others dont understand is that arrow cannot be compared with firearms, because the resistance of medium to penetration grows with square root of projectile velocity. Relatively slow, but heavy arrow is thus perfect for a task....As I said the fine paper by Mr. Ashby who IS an archer and holds degree in physics shall be read if we are to stay on field of technological determinism.
If we were to leave this field, the evidence of development armour penetrating arrowheads and growing power of bow in 13. and 14. century is clearly linked and later development of better armour than chainmail is reaction to power of bow and crossbow and further development of PIERCING weapons (which is actually clearly visible on swords and lances).

Because this discussion is leading us to nowhere, bring up an arrowproof chainmail, I ll gladly destroy it for you in March, under a test conditions, when I m going to shoot in England.
Or I can ask Lads for providing firepower, if you prepare the test along with mail, padding, proper support of mail such as sandbag or dead pig and off course scientific recording of the attempt.
I m sure that either Mark or rest of Lads will have alot of fun, providing that they arent usually given that kind of equipment to destroy, because - everyone knows it will be destroyed.


To put a pencil through car door - have you actually tried? Go a find older russian car or US car and try it!
Have fun! (Actually - post pictures so we have fun too!)

[Jaroslav Petrina]

To all,
I would not like if my introduction here will be put in connection with an offensive tone, but archery is my field. Apart of making bows I m making my living by shooting. More than that - shooting heavy bow and arrow good enough to shoot exhibitons for money.
That along with forging of heads and making of arrows...
I have been lurker here for a time (actually registred once and lost the password), but I would never reacted in such a way in field in which I though my practical expertise will be not worth of.

I will drop the subject of a mailie and arrow, doubters provide maile or do the same...:)

Thats all

Jaroslav

[Chad Arnow]

[Jaroslav Petrina]

Chad to be sincere I tryed to stay calm as possible in last post and keep focused on historical sources and refference.......

[Dan Crowther]

Greg - Since one of the moderators has forbid me from "restarting" this thread to address your original question despite the fact that it has become SO thoroughly derailed; if you're interested in continuing a conversation about 5th-7th C. Scottish bows you're more than welcome to visit the Pan-Celtic Forum http://www.oakandacorn.com/pancelticforum/

[Nathan Robinson]

[Dan Howard]

Jaroslav,

All the sources you have cited have been thoroughly discredited here and on other fora and I'm not about to repeat them because you can't be bothered with the search function. You can be the most experienced archer in the world but if you have never attempted to shoot armour specifically designed to protect against arows then that experience comes to naught in regards to this subject. I would repeat my initial qusetion and ask you to specify what sort of mail was tested in the experiments you cite and how they resemble mail that was worn "in period". The ARS is currently commissioning a series of tests using exacting replicas of mail and weapons in an attempt to finally resolve this question. It is the FIRST TIME that such a rigorous test is to be attempted. We should wait and see.

[Daniel Staberg]

Walshingham wasn't at Azincourt and is not an reliable source to the events of the battle, for exmapel he claimed that the French numbered 140.000 men... For relible accounts of the battle one has to use the research by Prof. Anne Curry which establishes which accoutns are reliable and which are not.

The 'carnage' inflicted on the French knights in the various 100 yers war battles by archery has been exaggerated, the archers never managed to prevent the French knights and men-at-arms from closing with the English. The majority of casulties were always suffered in close combat.

The Bayeux tapestry, Macieowski bible, Froissart chronicles and other pictorial sources have only a limited value as historical sources as far as the interaction of arms and armour are concerned. They are first and foremost works of art and not depctions of reality. Using any medieval pictorila sources for historical reserach is fileld with problems and require carefull additional reserach to compare the pictures with written and archeological sources.

[Nathan Robinson]

This topic has been promoted into a Spotlight Topic.

[Greg Griggs]

Dan,
Please keep us apprised of when the ARS is going to publish it's findings. Even though the topic got a bit (HAH) sidetracked, the question that has arisen from this discussion is of great interest to us all. Thanks!

[Dan Howard]

[Jaroslav Petrina]

"All yources you have cited have been throuroughly discredited here..." by whom may I ask?
By you? I would certainly accept any discreditation from an authority which actually knows something about bows and arrows.....

Dan,

You havent provided any single piece of hard evidence supporting the fact that the mailie cannot be shot through by an arrow, whillst I did it practically several times. Nor did you cited any authority which has knowledge about subject which would support what you are saying.

This is my offer:

I m from 21.7 till 30.7 in england and that is at Berkelley castle.
I will have my bows and bunch of arrows with me. I m there in company of very good heavy bow archers, some of them of best which england today can provide.

I m sure they will all agree to participate on practicall testing.

Please bring the arrowproof maile, bring a padded jack to support it, and any things you might deem as necessary, I m sure we will be able to provide either sack of sand or beams to emulate human body.

Write a paper on how shall we shoot at the maile, describing thoroughly testing conditions and scientific method used.

I m sure we can provide field conditions at the place and shoot distances availble with regards to the availble ranges and that all in front of general public audience.

This a fair offer which can prove either side wrong, we can publish the results together.


In case that you are interested in this write me an email with your proposal, as I dont visit this discussion very often.

Regards
J.P.

[David Ruff]