[Josh Warren]

[Dan Howard]

[Randall Moffett]

I think every one is focused on killing too much here. This is not the end point of a weapon or warfare. It is to get advantage over your enemy via force. Whether killed or wounded the arrows influenced the outcome of the battle on many occasions, at times not even by killing. Since many weapons work this exact way this should not take away from its effeciacy.

I disagree that there are not cases of armour pierced and killing men. There are not many but there are. Walsingham in the Homildon states of the men at arms many were killed right after his lovely coupling about the wonder arrows. We see very little accounts saying the arrow penetrated his tunic and then his skin and his muscle and heart but we have to be careful we are not taking away from relatively clear accounts. The majority are vague, no need to make more or try forcing them to say something they do not. And I think several of Cliff's examples did indeed prove armour penetration and death. The Castillian in France that got hit in the head and the arrow penetrated his helmet was fairly clear.

The issue is I agree. We have very little direct evidence but this is true on both ends that are crystal clear. As well I think the idea these arrows could most of the time penetrate armour and kill a man is wrong. But equally I think we have enough evidence to say it happened. Considering thaqt much armour was likely in the 1-1.5mm range I think it likely this happened more than infrequently, but I agree there is no way to make an argument on armour penetration being the way the English had such victories. That said I think that applies to warfare in general. Few battles work wth such one sided factors.

RPM

[R. Kolick]

[Dan Howard]

[Randall Moffett]

Dan,

Can you prove they were not in head to toe plate. Walsingham is fairly clear they were armed in the best armour of the day stating, 'they had spent three years' in acquiring such good armour. Everything in his account indicates state of the art armour of the early 15th. That said you are right there are places other the arrows could hit but the fact this is the following sentence to the penetration sentences strongly strengthens armour penetration being part of this, though I'd never say all those Men at arms were killed thus, Walsingham is clear this was a part of the casualties.

To me the small number of these accounts is not an issue as most of the accounts simply say the archers loosed and killed or wounded these men, how exactly, around or through is left open, but the clear fact remains archers can kill armoured men.

But once again I agree with your statement how much would it have proved the turning point in a battle alone, arrows penetrating armour, not likely. But you add the arrows hitting unarmoured places, horses and such these would all add up.

Josh,

Walsingham states Douglas was hit in the eye (face shot) and the head (not likely face or he would have said this, the word he uses is specifically head). Unless Douglass took his helmet off in the battle (unlikely unless he was nuts) I'd say Walsingham is indicating penetration here.

RPM

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

I think everyone agrees that arrows sometimes can penetrate plate armor. For instance, legs and arms are usually covered with plates between 1 and 1.5mm thick as opposed to breast plates and helmets that are often as thick as 3mm. Look at this helmet

It clearly shows very thick "main" plates while semicircular plates that cover the gaps seem to be much thinner as they have rusted through. Here is another similar example:

And yet another one

There is also a similar style kettle hat in our local museum that is at least partially made of steel over 2mm thick. Now if the thinner plates are rusted through, we can safely assume that the thicker plates have lost some metal due to corrosion as well and originally were about 0.5-1mm thicker. These helmets if hit into the thick plate should withstand most modern handguns let alone bows. But I wonder if the thinner plates that are now rusted through could be penetrated.

[Mackenzie Cosens]

This has been a very interesting discussion. It has caused me to go off and read a thesis on the physics of the Bow to clarify my understanding of some of the things discussed.

Now just for fun, here is a speculation: when you think about the economics of 14th and early 15th century English warfare in France a weapon that does not kill but only wounds your high status well armoured opponent is preferred to one that actually kills him. If he is wounded he becomes much easier to capture and hold for ransom but if he is dead he has little or no value. The same weapon will be very good at killing most of the low status poorly armed men who are trying to defend their stuff that you will soon be stealing. So if the longbow only wounds rather then kill the well armoured high status individual and kills the low status poorly armed ones, it is a superior tool for the English Chevauchee business model then a weapon that kill the high status income source.

Mackenzie

[Nat Lamb]

[Ben van Koert]

I don't think bows were used to snipe in open warfare like is assumed a lot in threads like this. I support the theory that units of bowmen were used for area interdiction, so you can steer enemy troop where you want them or don't want them to be.
The chance of getting a fatal wound while wearing armour is pretty minimal from a distance. At point blank range I wouldn't like taking a shot from an experienced archer with a proper warbow and matching heavy arrow. The thing with massed volleys and tight units is that no-one wants to be the one guy that does get hurt, even if you're chances are good.
That's all I have to say in a thread like this.

[Randall Moffett]

Mackenzie,

If it had been a 100 years earlier maybe but even during the period we have men lamenting the number of men of higher status killed by lowly archers and other 'low born' soldiers. I suspect they did wound and cause more injuries than killing of men at arms though and we do have the occasional non-knight taking a knight and up captive for ransom though.

Ben,

I think what we are saying it that they likely were used in a number of ways, though I think most of use agree sniping was not their primary role.

RPM

[William P]

i asked the question before, about what armour wold knights at crecy, in particular, have worn.

im assuming they were mostly in coat of plates like the ones at visby, though likely not the same model.

i wonder though how much protection coats of plates give against arrows, though, of course i also assume that, thse who had coats of plates, would have a maile hauberk underneath.

but it is a good point as to why archery among the yeomen and lower classes, why not spearmen instead. clearly, there must be a reason for having that many archers, and not having more spearmen recruited.

[Graham Shearlaw]

if the plate of the coats of plates are the same quality as a breastplate or helm then it is just as good at stoping the arrow.
but as the plates can move a bit more and have a covering arrows are more likey to grip and dont side off like with plate armor.

a plate of the coats does cover the main flat spots or the body and it keeps all your organs safe, and as we all know deep wounds to the chest are bad news now, back then .. well the words a death sentence come to mind.

one reason from haveing more archers and not spearmen is that archers are payed more.
one of the other reasons is that archers give more bang for your buck and can still be use as spear men.

[Randall Moffett]

Graham,

I think you are right. I have never heard any evidence that the COP was less effective against projectiles than a solid breastplate. When we consider how much overlap there is as well between the two once solid one piece breastplates come into being common seems to have remained fairly popular. I think the argument that the reason archers did no well at Crecy is the current armour is a red herring.

It is interesting as it seems spearmen in English armies are actually largely pushed out except on the very large armies, but even here they remain minorities to archers. Similar to hobelars getting pushed out by mounted archers as well.

RPM

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

From one side coat of plates should be made of thinner metal to weigh same as a breast plate because of all the overlaps. But from the other side coats of plates are flexible and thus are more difficult to penetrate. So overall they are about as effective. The only difference is that a person wearing a coat of plates would be hurt by hits that didn't penetrate more than a person wearing a breast plate. But I can't estimate how much more.

[Dan Howard]

One could argue that the cloth cover and overlapped plates reduces the deflective properties of the armour. One-piece shiny plate is the most difficult surface for a weapon to find purchase.

[R. Kolick]

a coat of plates or scale armor I think would make it easier to stop an arrow if it’s over a padded garment like a gambeson or other kinds of cloth armor because it would collapse in on itself and absorb some of the force before it actually started to penetrate the steel like the "dragon skin" body armor modern soldiers wear today. That does however cause more blunt force damage it would not actually pierce the armor but if you had thick enough padding you could continue to fight after taking a direct hit albeit with a nasty bruise if you survived the battle.

[William P]

when i asked bede dwyer, a expert on , mostly oriental archery, but also had knowedge of western bows, he told me that gambesons supposedly didnt stop the effect of a bodkin (although i realise needle bodkins are useless against solid plate armour

as for lamellar, i forget who it was, but someone on this forum in a thread said that when it came to lamellar, one issue with its properties of taking damage was that the lacing got cut even if the plate stopped the blow, or projectile which weakened the overall ability of the lamellar to take more hits.

also, the book about knights by christopher gravett, talking about the evolution of the knight in england, asserted that tests had shown that arrows DRILL, or bore into a plate... forgive me but that seems an absurdity to the highest degree.
but otherwise it was apparently very capable.

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

[R. Kolick]