I am not sure why people are so hung up on the relative skills and ferocity of medeaval men-at-arms vs us puny moderns. If the discusion is "can it be done" then we need to look at "under optimal conditions". This would be based off the maximum exertable force.
Now I am certain that a run of the mill man at arms was far more skillful with a sword or waraxe than 99% of re-enactors, and my well have been more "ferocious", he may well have been able to exert maximum force in a wider number of blows from a greater number of angles. However, I don't see that there could be that much diference in the max force exerted by mussels. The laws of biology and physics have not changed that much in the last 800 years( just our understanding of them). A competitive woodchoper is going to be just about as strong now as his medeaval counterpart would have been in 1347.
So
get competition woodchoper to swing axe as hard as he can, mesure force, this gives you the value x
investigate the force required to cut steel of shape A anf thickness B, call this value y
if x is greater than y then helms can be cut under ideal conditions
if y is greater than x then hels cant be cut.

now, you might then still be able to argue that these "ideal conditions" would never happen on a battle field, or that ore forefathers were so skillful that every swing for them was ideal, but if the numbers come out clearly in one way it eliminates certain scenarios

Peter, I just always assumed that the 'fleeing horsemen' was just an artistic convention to show that they were the 'losers'. Of course, the same thing could be said about the helm cleaving... :confused:

Ahh, Boy do I love the old "It's a manuscript, so duh it's right/The medieval armour is the same as the mario invulnerability star" argument. Enough where I MUST post a reply..... ;)
I swear MyArmourying is an addiction
@ Adam Smith
Your posts, while containing good points, I must say derive from a number of misconceptions. The Medieval people (Englishmen included) were not solely warriors. There were, and there always will be those not-so-inclined to fight. Nobles included (scutage much). Almost noone in the 13th century outside mercenaries were committed warriors. As has been pointed out, they had jobs. And while certainly not under trained, they didn't devote their whole life to war.
On the other side of this issue, I would say knights were probably a little bit better at the art of fighting than most of us.
I would wager money that John Clements would probably whip all sorts of hell upon the average swordsman of the era. BUT, they did have a real tradition, real widespread teachers, really lived and died with a sword. So I would imagine that a fight between Mr Clements and a period master-at-arms (please dont nitpick about this one, I don't know the period names of 13th century fencing/fight masters) would probably fall in the masters favor (however, I would give an arm and a leg to see the fight)
Also, they probably had a much more warlike mentality. I will often emphasize that in anything you do, a mentality is essential. It's the difference between beating someones head in with an ale tankard or despairing once you've lost your weapon. Another 1+ our ancestors (generally) have on us....
But we always have to remember that they werent supermen. They just mightve been more accustomed as a whole to hardship than us, and a bit more ready for a fight, but human.

Also, on the Bohun debacle, you can ask anyone who's smashed someone's head against concrete or been in/seen a stakeboarding accident. It don't take much to incapacitate someone when your targeting their head. Also, the thing might have been exaggerated. He might have killed the guy w/ a solid blow to the head at 60 mph, but I'm sure that the first thing out of his mouth upon returning to the lines was "I RIPPED HIS F***ING HEAD OFF!!!!1!!!" or smiler. And thats how it got written down.
And I'm sure the english must not have been happy about ANYTHING that happened at Bannockburn.
*no comment policy applies*

Just my thoughts.

Woah, this thread was close to turning into a flame war.

Yes, the only warriors so dedicated to fighting like Adam describes were maybe Templar knights...

I think story about Bohun could easily became distorted. Even if you had no intention of misleading listener, you would probably say something like "...and the blow was so hard that Bohun's helm didn't stop it and he was killed." I think few would stop to give explanation that it was only the force of blow that was not stopped and the helm actually was not penetrated by the axe.

James -

I agree with you completely, and please don't misunderstand me; my observation of the "retreating knights" wasn't meant in any way to diminish or dismiss your comment about the increased force provided by a charging knight. I agree with that as well, and it could very well provide the stake through the heart of my argument that Jeff has been looking for for so long! But it also brings up another point that most modern enthusiasts usually overlook; that the medieval knight was first and foremost a cavalryman. Oakeshott himself said that a knight without his horse was like a tank without an engine. 90% of the time, he fought from horseback, whereas the majority of modern WMA enthusiasts and re-enactors "fight" on foot, and miss a primary and vitally important part of medieval fighting technique. Granted, as I said before, a medieval battlefield was usually dominated mostly by footsoldiers, but the fighting elite, the mounted knight, almost always fought on horseback. Indeed, the images from the Mac. Bible support this. So kudos to you James, for brining that point to our attention.

Jeff -

You could very well be right in your assumption that the Bruce split De Bohun's skull with his axe. Afterall, he was renowned for his skill with it. However, ultimately, I think it's still an open question. So, here we go 'round and 'round again...

Peter Fuller

After thinking about it, it occurred to me that I had responded out of I-don't know-what part of my noggin. Actually, I take very little seriously when it comes to depictions of wounds in period illustrations, as few artists had ever seen a battle, and often relied on tournaments for their source material (ever wondered why 'frogmouth' jousting helms so often pop up in battle scenes?). My favorite bits of pure silliness are those depictions of soldiers stabbing each other to death right through breastplates. Now that's superhuman! :eek:

I would say, though, that if anyone ever clove a helm, it would have been most likely in the context of two horsemen charging each other at an early enough date that the iron for helms was as iffy as it ever was, and the sword a really good one, I also doubt that anything more than an iron cap could have been nearly cut in half. I think that if a helm was penetrated, it was described as 'cloven', which would lead those who did not witness the event to think 'fully cut in half'. That's my two cents, anyway.

It is almost impssoble for a sword to cut through a helmet. A heavy blow can certainly leave a dent and give the wearer a headache. But there is no way for a sword to cut through a helmet even if it was made of iron plate as thin as 1.5 mm (quite thin for a helmet).

Mike Loades settles this in a video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h0e0NSwYNg&am...p;index=12

But mind you, there is some inaccuracy in his test as he uses a helmet made of modern steel, while most warriors up to the late medieval period would have had iron helmets.

You will note that Mr. Loades conducted his test on foot - not horsed. The test ain't good enough. :p