| Author |
Message |
Randall Moffett
|
 Posted: Fri 03 Apr, 2015 3:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Dan,
I'd be very interested in more evidence for it.
How do you know they were worn over?
RPM
|
|
  |
 |
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Pieter,
I think your best bet would be to look at the Great Warbow for % on arrowhead types and how common they were. But if you reread my comments I NEVER said most common. I said one of the most common... The Great Warbow goes through this is rather good detail and there is a RA Journal Article as well but I have not been able to find anything but a short blumb on the RA website.
There was an article that comes to mind. It was published in the Glade. He went over several objects that he has shot. It is rather old and as I said before I feel many of these armour versus warbow tests are not finite in their conclusions to reality.
RPM |
I am afraid my library did not have the Great Warbow and I currently cannot cough up the cash for it sadly.
I agree with you on the problem with armor vs. bow tests and since we simple lack a lot of info on what percentage of troop wore what type of armor and what kind of arrowheads were commonly used. This is why I take I take one or two handpicked examples of tests done and try to fill in the rest with what the other sources tell us.
What is evidently clear is that the gambeson in that video I linked stopped what looks like a heavy bodkin shot from a 140 pound bow by one of the members of the English warbow society at a reasonable distance shot at a horizontal trajectory. Did the impact shatter a bone? We don't know and neither do we know if other arrowhead types could penetrate it. If other arrowhead types could penetrate it we would have to ask our selfs how often they were used, as in what do the other sources tell us. If the king of France says he never saw more than half a dozen men die from sword and arrow wounds sustained through a 25 layer gambeson than they must be okay. Yeah we should take it with a spoonful of salt and it might be a figure of speech. I haven't seen accounts of extremely one sided battles in which archers alone shot up all the folks wearing just a gambeson.
If we assume that those needle tipped ones went through jacks/gambesons and were used regularly against infantry than nearly every arrow hit would wound them since the only bit of plate protection they have is in the form of a helmet. If we accept this as true then it would seem extremely odd that shield use declined during the period longbows were widely employed.
If longbow archers indeed shot arrows capable of wounding someone wearing a gambeson through his armor at the fire rate we know them capable of... Well it seems odd that infantry all over western Europe didn't hurry back to their attic to take their grandfathers shield to the next battle against archers.
There are more ways to explain this but I believe this is a likely explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I gather a sharp broadhead punches through textile armor much better than bodkins.
This is just rank speculation, but perhaps one of the ways armor worked was that weapons (like arrows) specialized for dealing with one type were poor performers against another, so if you wore both you had an enhanced chance of defeating the attack. It kind of seems to work this way for swords based on the (very limited) test data we have so far ( to be clear, I'm not saying swords can cut through metal armor)
On a personal note, 25 layer gambeson is super thick. My custom made fencing coat is 4 layers of linen and it's pretty bulky and heavy... how heavy is a 25 layer jack / aketon whatever?
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alexis Bataille
Location: montpellier Joined: 31 Aug 2014
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Apr, 2015 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Even if gambison is solid rock against arrows , still dangerous rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Apr, 2015 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexis Bataille wrote: | | Even if gambison is solid rock against arrows , still dangerous rain. |
Of course. If you get hit with enough arrows eventually one of them will find a spot that isn't well protected. Nobody disputes that warbows were effective in battle. The contention is that this effectiveness had little to do with its ability to punch through armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Apr, 2015 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
He's right about it being dangerous in rain in more than one way. That same documentary in which they shot at a piece of gambeson also had them submerge it in water to find its weight doubled or even tripled. I don't recall the specifics but it had something to do with soldiers crossing a body of water in armor. Of course rain can be kept from drenching it by putting a layer of fat or a layer of clothing on top of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Apr, 2015 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | He's right about it being dangerous in rain in more than one way. That same documentary in which they shot at a piece of gambeson also had them submerge it in water to find its weight doubled or even tripled. I don't recall the specifics but it had something to do with soldiers crossing a body of water in armor. Of course rain can be kept from drenching it by putting a layer of fat or a layer of clothing on top of it. |
In the Hebrides they used to apparently coat 'aketons' in some kind of pitch or resin on a routine basis, almost certainly for waterproofing. It's mentioned in some 14th -15th Century documents.
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Apr, 2015 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
In the Hebrides they used to apparently coat 'aketons' in some kind of pitch or resin on a routine basis, almost certainly for waterproofing. It's mentioned in some 14th -15th Century documents.
Jean |
Having been to the west coast of Scotland I can see why waterproofing garments was a consideration for people near it. I have tried finding the documentary online but it seems to have been removed from youtube. I will try to find it and when I do I will post the original weight and the increase when wet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Rice
Location: st louis Joined: 07 Apr 2015
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue 07 Apr, 2015 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
not sure if this helps or not
conquest
shoot off
long bow vs crossbow vs matchlock vs hand gun vs shortbow
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VpsKrs1yww([/url]
see you later
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Apr, 2015 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The numbers make it look like javelins could theoretically penetrate plate armor. Olympic javelin throwers managed around 360 J with their rather light javelins. By Alan Williams's numbers, 360 J could defeat some 16th-century breastplates. Froissart has that account of a javelin thrown from horseback that supposedly pierced a coat of plates, mail, and a gambeson. Aztec and other Amerindian javelins/darts could penetrate at mail according to folks like Garcilaso de la Vega.
Froissart also described Spanish slings as stunning and overthrowing some people protected by helmets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | Regarding aim.... volley fire of muskets has little to do with aim. You point in one direction and fire. Aiming in a larger sense is largely a modern focus with firearms. I'd love to see evidence that the average soldier of the musket period was taught to shoot moving targets generally. That does not seem supported by most the evidence I have seen from the 1500-1800s except for a tiny percentage of sharpshooters which are not the norm. |
That's a pretty serious over-generalisation. We have evidence of officers telling musketeers to aim low during the English Civil War, and military long arms up to the late 17th century usually had sights (both front and back), which meant that the users were supposed to line those sights up against something. Rates of fire were still quite low before the 18th century established several changes to firearm drills (especially the Anglo-Dutch platoon fire in the first couple of decades and the Prussian simplification of flintlock drills in the middle of the century); two or three shots per minute would have been a pretty high rate of fire, and sustained fire would have been performed at an even lower rate (something like two shots per three minutes for each soldier, or even one shot every two minutes). These low rates of fire would have provided more incentives for aiming. Muskets also got somewhat lighter in the late 17th century, but more importantly the windage between ball and barrel got significantly larger, which lowered accuracy. So we can't really extrapolate the aiming practices of 1700-1840ish (when volume of fire took first priority) to those between 1500 and 1660s/1670s (when there was rather more focus on powerful and accurate shooting).
(And, while we're at it, I'm a little surprised that nobody has brought up firearms more often even though they were fairly important weapons from the 1350s onwards. We don't have many instances in Europe where plate armour was widely available but firearms were not.)
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
(And, while we're at it, I'm a little surprised that nobody has brought up firearms more often even though they were fairly important weapons from the 1350s onwards. We don't have many instances in Europe where plate armour was widely available but firearms were not.) |
Very good point which bears repeating. Contrary to the depiction in films, rpg's, computer games etc. etc., plate armor came into existence in a world of firearms.
To emphasize this point I shall now link my favorite 15th Century firearms video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found this picture in another thread on myamory. It seems relevant to our discussion in a way.
My inner child imagines three/four crossbowmen high-fiving each other after shooting one guy in the head together.
 Attachment: 278.46 KB
[ Download ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like the great helm from Dalecin , there is always the argument that it was empty and being used for target practice.
(And for what it's worth, Wade Allen and Robert MacPherson had noted that the Higgins helmet had sold as a fake, greatly reducing its price.)
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't discount the possibility but if we were to take Occam's razor an actual battlefield casualty seems more likely doesn't it?
It's either:
Guy stood on wall and was shot, helmet ended up in moat either due to him falling or it being cast away.
OR
Guy(s) wanted to practice target shooting and chose a somewhat valuable object as opposed to a normal object for target practice, mounted the helmet on an weird angle, shot four bolts/arrows at it and called it a day and threw it in a moat instead of selling it as scrap metal.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even Fourquevaux, who adored armor, wrote that armor - unless it was higher-quality - might fail against a close-range barrage from bows and crossbows. And Pedro Monte considered crossbows potentially dangerous to armored cavalry according Sydney Anglo. (When are we going get a translation of Monte, anyway?)
I suspect crossbow bolts did pierce at plate armor at times, depending on the crossbow and the armor in question. Has anyone measured the thickness of the pierced head defense?
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mart,
I have heard that one. Seems if it was target practice an odd way to have arrow penetration...that said even if target practice still seems to show some degree of armour penetration. Though without distances involved rather limited use if that as the case. Is there any reason to assume they did practice shooting in Padua's moat?
Pieter,
I always imaged this some unfortunate gent was very close when the action would have taken place. It was found in a moat so could be from an escalade.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | I don't discount the possibility but if we were to take Occam's razor an actual battlefield casualty seems more likely doesn't it?
It's either:
Guy stood on wall and was shot, helmet ended up in moat either due to him falling or it being cast away.
OR
Guy(s) wanted to practice target shooting and chose a somewhat valuable object as opposed to a normal object for target practice, mounted the helmet on an weird angle, shot four bolts/arrows at it and called it a day and threw it in a moat instead of selling it as scrap metal. |
OR
Helmet was made in the 19th century and shot to increase it's value.
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...;p=2610875
| wcallen wrote: | | Mac wrote: | I feel sure that this is the helmet to which Alcy is referring. This is a page from the Higgins armory catalog.
Mac |
And that one just sold in the latest dispersal of the Higgins stuff. It was labeled as a fake. I expect Ian Eaves didn't label it that way lightly, it cost the sellers a good deal of money to have to sell a famous piece as a fake.
So I would ignore any "evidence" provided by this piece.
Wade |
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Apr, 2015 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ah that's a shame. I wonder why they shot it from such an angle though. A front to back hole(actually two) would look neat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Apr, 2015 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randall I really enjoyed our discussion so far. How about we both just say longbow archers were effective and leave the how (armor penetration or hitting an unarmored part) for now. I am just eyeballing casualty rates of some of the famous battles of the 100 years war and it seems the chance per arrow of killing or otherwise inuring someone is relatively low, provided that the archers did indeed fire at the high rate commonly ascribed to them. Perhaps both ways accounted for an equal part of the casualties with the majority of arrows that didn't reach the flesh having some other effect which affected the outcome of the battle.
A thing I would like to discuss further is the percentage of contracted archers actually being archers in the modern sense. Mike Loades claims a certain part of those listed as mounted archers on the indentured contracts served as mounted infantry with a role to protect archers and ravage the land. At first I raised an eyebrow but it doesn't seem to far fetched really, perhaps you already know it and can provide me with an answer but if you want to hear my line of thought here it goes:
1: Archer in the medieval and early modern world doesn't have the same meaning it does now. In the 16th century a French mounted archer was essentially a man-at-arms in full armor with a lance riding on an unarmored (but charging) horse.
The French established a parish militia (around 1450-66) called the Franc-archers (free-archers) which contrary to what the name might suggest were armed with not just longbows but also crossbows, glaives/voulges and spears.
2: The French and later the Burgundians introduced a lance based recruitment system built around a man-at-arms with two to three archers and a page. Going by the ratio of longbow archers to man-at-arms it seems this is not a new concept but rather a codification of an already existing recruiting ratio/practice. But who or what is this new addition called a Coutilier? He was mounted, reasonable armored and armored with a voulge/polearm to demilance/spear. While the latter looks like a cavalry weapon the former does not suggesting he is some form of mounted infantry. Now another question this raises if whether this troop type was a new invention or, rather like the rest of the lance recruiting system, a codification of an already existing practice? I believe this Coutilier existed before the lance system named him that and that he was attached to the mounted archer to provide some form of infantry protection when they went about ravaging and burning the countryside.
3: Froissart refers to the English formation as a harrow which is commonly translated as hedgehog. This could refer to the men-at-arms with cut-down lances and other polearms or the stakes driven in the ground before the longbow archers on the flanks. Another possibility is that a third type of soldier was standing between or behind the longbow archers. Rather than leaving the longbow archers protected only by a line of stakes and their wits they might have had good quality infantry near them, something that might explain the harrow/hedgehog comment.
*Burgundian longbow archers in "hedgehog" formation with Coutiliers protecting them, note the voulges and demi-lances*
Did the English have a form of mounted infantry which acted in concert with the longbowmen which were simply listed as archer? If so, what proportion of men would they have been?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic