[Phill Lappin]

[Jean Thibodeau]

I'm looking forward to your test results and you are trying to get as many of the variables factored in.

I'm guessing at a range of results and not a black and white answer for a complex problem.

Lets assume that all the test conditions are valid to period I would expect that no two shots would be guarantied to give
100% identical results, but I wouldn't see this as a flaw in the tests themselves: Only that in the real word little things can change results i.e. a slight difference in angle of a hit, hitting maille on an area under tension or an area loose and bloused
etc ........

Now, getting an estimate of what the probabilities are something else: One might arrive at the conclusion of 80% success rates or 20% rates under varying conditions. Oh, range would also be very important: Ten yards or one hundred yards or two
hundred yards or more.

Oh, I mentioned bloused maille as there was a discussion about maille stretched tightly might be easier to pierce than maille on a thick and soft backing. I just thought that blousing of maille over a waist belt is usually explained as a way to take some weight off the shoulders and have some of the weight supported by the belt at waist level: Now I'm just wondering if part of the reason is to loosen the maille and make it harder to defeat or that is just a good secondary benefit ?

[Thimo Savbotta]

Jean, I believe you are correct on the loosening of the maile. I've been told by others who have tried this stuff that when it'sloose it has a tendency to twist with the spin of the arrow, thereby binding the head.

As far as some of the armour type tests I've already tried. One was shooting at a stainless-steel, 5 gallon cooking pot. Due too the roundness of the surface I had 2 out of 3 arrows ricochette off at sharp angles, leaving not even a dent on the steel. It took a dead on center shot at 20 yards before I got any penetration. I had filled the pot with red-gelatin to give the pot weight and to see how far the arrow went in. But I'd say my chances at peircing a cancave armoured surface while on the move would be even more drasticaly reduced.

Which brings me to this question: How were the surfaces of sheilds designed durring the 12th century. I've seen some that appear rather concave in appearence. It this an illusion or were they built more rounded?

Also it makes me wonder if there were ever any sheild surfaces built with a "V" type shape. As in the point of the V jutting forwards. It would seem to be and ingenious design, as arrows have a tendency to glance off this type of surface, even when it's not that thick of metal.

[Thimo Savbotta]

Phill, you are right about the rawhide. It is extremly durable stuff, especially the types used on sheilds which often was the thickest available. And if thick hide could not be had, numerous layers provided the same properties. Native american sheilds were built out of nothing but rawhide stretched over a wood frame, (buffalo-neck-hide) and it warded off enemies arrows and clubs. It wasn't until firearms were pitted against them that they began having trouble.

I would imagine a woodsheild made out of 1/2"T planks and covered in thick layers of rawhide would have been quite inpeneratable.

[Phill Lappin]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Thimo;

Oh, welcome to the site by the way.

Here is a shield made by Mercenary Taylor's that you may have seen or not ?
http://www.merctailor.com/catalog/product_inf...ucts_id=87

I have one of these but I haven't tested it as I have it mostly for collection purposes. The rawhide seems rock hard and very
tough. There is also a leather covering over a poplar plywood. How close to period construction I can't tell you, but Allan has told me that a client of his has been using it and it has held up to a lot of abuse over 3 or 4 years of use and only needed a new leather covering to restore it to as new: Obviously nobody has been shooting at it with heavy draw bows or using sharp weapons on it, but it has survive well being hit with blunt living history weapons.

maybe Allan will see this post and reply or you might send him a P.M. ( Allan Senefelder ).

[Thimo Savbotta]

Jean, yes I downloaded that same pic the other day. Very nice workmanship. But I don't think I would want to shoot at something that beautiful.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[B. Fulton]

Being that typical archer volleys were at targets either standing around, or advancing (Agincourt etc) a simple way to replicate that, is to do what shooters do for a charging target simulating a knife-wielding wacko.

Mount the target to either a small wagon with rope to be pulled, or in the larger versions, I've seen an RC chassis with offroad wheels about the same size that could be driven back and forth and have it advance on you.

Wagon method is much cheaper, you just need some good pullers.

[Thimo Savbotta]

Excellent idea on the moving target!

A friend of mine has also suggested making a rail type dolly system useing skateboard wheels. He's seen this done in motion pictures for use with camera men.



Here's question I have in regards to padding. I read last night where heavy felt was used as well. How would this be attached or made in a period protecive shirt?

[Randall Sanchez]

Just had to get in on this one.

First of all I just want to say I have seen a number of bow tests using bows of various weights and size. However, most people tend to forgot the most important aspect of the bow. The STRING! Yes the string used plays a huge role in the efficiency of the bow and impact of the arrow. Remember, they didn't have FastFlight back in the day or any other light synthetic version. They used hemp and linen. The result was a very heavy line that decreased the amount of speed and power a traditional heavy grain arrow could put out compared to a modern bowline. I'd ask that those that have done tests redo them with a hemp or linen bowline please. Some of the feedback I've recieved has been sketchy but so far it has all stated that there were differences in the results.

Second, this one is debatable. The bow weights have been debated on for a while now but the general consensus has them between 80-110#. Weights higher than that were of course possible but were not to be considered "common". The english later improved on this when the made archer a national pasttime (including child required practice laws!) and the bow weights increased. This didn't start to happen until the late 1300's and early 1400's. This pretty much rules out the 800-1100 range you're asking about.

Third is the arrow itself. Or more specifically the arrowhead. Bodkins were armor piercing arrows for sure. They did not receive much popularity on the battlefield though until later eras when plater armor became more common (800-1100's is what we're shooting for remember). While bodkins were able to pierce easy they did very little damage. The holes created were smaller than the shaft due to the elastisity of human flesh and self sealing. Thus bleeding was minimal unless a major artery was hit. Broadheads has enourmous popularity though (spanish used tri-bladed!!) because of their killing potential. From top to bottom was the cutting channel created by a broadhead which ranged from 1/2 inch to 1 1/4 inches long. They had more opportunity to severly cut organs, arterys, and muscle than a bodkin hand down. At close ranges they were also able to penetrate mail and padded armors. Take a good look at some of the hoards and finds and you'll see broadheads dominating the piles.