Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Longbows again Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next 
Author Message
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional



Location: upstate NY
Joined: 10 Nov 2005

Posts: 587

PostPosted: Sun 05 Nov, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A very interesting article on "The battle of Verneuil", 17 August 1424, one of the most important battles of the Hundred Year's War, by Michael K. Jones, adds to the topic under discussion. You'll have to search for it in the archives using the information that it appeared Oct. 1, 2002, Vol. 9 No. 4, as a direct link proved impossible for some reason (doubless my own cyberignorance).
http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/4/375[/url]

jamesarlen.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Sun 05 Nov, 2006 7:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
At Aginecourt the English had 4,500 archers! All these men where not shooting 150 lb bows. Maybe two in the whole lot were such giants,


Come on. The largest group of bows from Mary Rose drew 150-160 pounds. The lighest one had a draw of about a hundred pounds. Some medieval arrows also suggest a weight of 150 pounds. Most medieval arrows require a weight of at least 100 pounds to fly properly. It's possible the archers in larger armies didn't draw quite as heavy bows on average, but you can be sure the vast majority drew 100+ pound bows. Remember, there's plenty of evidence to suggest the quality of English shooting had declined by the time of the Mary Rose.

Quote:
My 65 lb bow can penetrate plate just fine at 75 feet if it hits it straight on. I have tested it.


You must not have tested historically accurate plate. By the numbers I've seen from The Knight and the Blast Furnace, a 65lb bow wouldn't even penetrate wrought iron plate. It certainly wouldn't penetrate decent mail and padding. According to the tests Williams conducted, you'd need at least a 120lb bow to wound through mail and padding. A long bodkin arrowhead might do a bit better, but there's a reason the archers of old drew very heavy bows.
View user's profile Send private message
Carl Goff




Location: Florida
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 196

PostPosted: Sun 05 Nov, 2006 9:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm inclined to agree with Vassili on this topic. It just doesn't seem logical for everyone to be pulling 150-lb longbows, although the best and strongest archers could certainly manage that. 100-lb bows seem a darn sight more likely.

Of course, the only way this argument's ever getting settled is if someone builds a time machine and kidnaps a few dozen longbowmen for study. Razz

Oh, East of sands and sunlit gulf, your blood is thin, your gods are few;
You could not break the Northern wolf and now the wolf has turned on you.
The fires that light the coasts of Spain fling shadows on the Eastern strand.
Master, your slave has come again with torch and axe in his right hand!
-Robert E. Howard
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sun 05 Nov, 2006 9:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote:
At Aginecourt the English had 4,500 archers! All these men where not shooting 150 lb bows.
All the latest evidence suggests that they did. If the evidence does not fit your theory, then you change your theory. You don't ignore evidence you don't like. Hardy's tests were comprehensive, repeatable, and peer-reviewed. There is very little doubt that the average medieval warbow had a draw weight of around 140-150 lbs based on the latest evidence. I agree, though, that these bows were intended to increase range, not to penetrate armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Adam Simmonds




Location: Henley On Thames
Joined: 10 Jun 2006

Posts: 169

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 12:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

while i don't know the historical evidence i do know from personal experience that a 150 lb draw weight would be huge - about double the average used to bring down deer and wild pigs.

i would have thought that rate of fire, accuracy and longevity would be important factors in a battlefiled context and would perhaps be severely compromised by shooting such heavy bows. As I think Vassilis has mentioned , its one thing to shoot a very heavy bow, it's quite another thing to sustain this for minutes and even hours at a time.

same goes for swords right? i mean, while a 5 pounder may make a hell of an impression on your first opponent, come to your third or fourth and that arms going to be slowing down and the shots are going to be coming less crisply - whereas you take a light and nimble 2 lb sword and you can swing it all day long, doing plenty of damage. I have seen an arrow from a 75lb bow go clean through the chest of a heavy red deer at over 50 yards. 100 lbs is a heap of killing power and propulsive energy - not to mention physical exertion on the part of the archer. why you would want to tire yourself with a 150 lb er just for some extra range i really don't know.

as i said, i don't know the historical evidence, but from personal experience i can say that these figures (150 lbs) are very large indeed and it's logical that an archer would tire substantially quicker when drawing a 150lb bow compared to a 100 lb one and a tired soldier is not the most lethal soldier.


cheers, adam
View user's profile Send private message
Allen G.





Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Reading list: 9 books

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 1:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This isnt really related to armour pentration but I've always been curious how strictly archers were organized. Is there any evidence of.... well, An example being a phalanx where shorter spears are at the front and longer spears behind to compensate. So something like faster shorter range bows with lighter pull being up front while larger heavier bows were a ways back? Or does evidence show 150 pound bowmen and 100 pound bowmen just standing side by side?
View user's profile Send private message
Al Muckart




Location: NZ
Joined: 27 Dec 2005

Posts: 309

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 1:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Adam Simmonds wrote:
while i don't know the historical evidence i do know from personal experience that a 150 lb draw weight would be huge - about double the average used to bring down deer and wild pigs.

i would have thought that rate of fire, accuracy and longevity would be important factors in a battlefiled context and would perhaps be severely compromised by shooting such heavy bows. As I think Vassilis has mentioned , its one thing to shoot a very heavy bow, it's quite another thing to sustain this for minutes and even hours at a time.


Quote:

as i said, i don't know the historical evidence, but from personal experience i can say that these figures (150 lbs) are very large indeed and it's logical that an archer would tire substantially quicker when drawing a 150lb bow compared to a 100 lb one and a tired soldier is not the most lethal soldier.


Those figures certainly are high when compared with modern hunting bows, but deer and pigs don't wear armour :-)

Don't forget that the archers in question weren't just guys who picked up a bow and went to war, they were men who shot bows for their entire lives, often starting as children and shooting for hours a day, every day because their lives depended on it. They were specialist troops whose physiology and skeletal structure adapted to the act of rapidly firing very high-poundage bows.

Have a look at this thread

--
Al.
http://wherearetheelves.net
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 1:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Josh,

I will email you the full info I have from it your your use. He was at 25 yards I think. The mail was totally destroyed, the plate punctured with 3 types of arrows multiple times and one went in at least 6-8 inches. Like I said before I assume outside the range the effects drop off in some scientific fashion. You can read it it is interesting. I myself have seen plate punctured with a longbow and still thing armour in many cases defeats the arrows but if it was not so it would have been abandoned, BUT the 1 out of 5 still makes it a valuable weapons (1 out of 5 being used as an expression not any sort of testing).

Vassilis,

I see the value of your training and all but I think it does not equate how you do. Just because you pull 200 pounds (100 with pulleys help) on one arm is missing that in archery you use both arms and step into the shot by pushing with the left and then pulling the right. I know a half dozen guys out of one group of maybe a dozen or a score who can draw above 120 and a few more. We even tested the draw on them with dead weight to test how strong they really were. They can draw them and do so, some very very well. The accounts I have been reading through have commissions of array in england and them seeing huge numbers of archers and rejecting most. Why? Likely what we are discussing here. If you could not make the cut you were not worthy of the good pay of the king. 4-5,000 is a small number in truth. York could raise almost half that force easy (1000 were at Towton). From a whole country it is easy to think that they could get 10k good archers together out of a population of about 1 million men.
Medieval longbow men not just in England but in France and Burgundy as well were the premier troops of the day of the infantry troops. In england the accounts from their own time states one reason they were so strong was a good diet. They also had many, leter in the 14th that were mounted and fairly wealthy men not the dregs of society. Most of Charles the Bolds are were full of them. France does not start winning wars with the english until the get a good army set up with decent numbers of archers, many likely with longbows. Most accounts of Castillion, the 'victory' of the cannon, fail to mention what the 6-8,000 archers of the french had there and what they were doing.
Like I said I respect that you work out and practice. Thats great but there are people I know who do pull some thick bows (some don't even practice everyday). I likely will never. I am to busy at the time for a few days a week of practice but someday perhaps i'd like to, at least get to 100 pounds.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 570

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 1:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:
A very interesting article on "The battle of Verneuil", 17 August 1424, one of the most important battles of the Hundred Year's War, by Michael K. Jones, adds to the topic under discussion. You'll have to search for it in the archives using the information that it appeared Oct. 1, 2002, Vol. 9 No. 4, as a direct link proved impossible for some reason (doubless my own cyberignorance).
http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/4/375[/url]


Jones article is interesting and some of his best work but suffers from the authors tendency to overinterpret the evidence, there are plenty of thing going on at Verneuil that Jones ignore since it doesn't fit with the picture he is painting of the battle. For example he ignores the large achery duel foguth between Scots and English archers (described by the eyewitness Waurin) and most likely overestimates the number of Lombard cavalry equiped with horse armour.

This said the article is an excellent first step towards rewriting the falsified history of Verneuil created by Burne.
View user's profile Send private message
Glen A Cleeton




Location: Nipmuc USA
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 1,968

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 2:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I read here another discussion that helps those of us less familiar form opinion and gain insight.

There is/was an interesting discussion elsewhere that (just perhaps) the Mary Rose data might have to be looked at more closely once again. That discussion revolving around what yew you use, nock and string width/thickness, stuff like that. It is easy to sway debate in several directions.

I am forgetting which particular television production included a couple of takes on Mark Stretton shooting. Anyone that has seen this would agree that there is much more than just holding a bow and pulling back a string. I don't think that concept is lost, even to those who have tried archery even once. I do think though some might not really grasp all the "tricks" and am glad a couple of archers have brought this up. Mark is not a huge guy and there are those out there that say they routinely shoot heavier bows, some even moreso than Mark's record.

As to Agincourt and other battles, well, lots of different takes on exact circumstance but there were archers there;)

Cheers

GC
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 8:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Best evidence on bows penetrating plate comes from writers of the time, grave finds, and numbers killed. Fact is if bows could just cut through plate armor the numbers of knights killed in the later 14th century on would be as high as they were at Crécy and Poitiers, but they were not. Even at Agincourt the new scholarly thinking is many more men were killed later when Henry V ordered all prisoners killed when the English baggage train was attacked and he feared the prisoners rebelling. It is noted in many reports that men in armor the 15th century often died when they opened their visors and bevor and took an arrow in the face. John Paston Jr was injured when in a hail of arrow fire (which battle I forget), he took several hits to the crease in his vambrace and eventually one arrow struck his arm causing a wound he had to have treated.

James Arlen Gillaspie brought up the battle of Verneuil; I believe this is the battle where the Italian mercenary’s cavalry ran down the English archers who were confident their arrows would pierce the plate armor. Lucky for the English they Italians started raiding the baggage train while Bedford's men crushed the French in foot combat.

From the Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483)

And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."

That is just a jack which was poor mans armor.


If archers could just shot right through plate then how did any man at Agincourt live, over a million arrows were loosed on the French.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 8:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Josh,

I will email you the full info I have from it your your use. He was at 25 yards I think. The mail was totally destroyed, the plate punctured with 3 types of arrows multiple times and one went in at least 6-8 inches. Like I said before I assume outside the range the effects drop off in some scientific fashion. You can read it it is interesting. I myself have seen plate punctured with a longbow and still thing armour in many cases defeats the arrows but if it was not so it would have been abandoned, BUT the 1 out of 5 still makes it a valuable weapons (1 out of 5 being used as an expression not any sort of testing).

Vassilis,

I see the value of your training and all but I think it does not equate how you do. Just because you pull 200 pounds (100 with pulleys help) on one arm is missing that in archery you use both arms and step into the shot by pushing with the left and then pulling the right. I know a half dozen guys out of one group of maybe a dozen or a score who can draw above 120 and a few more. We even tested the draw on them with dead weight to test how strong they really were. They can draw them and do so, some very very well. The accounts I have been reading through have commissions of array in england and them seeing huge numbers of archers and rejecting most. Why? Likely what we are discussing here. If you could not make the cut you were not worthy of the good pay of the king. 4-5,000 is a small number in truth. York could raise almost half that force easy (1000 were at Towton). From a whole country it is easy to think that they could get 10k good archers together out of a population of about 1 million men.
Medieval longbow men not just in England but in France and Burgundy as well were the premier troops of the day of the infantry troops. In england the accounts from their own time states one reason they were so strong was a good diet. They also had many, leter in the 14th that were mounted and fairly wealthy men not the dregs of society. Most of Charles the Bolds are were full of them. France does not start winning wars with the english until the get a good army set up with decent numbers of archers, many likely with longbows. Most accounts of Castillion, the 'victory' of the cannon, fail to mention what the 6-8,000 archers of the french had there and what they were doing.
Like I said I respect that you work out and practice. Thats great but there are people I know who do pull some thick bows (some don't even practice everyday). I likely will never. I am to busy at the time for a few days a week of practice but someday perhaps i'd like to, at least get to 100 pounds.

RPM


Hi Randall. Thanks for your thoughts, I think you missed something. If you look at the picture I posted you will see that while I am pulling back to the ear with one arm I am bracing against the pole with the other arm. My shoulder and tricept is what is keeping me from pulling myself into the poll. The reason I stand balanced is because an equal force is going in both directions. Notice how tense my other arm is.


This discusion reminds me of an old myth of people wielding 30 lb swords and wearing 150 lbs of armor. These concepts did not come out of thin air, someone looked at some partial evidence and misinterped it. I think it is fair to say that the same beast that pull 150 lbs with the small rear deltoid muscle will have the porpotionate strength to be able to wear 150 lbs of armor into battle and wield a 30 lb sword.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 8:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As to getting tired from firing that heavy bow all day. I've seen it estimated that King Henry provided 400,000 arrows for Agincourt. Sounds like a lot but 5,000 archers firing at ten shots a minute would fire every arrow in eight minutes.

And the battle lasted hours. So the archers actually spent most of the time not shooting. They shot for a minute, minute and a half. Rested half an hour. Shot again. Repeat.

Actually, probably less physically demanding than the practice.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 10:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James B.

Who is recent scholarship that claims the armour was arrowproof? I know of a handful but rebuttals to their arguments have shown a number of weaknesses in them. There is plenty out there by Rogers, Strickland, Hardy, The Royal military College and others that claim it was not. Now I agree it is foolish to say the arrows could easily penetrate plate armour but maintain it is possible still for a longbow arrow to punch through plate armour given certain factors.
It is clear that many arrows are deflected by armour, just as many swords, spears etc.
Be carefulwith jacks as well. There are accounts of men being killed in them. Not all jacks are 25-30 layers.
Many, many knights and lords of the french were killed at Agincourt. a few lords John, Duke of Alecon, Ferry de Lorraine, Henry of Blamount, Jacques of Dampierre (admiral of france), Edward duke of bar, Philip Count of nevers, etc, etc. from what I have read of primary sources only a handful of the men actually get a line saying, 'lord of x was killed by arrows or poleaxe, etc. Some who are lucky enough to have something written on them,most are not. I think there are a few that do but very few in comparison to the heaps of dead knights, Men at Arms and other lords of the french who were killed that day. A very large portion of the french army was killed, mained or injured. Now proving it was the arrows not melee is hard, but it is hard for Poitier and Crecy as well to prove. There are accounts though in this era of plate armour being rent and pierced. And like you stated ones that indicate the opposite. Which is right then? Are both wrong, are both right?
Verneuil,
is much more complicated than a large fore of horsemen riding down 'ignorant' archers. Jones has some good points but avoids some primary sources that indicate the opposite of some of his points (as often one does when proving ones point). It does bring up the weakness of leaving the archers exposed to cavalry though. Soemthing to keep in mind is the speed of a cavalry force. How long does it take them to cross the field and engage. In previous battles the Men at arms are there and waiting to protect the archers or the stakes. I think the archers without their defences would have had only a few moments where their arrows would have been effective before being ridden down. I can only imagine most did not wait to this point as they could see the weakness of lacking the men at arms. It also seems the lombards charged before the english were prepared (sound tactic, like Patay in many ways).
If I am just reiterating what you said I am sorry.


Vassilis,

Sorry I should have been clearer. From your excercise it looks like you are bracing yourself with one arm and pulling with the other. What I was saying would be like actually pushing against the bar and pulling at the same side using both arms the one not just a brace but pushing it away from you as you pull. You could be saying that is what you are doing, if so I am sorry I misunderstood.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
James B.

Who is recent scholarship that claims the armour was arrowproof?


I never said proff.I point out that arrows did break down armor but most tales talk about being hit in the same spot over and over like John Paston Jr. Lets not forget the greatest weakness of a man on a horse vs. arrows is the horse. There is a reason men dismounted and advanced on foot during the War of the Roses.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 1:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Since I posted this topic, someone e-mailed me a wonderful magazine article (for which, thank you very much, btw) by Mr. Stretton, that demonstrates what a 144-pound bow can do. It does seem to be able to pierce 16ga plate, at least at very short range. Stretton seems quite impressed with the brigandine, though.

My issue with his test is that the breastplate he used was perhaps too thin and not hardened at all. Figures I have seen for breastplates worn into battle by men-at-arms (not infantrymen; we're not talking munitions-grade stuff here) were more often on the order of 2mm thick, and when they were thinner, they were usually pretty darn hard (cf. The Wladislas armour).

I also don't think his test plate was sufficiently 'globose' to represent the real thing.

I still don't think longbows were great piercers of plate. The literary evidence bears this out. I can't find a certain reference to a man in plate being killed by an arrow. If the thing really could pierce plate with any sort of consistency, then why do the archers at Ferrybridge and Towton wait until their man has raised his visor to shoot him? Why does the Flodden chronicler go out of his way to mention that "...except it hit [the Scots] in some bare spot, [the arrows] did them no harm?" Why does the record of the battle of Brouwershaven (Livre des Trahisons) mention that the longbowmen drove off Dutch militia, but the knights charged straight into the arrowstorm, and that the arrows were able to damage armour, but not hurt the men inside? And that " Andrieu de Valines was killed by an arrow in the eye because he was not wearing a helmet..." What about the records that demonstrate that some armour was proofed against heavy crossbows (surely more powerful than the longbow!) and stamped by its maker as indication of its resistant quality?

I can find instance after instance of plate resisting arrows, but not a one about arrows, even driven by the vaunted longbow, defeating plate. Where's the evidence of the supposed plate-piercing ability of the bow? Is there something I haven't read yet? On what do the longbow crowd base their claims? Just that modern tests of extremely heavy bows can pierce too-thin plate?

I am led to a couple of conclusions: either the pull of the average warbow was less than 144+ pounds, or archers from the period were not in the habit of shooting at a target at a close enough range to pierce plate.

In spite of the lack of evidence, the recent and upcoming books and articles on the subject seem to be reasserting the power of the longbow. Vexing.

Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Mon 06 Nov, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James B,

The Paston account is a good one but what is the context. How far away is he? Is he in good armour (his father was very, VERY rich. It is likely he would have the best or some of the best armour on the field). Even at close range if he is in the best armour of the day he would be fairly well kept from most weapons of the day.

Josh,

ask and ye shall recieve.
Clifford Rogers compiled these primary sources together (all more or less contemporary with Agincourt. All these refer to arrows verse men at arms:
[The archers’ arrows] inflicted something of a massacre on them

Our archers shot no arrows off target; all caused death and brought to the ground both men and horses. (Brut)

wounding so many horses on which the French were mounted and men also, killing a good number, so that even before they came to hand to hand fighting, the French turned round (Basin)

Our archers shot full heartily / And made the Frenchmen fast to bleed; / Their arrows went full good speed, / Our enemies therewith down they fell (Ballad Battle of Agincourt)

The order of the English would have been thrown into disorder by the French knights if the great part of the latter had not been killed or wounded with arrows and had been forced to retreat in terror. (Tito Livio)

There are more accounts of armour being pierced, I have been compiling a small list as time goes by and I stumble across good sources both for and against, ideally with the context of where in the battle it is happening. The reason I assume why most literary accounts deal with the resistance to arrows shot by longbows is that in many cases the armour did resist them (in their context still, which may or may not still be known modernly).
I agree not the super armour piercer of legend but nonetheless at its times an armour piercer.

As far as lifting visors or removing a part of armour and being slain... First, if I saw this happen (my enemy lift his visor, remove his bevor or helmet) I would take the shot too, whether with bow, sword or axe. Soft targets are easier. I suppose less chivalric so maybe I would not take the advantage but it is war. Second this happens with others as well in different context, lack of armour does not mean with the armour it was impossible. Talbot supposedly in one version of his death gets killed by a halberd as he is not in his breastplate (does this mean halbards not efficient verse plate breastplates? Doubt it). It also could be a moral story to men at arms to keep their armour on... OR ELSE.

The proof verses crossbows also needs context. Sure the lower powered ones were more powerful than a crossbow likelybut is it one foot or two? A winch used to test or a windlass? A Belt? The likely one is a lower one as early with guns a small pistol was used. Proof agaisnt most danger not all.

In the end I doubt the high end armour would be in danger until in very close proximity and by that point the said archer would be in a melee with a fully armoured man. That is I think what is missing in the equation. It is most effective close range before then less and less the further away. Then you have a range weapon close up.... not what I'd imagine optimal.

As far as armour goes. Williams book shows clearly most armour was not heat treated correctly or at all apart from the masters in italy until it becomes more frequent the very end of the 15th and into the 16th. And as Josh pointed out at Flodden the armour was bouncing arrows for the most part (there is reference to an arrow killing King James in the English Ballard and Scot deaths by arrows in it though so sources and context again need to be focused).
Flodden armour though is totally different than 15th century armour. By the second decade of the 16th breastplates of the 'best german kind' the scots had just gotten would not only be thicker but some heat treatment (williams). As far as I can tell and as Williams claimed there is not a recognised relation between thinner armour and heat treatment at all. Now if that is incorrect it has not been something I have seen in my measuring of a fair amount of original armour 14th-17th centuries. (This is one of my main grips about certain large sports groups who claim the thinner hardened was historic...). If you look in the Kand the BF (Williams) some of the complete suits have components that are similar thicknesses but one is heat treated the other not. The average breatplate of the 15th was likely starting 1.2, ave. 1.5, upper end 2mm for nicer ones. Williams has a good list of breastplates but it starts at 1500 on so not valid for medieval really.

Strettons testing was limited by some factors (I think the breastplate is more like a mid to late 15th breastplate but it may indeed be to shallow but if so not dramatically, lack of trama testing) and some of his conclusions not what I would conclude (the brigandine) but a good article. I am glad he can pull a bow like that and not have to train everyday (gives us weekend archers hope).

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Tue 07 Nov, 2006 1:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Since you mention that those accounts are all more or less contemporary with Agincourt, that demonstrates to me that later armour was capable of resisting arrows.
Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Tue 07 Nov, 2006 1:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would like so see even a single eye-witness source stating that a man was incapacitated by an arrow that penetrated his plate armour. I am only aware of two incidents of an arrows penetrating plate at all. One of which has already been mentioned (Paston). The other involved penetration of a gorget. Neither wound incapicated the victim and both arrows struck plate segments that are significantly thinner than a breastplate.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Tue 07 Nov, 2006 3:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan,

Are visors thinner than breastplates? Most seem to be within a small margin of the same thickness, now the top of the helmet usually is much thicker.
The accounts mentioned above, while not specifically naming one person do have men that are knights (in armour of plate at agincourt) being killed and incapacitated. There are a few others I am sure I could dig up. If you are looking for specific men you get back to the usual ambiguity of the sources which applies to all weapons of the time, find deaths caused by war hammer for example along the same lines.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Longbows again
Page 3 of 8 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum