[Dan Howard]

The only accounts of men being killed through their visors involve the arrow penetrating the occularium, not punching through the plate itself. None of the accounts you mention indicate that the plate itself was compromised. There are plenty of ways to incapacitate a man armoured in plate without punching through the plate itself. This has ben covered ad nauseum previously. Until you come up with an account such as that of Paston, indicating that a person was incapacitated THROUGH the plate, then we are wasting our time since nothing new is being contributed to this subject. I get tired of having to say this over and over. Nobody is claiming that plate armour is invulnerable to arrows. The claim is that the chances of a longbow arrow incapacitating a man by punching through a segment of plate armour under battlefield conditions are so low as to statistically negligible.

FWIW, so called tests at ranges under 30 yards are a waste of time. Any longbowman facing a knight at this distance has already dropped his bow and is preparing for melee.

[Randall Moffett]

Dan,

That is the point. How many chronicles about men in armour being killed say 'and the lance ripped through his 1.8mm plate breastplate, then his arming coat of a few layers of linen lightly padded of about 2 cm's, then tore a 15cm deep hole into his outer layer of epideral and his abdomen rupturing his spleen?

Point being even coroner reports only list the weapon involved and at times what goods both parties had on them at the time. I am just saying if you base your full concept on the fallibility of plate verses armour you may be waiting for something that must be read into the lines. It is unlikely that every knight charging at Agincourt lifted their visors as they were racing forward into an arrow storm... but if men were killed, maimed or injured then it is likely some sort of arrow wounds (as my sources state) then it had to have defeated their defences or they would not have died. Hence the reason to defend the bits that if not covered you die. The chances of all the arrow finding the occula are very slim (higher with the large numbers of arrows though but still very slim). There are very few references to men dying by any certain weapons with the added details of what the weapon punctured and pierced. Why single out the Longbow then if logic works so. no weapon then works against armour.
RPM

30 yards is not a waste of time if one is defended by men at arms and stakes. Dan you amaze me by your blinders sometimes.

[Dan Howard]

Longbowmen were infantry. They didn't drop their bows and run away when their arrows ran out. At some point quite early in most engagements they changed from bows to hand weapons. Pick a distance. How far away will the opponent be before this happens? How far can an armoured man on foot advance in the time it takes a longbowman to load and fire? How confident will an archer be that his one and only shot will be good enough to take out this knight? IMO 30 yards is being generous. Archers are likely to drop their bows long before their opponents reach this distance.

When have I ever said that longbows could not incapacitate fully armoured knights? Time and time again I have said that arrows can penetrate gaps in their defenses. Arrows can cause blunt trauma. Arrows can psychologically decrease morale. Arrows can take out their mounts. What they CANT do is punch through plate at battlefield distances.

My opinion is hardly based solely on contemporary accounts. Taking the data in both Hardy's book (currently the definitive book on the penetrative capability of warbows) and Williams' book (currently the definitive book on the protective capability of armour) even the heaviest longbows are incapable of punching through plate armour except at ridiculously short distances.

[Randall Moffett]

Dan,

Sorry I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I agree on the distances in question with penetration but not its use on the field.
20-30 yards is still 60-90 feet, 52-82 feet outside of the Men at arms lances. In the time it takes to cross this distance I assume there were casualties if the bowmen are protection (some examples of when the archers do not and break have already been given). If every 3 to 6 archers of the 6000 at agincourt killed one man in the last short distance it is a significant number. Then who is to say they engage right in the melee. They have a group of Men at arms or stakes between them and the attackers. From this point it seems they could continue to loose arrows from relative safety (it is a battle field, people could break through MAA and stakes. Most sources indicate it is only after they are out of arrows they join melee, which they would then continue the role as a infantry men as you pointed out.

RPM

[Josh Warren]

I do think it is significant that the sources which say that archers killed knights does not make mention of the arrows piercing plate. I'm not asking for something like "the arrow punched 20cm into his 1.8mm breastplate." But what is said in each of those sources amounts to "the arrows wrought havoc amongst the knights" and that's all. With as many arrows as there were in the air in some of those conflicts, I say this allows as much for the possibility of those arrows finding gaps in the armour as it does for the arrows driving right through. If the arrows punched through plate consistently, there would be mention of it. Yet, even as early as Poitiers, there is a source that says something to the effect of the Frenchmen's breasts being so stoutly defended that the arrows glanced off.

Randall, you mention that "There are more accounts of armour being pierced, I have been compiling a small list as time goes by..."

What are these specific examples of the armour being pierced? Can you offer these to us?

[James Barker]

Randall

I think what you need to take into consideration is your accounts you posted are not saying specifically that the plate armor was pierced only that men died. That could happen in many ways. How many were hit in unarmored areas, how many in joints only covered by maille, how many thrown from a horse, how many died drowning in the mud, how many were killed when the archers attacked them with axes? This we don't know.

But to focus away from Agincourt and into the later 15th century why were the longbowmen no longer that effective? During the War of the Roses no side was decimated by archers like Crécy or Poitiers.

[Daniel Staberg]

[Josh Warren]

[Malcolm A]

Hello all
Though I am not an archer nor do I have much imperical research to back up what I say I thought I might add my tuppence worth to this interesting topic.

A TV prog on UK Channel 4 called Weapons That Made Britain touched on the topic of arrows and armour twice.
Both instances were interesting.
Whilst perhaps not a definitive test, they did carry out an exercise to see what arrows might do to armour.
Testing was done in a weaposn lab using data from actual arrow firing

Untreated breastplate;
- an arrow fired from about 25 to 30 yards would certainly pierce the breastplate and the results did show that the arrow penetrated beyond the bodkin.
- tests from further away resulted in either broken arrow or no penetration

Heat treated breastplate
- even at short range [25yards] the arrow did not make much impression; the arrow head was held by the armour; it was surmised that the arrow would be unlikely to actually enter flesh

I would suggest that the question of arrow penetration of armour is likely to be a more complex issue than some may think and fatalities are likely to be caused by other factors too. Earlier posts have touched on some of the issues [better than I have / will as well]

Range that arrow is fired at is likely to be crucial as arrow velocity falls off quite dramatically.
Angle of the arrow hitting the armour is likely to be critical [consider armour in modern fighting vehicles].
Battles such as Agincourt were fought on ground that did not favour fully armoured men on foot; tests have shown that an armoured foot will be held up my mud and slow down a man quite considerably. A tired man is likely to be easier to kill and at close ranges you could still use your bow.
Armoured cavalry whose mounts were not armoured almost certainly had real problems with arrows; horse may shy off course, throw them etc, and once on fought the knight could be at risk of other horses etc.
It is very likely that with earlier breastplates that arrow penetration was definitley possible / achievable and that this was one reason why the English regularly included large numbers of veteran archers; men who could be counted on to fire their weapons in a disciplined way in a battle against armoured cavalry [albeit behind stakes], and then join in the melee.
As seems to have happened at the Battle of Verneuil, when the archers came up against a different quality of armour and armoured horses, and without the benefit of their stakes [apparently ground was too hard] they got what we in the UK would call "a right good kicking!"

In the War of the Roses, both sides fielded large numbers of archers; no doubt they were somewhat fearful of what they could expect as many would have been veterans of the wars against France etc. At the Battle of Towton it seems the Lancastrians were goaded to come off the higher ground by careful use of Yorkist archers firing at their enemy who was partly blinded by snow. We can surmise they did not want to stand there and let their own archers / less well armoured men be slaughtered. Anecdotal information suggests Yorkist archers kept firing at the Lancastrian men at arms until the range was short whereupon their own MAA moved through the archers to engage in hand to hand fighting.

Sorry if I have rambled on a bit but this is a great topic.
Sorry I am not able to provide proper references - hope I havent muddied the waters
Note; I am more than happy to be advised that what I have written may be incorrect / rubbish / ravings of a mad man.
We learn by our mistakes... [I should be an expert on everything now!]

Cheers[/list]

[Bill Tsafa]

Just a reminder of what I said earlier... arrows may be tough to stop but easy to deflect. Both breastplates and helmets evolved into a "V" shape to deflect arrows. It is my personal opinion that deflecting arrows is the true advantage that plate has over other forms of armer such as mail with a gambeson or hardened leather with padding. The smooth surface of plates deflects the arrow nicely if it hits at an angle. An arrow hitting mail from any directions will probably break the ring open.


I think we are at a point now where we must go back to the source of the issue and question it directly. I think we must ask certain questions of the Mary Rose bows and try to figure out if their original assessment was correct. Archeologist and scientist often make mistakes. Some questions I would ask is... Did they factor in 500 years of aging on the wood. Did they factor in the effects of salt water on wood. Did they consider if these bows are infact finished bows??? Perhaps they are staves meant to be finished personally by the archer. Is it possibly that these bows might require additional conditioning before and after use to maintain the proper tension. (I treat mine with petroleum jelly every 6 months). Asking such question my favor either opinion. If it turns out that 150 lb bows were indeed the average bows... then we may need to to go back and reevaluate some other things too. Perhaps men did also wear 150 lbs or armor and wield 30 lb swords with one hand.

[Randall Moffett]

All right my friends we have a roaring good conversation going.....

Here is some quick sources as said before. Sorry about the delay (I actually read this while in the off or workign at home so I still have to do honest work..... which today was reading through about 500 pages of excavation reports... boy my head is swimming but found about 15ish bits of Coat of Plates were found here on a dig, likely pre 1300ish for a few by pottery and other datable material in it!).

in the Gesta Henrici Quinti, 'the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets.'
pg. 36.


Monstrelet writed that they knights had to ride with their heads down so the arrows would not penetrate their visors.
pg. 160.

I know there are more but to be honest it seems silly for me to compile a book online. You asked for contemporary evidence that arrows could penetrate the armour and there you have it. Froissart has one but I could not find it after a breif look and figured it good.

James B.,

Daniel got that pretty much how I see it regarding the War ot Roses and the later period after armour trend is to thicken the armour and better heat treatment (for more info see Williams,Knight and the Blast Furnace).

RPM

[James Barker]

[Daniel Staberg]

[Colin F.]

[Bill Tsafa]

Thanks Colin. That helps a bit. 100 draw weights I can believe. It would be very tough for the averge man, but very workable for a 6.5 foot 300 to 350 lb man. Big men can pull 100 lbs all day. I am confident that you could recruit enough such men to form elite archery units.

You mention that that 150 lb draws are based on reconstructions. In shaving the wood staves, just being off tiny bit can make a difference throughout the entire bow. This does not proove anything, but I now understand where there is a chance of error.

Danial, those myths were based on misinterpeting evidence at some point. Perhaps they one peice of heavy plate and then asummed that the rest of the armor was of the same porpotion... or they looked at a painting of a Norman sword, saw how wide the blade was, but did not consider how thin it was or that it was fullered... The assesment I am making based on years of training and observing very strong men in the modern world. Any man who can draw 150 lbs with the rear delt will have the porpotionate strength to squat 900 lbs and bench 600 lbs. Such men do exist and could wear a 150 harness and be trained to wield a very heavy sword. But there are so few of them in the world. I would say less then 500 such men exist today. Between us friends here... I can also tell you what chemical assistance they are taking to reach such inhuman strength levels.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

As far as piercing armor goes, there is this account from the Scotichronicon, describing a battle in 1402. It recorded this about English archers:

[Jonathan Harton]

Vassilis,

What about men drawing 150lbs bows seems so impossible to you? Men like Mark Stretton prove on a regular basis that a properly trained and fit man can employ such a weapon with skill and precision for extended periods at a time. I would not consider these men exceptions. You have to put things into the context of the medieval world.

When dealing with English archery of this period, you are dealing with a society that progressively worked an entire martial culture for its male citizenry around the use of a single weapon. Use of the longbow by common men in England in the High and Late Middle Ages was extremely common. Common to the extent that laws were passed prompting men from their teens to their later years to train every sunday after church. I do not at all think a society where the majority of men were engaging in a skill on a regular basis and with decades upon decades of accumulated knowledge about proper form and technique would have trouble mastering a bow of 150lbs. It is not as simple as that it is not an easy thing to do, even in modern times, so it must not be the case. When you have an entire culture that revolves around a weapon, the capabilities for proficiency can only be strengthened . Granted,this is not something that can be easily measured scientifically, but I don't think it can be underestimated by any means.

The same thing applies to colonial riflemen during the American Revolution being able to pick off officers on horseback from three and four hundred yards away with flintlock rifles. To a modern person thinking in a modern context, it seems impossible. However, to a person who was fostered in a culture where that was part of life, it was exactly that, just a part of life.
Jonathan.

[Josh Warren]

And again, the sources that say that arrows pierced plate are all early 15th century. Where does the longbow's armour-piercing ability go in the latter part of the 1400s?

I think it's also noteworthy that, so far at least, the accounts of armour resisting arrows outnumber those that have the arrows defeating armour.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

It's not as accounts of heavy bows only come from England. Strickland argues archers of about all European nations used 100+lb bows. It's quite accepted that composite bows got up to 150-160lbs, in the Middle East, China, Mongolia, and other countries. They are also numberous of Amerindian groups using extremely powerful longbows. For example, Garcilaso de la Vega wrote that the none of the Spaniards in Florida could draw Amerindian bows. He reports many instances of these bows piercing mail.

The accounts of Cabeza de Vaca are even more dramatic:

[Josh Warren]

The Cabeza de Vaca accounts don't tell us what kind of armour those spaniards were wearing. It could have been mail, brigandine, or even local cotton armour, which the Spanish frequently adopted. All Cabeza de Vaca ever says in his account is "armas" in reference to both weapons and armour. This is hardly evidence of penetration of plate, and given the scarcity of plate amongst conquistadores (in spite of the popular image of them), I'm inclined to believe that he's not talking about plate here.