| Author |
Message |
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
 Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Perhaps, but then the Scots were notoriously poor when it comes to armor. A man at arms is one in full armor. |
Yes, but my point is that the medieval archer did not just face armoured men-at-arms, but various kinds of opponents. All too often the discussion is limited to the archer vs knight scenario. In fact it was the experieces of fighting the Scots that lead to the development of the succesful English tactics employed against the French in the HYW
|
|
  |
 |
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Doernhoefer wrote: | | Still, wouldn't the arrow problem have been solved by even just a slight bit of barding? I understand that a lot of barding was lost during the early renaissance periods when gunpowder weaponry became more prominent (Very little period armor could stop a bullet). A small amount of light iron could seriously protect a horse from long range arrow fire. From what I've researched, they weren't kidding when they said that a fully armored and barded knight was the main battle tank of the medieval ages. Also, I would suspect that the horses were trained specifically with war in mind. In order to "Bomb proof" my sister's horse (jumper), we lit firecrackers near by to get her used to the idea. I think a lot of people overlook the training the horses get too. |
Read accounts of the battle of Crecy. They talk about how the horse were maddened and slain by the English arrows. You can't "bomb proof" a horse against being peirced with arrows, and you can't make armor comprehensive enough (realistically---I'm aware there were a few very late-period horse armors that covered every bit of the horse) to keep them safe.
The simple answer to a lot of these kinds of questions is simply to look what they really did in period. In this case, what they did was to dismount and play the English game. If they could have avoided doing that by simply better armoring their horses they would have.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
  |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: | | Yes, but my point is that the medieval archer did not just face armoured men-at-arms, but various kinds of opponents. All too often the discussion is limited to the archer vs knight scenario. In fact it was the experieces of fighting the Scots that lead to the development of the succesful English tactics employed against the French in the HYW |
True, and they also ripped the Genoese crossbowmen apart at Crecy, but the topic is about the efficacy of arrows against armor.
Of course, none of this should really be open to debate. We have tons of primary-source material that *tells* us that arrows didn't kill men through armor, but too many people are too invested in the idea that arrows killed through armor for that to be enough.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
There are plenty of primary sources that clearly state arrows could pierce armour. They are just as clear as the accounts that depict arrows being defeated. They might not be as prevalent as the successful accounts of armour defeating arrows (which makes perfect sense to have both armour failure and success) but to say their is not primary sources of armoured Men at arms being killed by arrow penetration of their armour is just incorrect. This board is full of the primary accounts posted in previous discussions by many persons which were accurate then as they are now in regards to this topic. It is not even worth me or anyone else retyping them again, the accounts have not changed in hundreds of years. This armour invincibility kick recently is getting to be just as or more ridiculous than the uberarrow before it. The polarization of both sides seems to be the most detrimental thing to this as both sides cannot see to the right or left of themselves.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Hugh,
There are plenty of primary sources that clearly state arrows could pierce armour. They are just as clear as the accounts that depict arrows being defeated. They might not be as prevalent as the successful accounts of armour defeating arrows (which makes perfect sense to have both armour failure and success) but to say their is not primary sources of armoured Men at arms being killed by arrow penetration of their armour is just incorrect. This board is full of the primary accounts posted in previous discussions by many persons which were accurate then as they are now in regards to this topic. It is not even worth me or anyone else retyping them again, the accounts have not changed in hundreds of years. This armour invincibility kick recently is getting to be just as or more ridiculous than the uberarrow before it. The polarization of both sides seems to be the most detrimental thing to this as both sides cannot see to the right or left of themselves. |
No one said invincible, that's a straw-man argument. What we said was that you don't kill people through armor with arrows, and there's no evidence it happened and *plenty* of sources that show that arrows barely ever penetrated armor and that kills mostly occurred when people left their visors off. Moreover, modern testing (as this test cited by Dan) supports that--when you take into account the errors Dan pointed out in the test and add to that what I wrote about arrows hitting normal to the surface of armor it's clear that very few arrows would *ever* have killed anyone through armor.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Doernhoefer wrote: | | This may have been beat to death already but isn't the direct penetrating power of an arrow a moot point? In mass-formation combat, your archers (I would hope), shouldn't be in a direct line against heavy cav. Wouldn't it be more often true that your archers would be back on a hill, firing arced clouds of arrows to disrupt enemy foot troops? |
Well, "back on a hill?" Not exactly. In many cases they obviously were, but there were frequent instances of the English longbowmen being placed at the front of the battle line--since, after all, they were a great deal less reluctant to close into hand-to-hand combat than most other archers.
BTW, about non-lethal arrow hits: Procopius's account of the 6th-century siege of Rome by the Goths had one of the Byzantine captains surviving a hit by an arrow in the head. The arrow hit near his nose, just missing his eye, and stuck all the way in to the back of his neck without striking any vital organs. Over a period of three years the arrow came out on its own until finally he was able to pull the last remaining bit by hand.
(Obviously, Procopius also commented on how the soldiers marveled at the sight of their commander riding all through the skirmish with the arrow sticking out of his face!)
|
|
|
|
|
Max Maydanik
Location: Sunnyvale, CA Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a video of an interesting experiment that was done in Ukraine. Their arrows had a stopper at about an inch and a half from the point and the bows they used where about 20 kg which is very light. They show the arrows up close in the end of the video.
http://vision.rambler.ru/i/e.swf?id=ryazanovp...amp;logo=1
You will need Macromedia Flash Player to watch it.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
I agree that the degree of success was in favor of the armour but will still disagree that it barely happened. There are tests that have clearly shown what would be fatal damage penetration and there will always be something wrong with the experiemnts to some, whether valid or just bias in both directions for and against. There are plenty of contemporary accounts making broad statements, 'they did this to avoid the arrow piercing their helmets (one of the thickest parts of armour).... No doubt they knew it was possible and could happen as they acted to avoid this happening. 'Barely' is not the word I'd use as I do not think that this adverb accurately assesses the success of arrow penetration, I do think more often than not the arrow would be deflected or if the armour thick enough defeated.
Some leading medieval historians of the topic are looking at the use of archers in close range by small indicators in some contemporary sources. I think it seems to make a great deal of sense as well rereading some of the statements made and compared to the 30 meter distance used in the Royal Military College testing in their past testing with 'fatal' penetration on metal between 1.5mm and 2mm. By this point you would also only have a limited time frame to works which would allow plenty of heavily armoured crowded men up to the opposite army. Strickland mentions it somewhat in the Great Warbow but in the near future another books will discuss the close range shooting in more detail.
If one adds some factors in high quality armour, good distance I easily and comfortably would say an arrow even from a powerful bow would not penetrate. I'd assume they would loose arrows at this point still in many cases to take the chance that it will find joints, gaps, etc. and slowly whittle them down.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
I think it seems to make a great deal of sense as well rereading some of the statements made and compared to the 30 meter distance used in the Royal Military College testing in their past testing with 'fatal' penetration on metal between 1.5mm and 2mm. By this point you would also only have a limited time frame to works which would allow plenty of heavily armoured crowded men up to the opposite army. Strickland mentions it somewhat in the Great Warbow but in the near future another books will discuss the close range shooting in more detail.
|
The "fatal penetration" indicated in these tests is bollocks. The metallurgy of the plate tested was crappy Victorian "puddled iron" which is far inferior to that which was available to medieval armourers. The authors of the above test stated as much. Which is why they went for charcoal rolled iron. Add to that the fact that the arrowheads they used were much much harder than the hardest bodkin ever analysed. The above test is the first one ever done which approximates both the weapon AND the armour. Only the arrfowheads are flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Glennan Carnie
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, there we go - less than 30 posts before the old bigotries appear again ("My pile of references is bigger than your pile")
Once again we have comprehensively failed to move the debate on.
Carry on without me children. And play nice.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan,
I do not think you can discount it that easily. Unless you know something I don't they did not use what you are saying they did. Their test used a type of iron from sweden (which Dr. Williams tested hardness of as he was part of the testing) and steel with very low carbon content, which would be better than most iron's used in the 14th and early 15th, so if anything it is a disadvantage to the arrow. Mike was more than willing to discuss the limitations of the tests. The problem is people who just cannot see beyond these limitations. It is sad that some are so convinced that they reject any contemporary sources of the events and modern testing. Really there is not much of a point in continuing this discussion, I am sure anything brought up will have some flaw or discrepancy as do those brought up in the defence.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
The figures on kinetic energy are interesting. I did some calculations some years ago on a 60lb longbow shooting reasonably light arrows and came up with 26.5 Joules but 123-126 are reasonable numbers given a higher poundage bow and heavier arrows. Incidentally I also had a musket that I owned clocked on a range and came up with the figure of 2611J, a figure which matches very well with later figures published by the Graz Armouries firing antique muskets (they have a lot!). One massive wall piece (essentially the snipers rifle of the Thirty Years War) came in at around 7000J! When musket balls hit armour they blow it apart (we did tests with old army surplus helmets that were impervious to arrows).
OK, having been hit repeatedly with swords, sometimes harder than I would have liked, I would tend to agree with Kel, but I thought I'd do the maths. Let's look at what that energy of 123-126J (let's say 121 as it makes the maths easier) really means. KE=half mass x velocity squared. So in other words being hit by an arrow with 121J of energy is the equivalent of being hit by a 2kg housebrick travelling at 11m/s or about the velocity that it would get if dropped from around 6m (or about 20 feet) up. That sound pretty unpleasant to me but plenty of people survived the blunt trauma of being hit with a musket ball and they have twenty times the energy, so I feel that there's something we're missing in the equation.
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have tried to look at the latest test with an open mind. I think it is a very good start and don't see any reason to bother with the previous tests which are too flawed to be of any use since they invariably involved bows that were too light or plate that was inadequate. I am looking foward to the next part of these tests where the authors state that different ranges will be examined. That will eliminate my concern about the very short range of this initial test. My only real complaints are the extreme hardness of the arrowheads used and the fact that no padding was employed. I would love to see some tests involving the compact broadhead (type 16) since this is one of the few arrowheads so far analysed that show evidence of hardening. I would also love to see some data regarding the ranges of various arrow types since I still believe that the primary purpose of the bodkin was to increase range rather than punch through armour.
|
|
|
|
|
Glennan Carnie
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now this has come back to a reasonable discussion...
I found an interesting article regarding the power of bullets to incapacitate. I think it's reasonable to extrapolate this to musket balls and arrows.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
It concludes:
Kinetic energy does not kill
Impact "shock" (blunt force trauma?) does not kill
The only certain incapacitation is a hit to the brain
The critical element to incapacitation is penetration
The penetration must sever major blood vessels and/or organs - therefore death is by blood loss
Even a severely wounded person can function for a signifcant amount of time.
The way to increase the severity of the wound is by increasing the size of the projectile
From this one can conclude that any armour that prevents significant arrow penetration is effective.
This then raises the question: How was a fully-harnesses man-at-arms defeated? Blunt force trauma from a pole-arm is not effective (from the same arugument as the arrow); cutting through plate armour, mail and linen (under) armour is not practicable; which leaves penetration from thrusts as the only viable way to stop them.
[/url]
|
|
|
|
|
Glennan Carnie
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I would also love to see some data regarding the ranges of various arrow types since I still believe that the primary purpose of the bodkin was to increase range rather than punch through armour. |
I've got a Type 16 sat here, along with a Towton Broadhead. I'll make up some arrows and so some unofficial tests to compare it to an equivalent mass Type 10.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glennan Carnie wrote: |
This then raises the question: How was a fully-harnesses man-at-arms defeated? Blunt force trauma from a pole-arm is not effective (from the same arugument as the arrow); cutting through plate armour, mail and linen (under) armour is not practicable; which leaves penetration from thrusts as the only viable way to stop them. |
1. An arrow could hit an unprotected part of the body. They don't have to kill. All they need to do is take the man out of the fight.
2. A bunch of archers could knock a man-at-arms to the ground. Once immobilised, a long sharp blade can be worked up under the fauld into the gut or groin or shoved into the occularium of the helmet.
3. A bunch of archers could knock a man-at-arms to the ground. Once immobilised, his armour can be smashed to pieces with repeated heavy blows from mauls and axes.
4. Another man-at-arms can take him out with pole arms - attacks targeting gaps and joints.
5. Hit him at close range with firearms or a heavy siege ballista.
|
|
|
|
|
Glennan Carnie
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hit him at close range with firearms or a heavy siege ballista. |
Yep, that would do it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
When people are discussing battle shafts vs armour - why do they always focus on mid 15th century (and later) plate harnesses? In battles like Morlaix, Crécy and to some extent even Poitiers, the English faced French men-at-arms in mail and early plate. And those were the best armoured men - crossbowmen and other infantry would have had even less armour. I do think that a man-at-arms clad in a complete suit of plate armour of the 1420's and onwards were virtually invulnerable to arrows and crossbow-bolts, but not their 14th century predecessors, nor their less well-to-do contemporary infantrymen or light cavalrymen
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glennan Carnie wrote: | This then raises the question: How was a fully-harnesses man-at-arms defeated? Blunt force trauma from a pole-arm is not effective (from the same arugument as the arrow); cutting through plate armour, mail and linen (under) armour is not practicable; which leaves penetration from thrusts as the only viable way to stop them.
[/url] |
One word....harnesfechten.
If you try to fight an armored man the way you would an unarmored man, he is very hard to kill. But if you fight him the way you're supposed to, the way the period masters say to, then it's not so hard.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Tue 01 May, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glennan Carnie wrote: | Now this has come back to a reasonable discussion...
I found an interesting article regarding the power of bullets to incapacitate. I think it's reasonable to extrapolate this to musket balls and arrows.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
|
That's good info. Thanks for sharing.
My understanding of blunt force trauma is gleaned from a couple bullet proof body armour studies. (I am not a physicist.) Subsonic projectiles and mass weapons don't seem to create organ damage on the same scale due to lower velocity transmission of force. Rigid, properly fitted medieval plate harness is simply not affected by arrows (or any other medieval weapon) the same way as supersonic projectiles affect modern ablative body armour.
It is unreasonable to compare the two and hence my only objection to the BFT discussion on the EWB forum. That community has done much to advance understanding of the military bow. I'd like to see a handful of guys shooting 140+lb bows at a reasonable reproduction of transitional harness. I think both "sides" would be enlightened by the results. Sometimes should become the standard answer to the question of armour penetration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic