Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
The power of Armor
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Can any one tell me how useful was the armor of medieval times. For example the chain mail worn at the time of William the Conqueror, could that mail stop an arrow?
The more advanced plate armor of the late 14th early 15th century, could that stop an arrow fired from a long bow? Also were there special arrowhead designed to pierce male armor? Could they do that? Were the arrows fired from Cross bows of greater penetrating power than arrows fired from a log bow? I guess the crossbow was direct fire where as the long bow shot would be more parabolic.
What was the typical order of battle at, for example, Agincourt? Were the archers, who were probably placed before the infantry, fire their arrows at the advancing French armies? What was the role of the English Cavalry, the knights on horseback, with the lances and shields who jousted at tournaments?
If you can provide any information on how medieval battles were fought, it will be most welcome.
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Since ancient times that was the main question for all pre-gunpowder armies : what is the right "amount" of armour that soldiers had to wear?
Like in modern warfare where tanks, aircraft as well as personal armour came as a response to new weaponry, even more this was true back then when battles were fought in close contact. Just to mention something we do not think very often - we know that the appearence of muskets gave way to close combat battles and thus soon soldiers discarted all protective armour since it did not aid a lot with bullets - but then in late 19th century when wars started being fought inside cities in industrialised countries (German-French wars), people realised the need for at least a helmet to protect not so much from bullets but from flying fragments that killed soldiers even more often..... -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
... now one has to keep in mind that in pre-gunpowder era, there was no significant evolution of armour in terms of design - most if not all body armours were known since very early times: the scale armour (fish-like) was known in Middle East since Assyrian times, the full plate armour was used by Greeks in Mycenaean times (in archaic times actually aristocratic hoplites were fully covered almost like knights of 15th century), the lorica armour was again found in a much more impressive design in Mycynaean tombs... multi-layered armours were in use by many people (like the Greek linothorax), leather was perhaps the most common among all people (and probably the linothorax was more leather leafs than linen leafs as many people think). Then the chain mail armour - the universal piece of armour in medieval times was used by Romanian and Ukrainian tribes since at least the late archaic, early classical times, more than 400 years before the creation of the Roman Empire that adopted it and made it common everywhere. It goes withoutsaying that these aforementioned nations did not necessarily invent these armours as we see that similar designs appeared from Japan to Portugal concurrently... at the end of the day if you want to protect yourself you will very probably end up with something similar as another guy on the other side of the world.
From there on the question was the type of material, the craftmanship, the overall weight, flexibility and above all what style of warfare enemies use and how much are you willing to pay!!! These questions were universal in medieval times, since this is your specific question Tas. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
It goes without saying that the universal type of armour in medieval times was the chain mail that probably appeared in ancient times among Scythian tribes in Ukraine-Romania and established in both Roman and Persian Empires and from there on elsewhere.
Chain mail's universal success was not so much that it was the best armour ever discovered but that it was the best armour money could buy. Long before was the age when free citizens paid the equivalent of a middle-class man buying a mid-range BMW for their armour! In Roman and Persian Empires it was the state that buyed armour for soldiers hence economics came into it. This was also true for medieval times for the Byzantine Empire but then for the Arabic states as well as for feudal western Europe (where the weaponry was in charge of the feudal leaders!). Chain mail was the cheapest armour you could find since it was produced massively either at factories (most often) but then even at home by women since the rings were most often not that thick so needing a mans' strength. Usually rings were already assembled in a long roll (excactly like linen rolls that were bought by tailors) which you could buy and make your own armour even your self! Of course for a nice armour you would always ask a specialist smith. It was really also convenient as you could cut and fix it in any design you wished, short sleeeved, long sleeved, single layer, double layer, cut a piece from the apron and use it as a cagule for the head etc. It was not dependent on the soldiers' height! After the end of a battle you could just rip off the dead soldiers' armour and re-make it a roll to be reused.
Having said that, was the chain mail usefull in a medieval battle? Of course! That is why in the first chance even the most poor feudal leader would spend his economies to arm as many soldiers as he could afford with it. The Byzantine Military Academy (yes, the equivalent of West Point) manuals highlighted the need for protective armour for foot soldiers and indicated the chain mail as a very good basic solution.
Now to measure the effectiveness of the chain mail one has to keep in mind that it was wore in many different fashions. 1 layer chain over cloths (not very often the case), 1 chain over 1 leather (most often configuration), 1 leather (lorica) over 1 chain over 1 leather (byzantine foot soldier configuration), 2 chain over 1 leather (quite often), 1 scale over 1 chain over cloths, 1 plate over 1 chain over cloths (very often configuration also). Note also that when I say cloths or leather, it goes without saying that people wore padded clothing/leather so as to absorb the shock of hits received in battle! The pads added to the protective layer.
I will need a lot of space to explain to you the various configurations and their effectiveness over, say arrows since that was your question. Then we have to add the types of bows and the types of arrowheads - just remember those Mongols that had up to 10 different types of arrowheads depending on what type of armour their enemy wore!!!
So I will take the most common configuration : A foot soldier dressed with 1 chain mail over 1 simple leather layer (use typical thicknesses here! - a few mm do not imagine 1 cm or something!) and a slightly padded piece of clothing underneath. Typical common short bows with the typical arrowhead could not do a lot of damage even at a relatively short distance <50m. First, their power was restricted, then the arrowheads commonly used had the "side-wings" on the arrowhead for better rotation and speed maintenance through flight. However the "side-wings" were mainly for inflicting large wounds on naked flesh or for piercing potentially a hard leather armour. Against plate mail they did little, against scale the same and against chain mail they would be very possibly rolled up in it thus losing momentum and not being able to pierce the leather under-layer. It has to be said that contrary to common viewing (and 1950s films of Robin Hood), chain mail was not a very flashy-fashion statement: it was wore very loose with hanging wizard like sleeves, with beer-bellies and such since it was this looseness that was most effective especially against bows; had it been streched, the arrow would more easily pierce the chain mail and have enough momentum to pass through the leather.
Still, had the archer been at 10m he had some chanced to pierce strought through but then how many archers were so brave as to forward that much in front of enemies? Quite rare.
Now advanced designs of cross-bow were really powerfull and solved the above problem. They had multiple times the force of a short bow and thus the arrow, smaller and more fast did not need side-wings, but could be a straight point. With the straight point there was no problem of the arrow being rolled up in the soldiers chain mail or cloth fabric (even cloths played that part!) or such, but it would pierce through straight into the soldiers body. Cross bows were lethal and at quite some distance. However they had a great disadvantage: at best 1 min of charching! That is where the long bow came in. Almost comparable force of arrow - thus enabling the use of point-arrows - but then a charging time of some 10sex, thus one archer could fire some 6-7 arrows in a minute, hence a small force of archers could fire 1000s of arrows in a few minutes with a devastating effect. Still, if they fired at 250m (maximum distance), the flight would be parabolic, the momentum lost, thus a well protected soldiers had not a lot to fear. But below 100m the case was different. Had he been wearing chain mail + leather he was at great risk, below 50m hit for good and down to earth!
Long bows and cross bows below 100m and certainly below 50m could pierce also plate male. That is why rarely knights discarted the chain and leather protections underneath (apart parades to look more beautiful only with the plate armour!). -
Message 5
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Tas, unsure of the progression, but its claimed in Western Europe the knight in armor was a poor match for the longbow, said an arrow from a longbow could penetrate the armor, pass through the body and stick out a yard behind, mind that may have been a gross exaggeration but it was the longbow that made armor obsolete in Western Europe, kill the horse you got the knight, in countries where the longbow was unknown armor continued for many years later. Armor was shaped to help to glance off the arrow plus tempering but its claimed that even failed. The Crossbow was a one shot before winding up again, longbow man get off many arrows so Crossbow men would be the prime target for a archer, and its claimed a longer range.
-
Message 6
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:53 GMT, in reply to Tas in message 1
As Nik pointed out, mail was rarely worn on its own. The Romans wore it over a subarmalis, the exact nature of which is unknown, but probably some sort of padded leather garment. By the time of the Norman Conquest, the aketon was worn under the hauberk (mail coat) or haubergon (mail shirt); this usually consisted of two layers of cloth (usually fabric or wool) quilted vertically and stuffed with wool, tow or hay - presumably according to cost. The advantage of this over plate armour was that it was flexible, and thus better able to absorb the impact. It was only in the second half of the 15th century that Italian and German armourers developed the light, high quality steel and efficient angled designs to make a complete arrow-proof plate armour practical.
Edged weapons are a different matter. Mail was efficient at stopping a blow, the mail itself protecting against the cutting edge and the padding absorbing the impact. However, a very large impact (say, from a mace) or a spear thrust could break the links, which is why a shield continued to be necessary until plate-armour had become sufficiently complete; shields had largely vanished from the battlefield by c. 1400.
There was an interesting programme on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ2 last night, which mainly focussed on Elizabethan naval guns from a wreck off Alderney in the Channel Islands. However, from the same wreck came the first complete Elizabethan musket ever found, and the programme showed a replica being test-fired against a piece of steel equivalent to contemporary armour. The bullet went straight through without trouble (although interestingly they compared it to a modern US army pistol, which failed to penetrate!) It's clear why bows and armour went out of fashion. 'Pistol-proof' armour continued into the 17th century, but ultimately the cost and practicality (it was very heavy) compared to effectiveness meant that it fell out of use; there is some debate as the whether the New Model Army's infantry wore armour at all. -
Message 7
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Infantry, warships and land vehicles must all strike a balance between three potentially contradictory qualities; mobility, firepower and protection. The hard-learned lesson of the centuries is, "Pick Two."
Body armour for troops is back in vogue because of a combination of more accurate weapons and new light materials, but there must still be a trade-off.
There is no such thing as a 'bullet-proof vest'. Body armour may use heavy and cumbersom ceramic or other composite plates to protect the vital organs, but this will be of little use against shrapnel, and a goos sniper will always try to disable rather than kill because a wounded soldier needs two more of his mates to carry him.
Lighter body protection can offer some protection against shrapnel, but would not stop a rifle calibre bullet at close range and certainly not a great big sniper's round. -
Message 8
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
A couple of points.
Henry 5000 archers at Agincourt had 400,000 arrows to delver if they so wanted, and had the time to do so.
Heres the armour penetration table, derived from
The data does point out some interesting features:
1) The hardness of the material only has a slight effect on penetration, so wrought iron and nickel steel are pretty much the same.
2) Geometry makes a huge difference. I would assume that a good bodkin would be in the 3/16 to 1/4 inch range.
3) This thickness gives poor penetration at long range. Most of the time the arrow will not penetrate, but in places where the armor is thinner the arrow can penetrate. This could account for some of the historical accounts of arrows penetrating armor at long range. I wouldn't shoot one arrow at a person in full harness and expect it to penetrate, but arrows can penetrate thinner portions of armor. So while the probability is low of armor penetration at long range, but with a lot of archers shooting lots of arrows, there will be some penetration.
4) The data indicates that at short ranges that, not only can the arrows penetrate full harness, but that they will. -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Hi Guys,
Thanks Nick, thank you all for providing so much insight. That is a lot of food for thought.
How do you think medieval battles went? I guess in the beginning there was an exchange of volleys of arrows, especially from the English side, this was followed by a general charge, when the infantry went into action. I guess the knights looked after the flanks and then chased anyone running away from the battlefield.
The archers also joined in the hand to hand combat by pulling out their daggers, or short swords.
What was the part played by the long sword, and was this primarily an infantry weapon? I can not imagine a long sword being used by a horseman or an archer.
How effective a weapon was this?
Many of the medieval soldiers must have been in very good physical condition, to be able to easily wield weapons such as the broad sword and the long lances of the knights. The weight of the fully-laden knight on horse back must have been pretty high. No wonder there are accounts of knights being hoisted on their horses and the knight becoming almost useless once unhorsed.
I guess it brings out the point made by some one that you have to chose between mobility, offence and defence and it is better to choose 2 out of 3.
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Tas
You mighb want to consider obtaing books or online matarial, on the evolution of weapons, or combat prediction models etc, as they will give you a mathamatical frame of refernce to more general reading.
USA Air \War college for instance has an intresting piece, from the ends papers.
Knights being immobile is a victorian myth, just like Carthage haveing salt sown over its destruction, A Hyland a former olymic 3 day eventer (women) was given a replica Roman suit of armour, and she vaulted over the horse rear to mount in its 80lbs. -
Message 11
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
One more thought for you, place 2 layers of linnen padding behind your metal protection, and early gunpower shot no longer penetrates as the kentic energy is dispated, just as Spainish found 2 suits of linen better at protection from S American arrows when there armour rusted out and they looked for a replacement.
-
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Hi Taz
if you follow the link Nickow gave you to the My Armoury website quite a lot of your questions will be answered. Its a good and more importantly accurate site which I use with any questions Ive got. You might have to register to get to use the search facility but the posts are almost always knowledgable and there are plenty of links to other sites if relevant.
As for the long sword, its use depends on what time you are looking at. During the agincourt period a shorter sword was used on foot and the point throust at joints in the armour and with cuts used against joints to damage them or against less well armoured troops. as time moves and armour improves then the sword becomes two handed to add more power but at the same time weapons like pole axes are used, a pole axe is vbasically a large hammer head with a point on the back of the head. some times with a spear type head on the top you can jab the spike into eye slits , use the hammer to smash the helment or the elbow shoulder and knee joints to restrict movement take a full on swing and punch the spike through the plate, or use the spike to hook a mounted man off his horse.
The weapons used would have depended on personal taste, and experience and the condirtions of the battle you are fighting a sword is ideal for cutting down at infantry from a horse a pole axe for fighting another armoured man on foot. -
Message 13
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Hi Guys,
Thank you once again. You are always so full of very interesting information.
I will go to the armory websites this afternoon.
Nevertheless, I can see from all your comments, but especially those of BTTDP that it must have been very unpleasant to be a warrior in medieval times.
Keep the information coming!
With all my best wishes,
Tas -
Message 14
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Intresting piece from University of Reading. -
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:24 GMT, in reply to Nickiow in message 10
Knights being immobile is a victorian mythΒ
Part of this seems to come from the fact that a lot of surviving armours are tournament armours, which are typically around twice the weight of combat armours. This is because in a tournament protection took precedence over all other considerations so the plates tended to be much thicker. A knight on the battlefield would be prepared to sacrifice some protection for mobility, especially bearing in mind that many knights were fighting on foot by the late 15th century. A lot of other surviving armours are post medieval and heavier by virtue of them being 'pistol-proof'. This is combined with incidents where knights did get stuck - for example at Agincourt, where they became bogged down in the mud -
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Hi Anglo-Norman,
On this board our expert medieval historian, Andrew Spencer once told me that many of the French Knights drowned in inches deep water at Agincourt.
I have been doing some research on medieval weapons. This is what I have learned about the Longbow: It was typically just over 6 feet long and required quite a lot of pulling force. The effective range was 180 to 200 yards; though some say 250 yards.
Typically the archers did not shoot at specific targets but at the advancing troops.
It was like a medieval machine gun; a medieval archer could release over 10 arrows per minute and that it was a more effective weapon than a knight.
Tas -
Message 17
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:54 GMT, in reply to Tas in message 16
'Skirmish' magazine has been running a fascinating series of articles on the English Warbow (what most people mean when they refer to the longbow), having run an extensive range of tests on a replica.
A destrier (medieval war horse) could sustain a speed of 20 to 25mph over 200 yards. If we take the maximum effective range of the warbow as 200 yards, that means our archer has a mere twenty or so seconds before his target is on top of him, in which time he might get off four arrows, if he's lucky. He'd definitely have to have a strong nerve! It's also worth noting that that the velocity of the arrow combined with the velocity of the knight makes it significantly more effective; thus for knights to attack archers on foot would arguably offer a greater survival chance (at least for those hit, rather than the force as a whole).
It's also interesting that the arrow would not necessarily have to penetrate to kill. An arrow from a warbow possesses something in the region of twice of kinetic energy required to deliver a fatal blunt trauma injury. A solid breastplate, especially the carefully angled and fluted 'arrow-proof' types in Gothic armour, might protect against this; however, a soldier wearing a relatively flexible armour, such a brigandine (series of metal plates on a cloth backing), could still receive a fatal hit even if the arrow did not fully penetrate. -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Talking about knights one has to mention that western knights were a variation of the Byzantine cataphracts though their employment was considerably different. While both of them consisted largely of the sons of the local aristocracies (the percentage a bit less for Byzantines including some middle class men), Byzantine cataphracts were essentially only a part of the larger picture that was the Imperial army. Their involvement in battle was carefully planned and used only in the right moment as perceived by the general - most commonly used as a shock force after the enemy was already hit by archers, slingers and light cavalry - the common tactic would be to approach the already fatigued enemy slowly (being not bothered so much by arrows - I will explain later why), then in the last 70m they would charge a relatively fast charge (as much as horses could give) and deliver a fatal blow to the enemy's ranks falling on enemy men like a tanks: hence their formation would be usually in those last 70m a rather tight one formed out of an initial more sparse. However they would not finish off the enemy themselves, they would get out as soon as possible to leave it to the foot soldiers to finish them easily since enemy men would be already out of formation.
Western knights were supposed to play the same role. In fact pne of the first western knights were the ones that served in the first Crusade and were meant to be a cheaper replacement for Byzantine cataphracts. However, the difference was that Western knights were more probably not part of an extensive organised army, nor part of an elaborate plan. They would by and large adhere to the cataphract shock tactics, albeit without the same co-ordination while too often they were more bound by aristocrat complexes that forbade them to be any more pragmatic in battle (the French knights' attitudes towards English long bow archers were evident of that). That said, this is of course too general, from there on we have to see case after case. In any case for such reasons they did not enjoy the success of their eastern "cousins".
As correctly said, armours of parade and armours of competition differed from armours of battle, not to mention that those armours were so expensive that only the high-end of aristocracy could aford them, but then these are the men that fought often the least, thus do not expect these pieces of weaponry to have seen really a lot of action: most knights till well into the 16th century would still use "not-full" plate armour (more plain than the elaborate designs shown in pictures!) over padded leather and/or chain mail. And it was not a bad idea of course to have all these additional layers. As explained it was the layers that made the difference. Some of the late 15th early 16th century armours were really effective against mid/long range arrows (even from a long-bow at many cases) and potentially if using other materials behind some basic protection from bullets (not guaranteed though and certainly not the case from a very close distance!).
Back to the cataphracts, these guys had really one of the most effective armours ever and quite possibly the most effective even against bullets - though no test had been down as cataphracts were out by mid-11th century, never to appear again in their full format (been replaced by Crusader knights). They wore a minimum of 3 layers which consisted most often (variations existed of course!) of padded leather covered by full chain mail covered by elonongated plate-like scales for legs and hands and the famous clibanion, an inversed elongated scale armour. The beauty of the latter components were that they were loosely hanging from the soldiers body in an inversed angle to the direction from which most of the hits came (from downwards), while they also stopped arrows coming from upwards which were entangled in their network loosing most of their momentum and/or being deflected before being able even to pierce them and then the chain mail, let alone pierce the padded leather (which by the way was really a thick one). The cataphract did not look as cool as the knight, he would had looked more like a snowman if his armour was white. However, despite these having fought against composite bows and being showered arrows from small distance, we do not have reports of them suffering a lot, instead we have reports of cataphracts falling to the ground, being showered with arrows from 10m even 5m and having 15-20 arrows imbedded seemingly on their body and them still fighting wildly as much as they could with all that cumbersome armour on them (here it was a pure matter of weight - each layer alone being not so heavy but 3 of them quite heavy of course!), something that always shook fear and even superstition to opponents. The reality was that arrows would not penetrate fully and stopped at the chain mail or the last layer, the padded leather.
It has to be noted again that the cataphracts used higher thicknesses than the western knights for the simple reason that they were a mere shock weapon in the hands of a general, thus they were supposed to enter in and go out at a defined period of time, they did not have to fight on the whole battle like often western knights did. Hence, while I am not in position to know, I may put forward the guess that their armoury could possibly resist the long-bow for mid-range and to some moderate extend mid/long range bullets (though after 1-2 bullets even if the cataphract still alive, his armour would be in pieces, thus certainly the third one would be lethal!!!). Afterall, we also have Japanese armours of the 17th century of which some claimed to withstand bullets resembled a but cataphract styles (lots of layers, scaled armour style etc.). -
Message 19
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
I saw a show on the History Channel a year or so ago, Tas, during which the people on the show cast, shaped, and tested the arrows of the time against several kinds of medieval armour, and they demonstrated pretty convincingly that the arrows could easily pierce chain mail, even when it was heavily padded with thick cloth. However, the iron arrow heads which were typical of the time were too soft and merely bent when they struck the harder high-carbon plate armour. They opined that at Agincourt the English archers probably shot the horses that the knights rode and could slaughter the common footsoldiers, but that they likely couldn't have done any damage to the knights themselves. Examining the battlefield, they indicated that the charging French where somehow (I forget how but it was perfectly logical) funneled into a narrow front where their superior numbers were negated. The historians they quoted seemed to think that the battle wasn't won by the English bowman as people seem to have popularly concluded, but rather by the English footmen and knights who fought on foot with swords, battle axes, maces, and whatever else they had to bash each other with.
What I've heard of war in the 11th to about the 14th centuries seems to suggest that a European field commander was lucky to get his entire army in place to fight his opponent at any time. Sometimes they chose a specific battlefield, sometimes it was just agreed upon by both sides, and sometimes they just happened to run into one another's armies at any given place.
They did have pre-determined formations -- units called ''battles'' which were about the size of a modern battalion (and from which the modern name battalion may derive). There was a battle in the van, a battle in the middle, and a battle that formed the rearguard. I gather that the size of a ''battle'' pretty much depended on the size of the entire army, but maybe not. I also gather that the ''battle'' was a unit of footsoldiers, and that in most medieval armies, the heavy cavalry formed the heart of the army and was usually a separate segment, but again, maybe not. I gather also, that the cavalry being formed of knights and nobles, was seldom controllable by any commander once the fight started. Each knight was like an armoured tank, charging into the struggle for personal glory and to hell with cooperation or obedience to orders.
Doesn't sound very well controlled. -
Message 20
Posted by RSS_643_IKWIG (U13662597) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
Wedsnesday. 25th February, 2009. 12:05GMT
Re. Tas
With respect;
A few questions or points of order; regarding other correspondents:
a) What does a pile of 400,000 arrows look like collected in one place; albeit a 'battlefield'? b) How were they carried to the 'battlefield' by 5000 men and how many were used or lost in previous 'battles'; across Northern France?
c) Who made them in the first place; how long did it take them and how much did it cost to make them: as far as all concerned?
ps. There is ' tale to tell' that the BLACK PRINCE was an 'iron - master' who as BARON and a member of the extended family was really a contemporary 'mercenary'. The 'small band of brothers'; principally from the Earldoms of WARWICK and LEICESTER; were equipped with 'longbows' from the 'Wall & Co.' Estate (Bramcote Village, Nottinghamshire) and that the real point at issue was: STEEL. Inotherwords; the arrow heads were ROMAN in antiquity and harboured. Removed from the DEAD after BATTLE and stored in the so - called 'purse' at the belted waist of the 'Yeoman farmer' and 'Guildfolk'. In which case the BATTERY was 'four sets of four' STEEL arrowheads; which could be re - set in the 'field': as you would re - flight the shaft of an arrow. -
Message 21
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
I remember seeing a longbow demonstration on TV a few years ago.
The archer fired a 'traditional' flat, barbed arrowhead at a typical breastplate.
On impact, the point of the arrow rolled up like a cigarette paper, and the arrow bounced off.
He then repeated the process with an arrow tipped with a 'bodkin' arrowhead - basically, a heavy cylinder of metal sharpened on one end.
This punched a hole through the breastplate, and penetrated well into the wood supporting it.
The power of the longbow was dependent on the strength of the archer, and a degree of social engineering was required to ensure that the archers kept practicing & exercising even in peacetime.
I suspect that the English and Welsh archers would have used both types of arrows - the barbed arrows for hunting and against unarmoured opponents, and the bodkin armour-piercing arrows against armoured opponents.
The lines of archers at Agincourt were strengthened at intervals by dismounted men-at-arms in wedge formation. The MAA would have been armed with pole weapons as previously described. The archers were armed with a variety of daggers, short swords, hatchets, clubs etc.for when the enemy had been disorganised by theirarrows. -
Message 22
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:23 GMT, in reply to WarsawPact in message 21
There were a range of arrowheads - the broadheads (barbed) were originally for hunting, but were also useful against horses. A single arrow would be hard put to bring an animal down, but the barbs would keep the arrow in, widening the wound to weaken the animal through loss of blood and stop it charging through pain - horrible, but nobody said war was nice! Henry V, when still Prince of Wales, got a broadhead in the face at the Battle of Shrewsbury, and a new type of surgical instrument had to be invented to get it out.
Bodkins were useful against different types of armour, as you say... piles - short, heavy, square in section - could punch through plate and were often used on crossbow bolts.
There is reason to believe that arrowheads were considered far more expendable that the arrows themselves (which had to be produced by a skilled fletcher) and were therefore fixed with wax, so that the shaft could be fairly easily pulled out, leaving the head behind. What I hadn't realised until a couple of years ago was that arrow shafts are not straight sided - they taper out towards a 'waist' before narrowing again - presumably the shape is more aerodynamic. -
Message 23
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
i saw that documentary - superb
liked the way the bodkin pierced the - very expensive - chain mail - 25 pence arrow vs one grand chain mail (bit like a 20000 zero vs a million pound Repulse lol)
in a bernard cornwell book there is a superb description of the cottage industry that produced the arrows - really interesting - always wondered where they got 1 million arrows from - all with white goose feather flights
st -
Message 24
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
The following from a website called Medieval Weapons:-
"The crossbow range was 350 – 400 yards but could only be shot at a rate of 2 bolts per minute.
The Longbow could pierce armour at ranges of more than 250 yards - a long-bowman could release between 10 - 12 arrows per minute."
I also looked up medieval arrowheads and saw quite an assortment of arrowheads used. All very interesting. There is also a lot about how the castles were constructed and the various types of swords. There is a lot of material on the Internet on medieval warfare.
They say it took at least 14 years of training to become a knight: seven years as a page and seven as a squire.
Tas -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
It has to be noted however that arrowheads with wings, i.e. the traditional well known design designed for causing serious flesh wounds on men and animals were not really so effective against armoured men. We know that Greek hoplites suffered the least from archers to the point that archers nearly equalled almost no army: in the battle of Plataies Athenians bore the bulk of the struggle since fighting against the Persian allied Greeks, notably the Thebans and Thessalians. During battle they asked help from Spartans saying "If you can give us 1 or 2 units of hoplites to back us up, if not then we would welcome even some of your light-infantry, but then if really you cannot give anything send us at least your archers!!!").
The situation for archers changed practically only with the appearence of mobile archers armed with the composite bow that permitted a greater firepower for the size of a relatively small bow. Still, heavily armed men were not easy to put down from the usual distance (only from very near, but there the archers were at risk) - it was only the later evolutions of the (pre-existing designs) of cross-bows and of course the long-bow that permitted the archers to have a solid advantage from a larger distance not only because of the fire power but mainly because the higher speed permitted the use of different types of arrowheads like the pointed one, without sidewings that would pierce through 1 and 2 protection layers, even plate-mail if not of really large thickness.
The mass production of arrows should not surprise you. All shorts of weaponry had been mass produced since very ancient times, the arrows would be in fact of the most easy since the bulk od the shape would be made out of a jig (automatic cutting for length and width) and the technician would have only to give a finishing touch. 1 man could produce 100 arrow-frames per day (and another fix the feathers and arrow-heads which anyway could be made in 1000s in forgeries), thus 2 men could do 30,000 arrows per year. For 1 million you must had 60 guys... among 5,000 archers that could be quite easy... in fact you could have 600 guys just working in their free time... as a hobby. Anyway they did not wait for war to start to start producing arrows, that a was a job made on an everyday schedule.
PS: Also 1 goose has some 100 usuable feathers, thus you need 10,000 geese.Well, in fact we could do with hen also (for those lower quality ones!). -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
note though that in reality archers rarely would carry along with them any number of arrows resembling to 40-50... thus 10,000 archers could not have 500,000 arrows with them... Usually they had a high maximum of 20 arrows (2-3 of them possibly with a design not suitable for a given case), thus 10,000 archers would have a total of 200,000 that through reuse (as foot soldiers retrieved arrows by skirmishes) could give a number of arrows shot just above 500,000. Had archers though been carrying their stock on cars they could have even more than 50 arrows each, hence for 10,000 soldiers they would easily end up with 1 million shots per battle... that is alot... even for 1% hit accuracy, they could massacre 1000s of armoured men (for long-bow).
-
Message 27
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Note that during the War of the Roses, there was a blizzard during the Battle of Towton.
The Lancastrians saw the Yorkist army within range of their arrows. They fired off their arrows into the blizzard. In the meanwhile, under the cover of snow, the Yorkist had withdrawn out side arrow range. Once the Lancastrian arrows were finished, the Yorkists advanced, picked up the enemy arrows and fired them back. They used the hard work of the Lancastrian Fletcher's against the Lancastrian army in this battle.
Tas -
Message 28
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Hi Guys,
One final question: Were Medieval swords used more for thrusting or for cutting. From what Back-to-the-Dark-Place(Free Sean) has said, and how good plate armor was in preventing arrows in piercing it, I would have thought that in Sword-to-sword combat a knight would look for the few spots left open and try to pierce them. What do you think? Did medieval swords have a sufficiently strong cutting edge? Or were they primarily thrusting weapons?
In Japan, the Samurai swords definitely did.
Tas -
Message 29
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:45 GMT, in reply to Tas in message 28
That depends on the sword. Earlier swords were primarily cutting swords, with straight sided blades and a fairly short point. As plate-armour increased, swords started to take on a form better suited to thrusting, more sharply tapered, in order to find a way through gaps in the armour. However, there was more than one type at any one time. Falchions were broad-bladed cutting swords, originally little more than outsized cleavers, which existed at the same time as the thrusting weapons.
One should not assume that medieval swords were basically clubs with edges. They had techniques which were every bit as sophisticated as anything the Japanese could come up with. -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
It really depends. Even Japanese swords, a really much smaller percentage were capable of all these magnificent features - the common soldiers' sword was as crap as everywhere in the world (Japanese were since then masters of mass production...).
To pierce the other soldier with your sword... by thrusting... hmmm ... lets imagine that you would have some basic space around you:
1) Possible if the other was without shield, without armour.
2) Least possible if the other had a shield and knew how to use it - or you had to be very quick with that sword (I guarantee you had to be the best and he the worst, or that you hit him in the backside while him not aware
3) Not at all possible if the other had shield and some basic armour...
4) More unbelievable than impossible if the other
Swords were indeed clubs with points. This also explains why in much of mediaval times chain mail (that is not the most proficient against thrusting weapons) was the most successful accompagnied by padded leather (for cushioning)
5) Swords became really thrusting 200 years after use of gunpowder (and practical extinction of armour), around 1650 in order to overcome the excessive cushioning that had replaced plate armour (or worn below and around it in those last medieval and very expensive armours of the 17th century - mostly for flashy parades). It was those D'Artagnan-style swords which had they been used earlier on they would be no more usefull than a... wip... -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
sorry 4)... more unbelievable than possible... if the other was both holding a spear and wearing an armour of proper thickness, let alone 2-3 layers like many heavier armed soldiers did.
That is why proper armies used the sword as a last ressource weapon, if you wanted to thrust anything that would be a spear. With the spear you could use more force, more momentum and at times even the weight of your body to thrust it to the enemy - there you might had some chance to pierce through the armour.
If you really wanted to have a piercing sword, that would be a rather small one (like the Spartan swords - though them used them more often for slashing than stabbing) so that it could be handled easily, rather than use a 1,2m sword - especially a straight one that you had to play the D'Artagnan to have some hope to have a hit.... obviously 90% of soldiers holding that would rather use it as a slashing weapon, a pointed club - and thus that fashion with continuously bigger swords.
Anyway the sword was never a proper first class weapon for a real army. It was meant to be a secondary last-chance weapon, respectable but not the one that would win you battles - to use it meant that your city was already invaded or your army had already lost its ranks!
The success of the sword in mainly western medieval armies (and many Arab ones) was merely down to fact that many of these armies were not anything more than a rumble of illiterate villagers and equally illiterate aristocrats that knew not a lot about war. If this sounds too derisive (though I do not think anyone thinks they were more literate than what I claim here), then the mere reference to armies of 500 and 1000 men fighting is enough to give the picture: such battles ended up in a rumble and there yes the sword, especialy a long one, has a role to play. As a slashing weapon mainly - occasionaly stabbinng (eyes, necks, legs, any other uncovered part of the body). -
Message 32
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
On this board our expert medieval historian, Andrew Spencer once told me that many of the French Knights drowned in inches deep water at Agincourt.Β
I suspect that a lot of them were trampled underfoot by their own countrymen. Dense masses of people moving around in a small area, trying to escape mortal danger, set up the conditions for that. And the field at Agincourt tapered like a funnel, AFAIK, making it worse. In a dense crowd of people trying to find a way out, knights in full armour would probably have been at a disadvantage, with restricted mobility and poor vision. The battle armour of a knight was not so heavy that it was impossible for him to rise again if he fell, but it was something else if he also had to struggle against a crowd walking over his back. -
Message 33
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 27th February 2009
On this board our expert medieval historian, Andrew Spencer once told me that many of the French Knights drowned in inches deep water at Agincourt.
More likly still is a penetrating chest wound, an arrow in youir lung puts you down, anyone ever seen a punctured lung victim from Rugby or other contact sport, will tell you that you cant stand or sit up with a wet shirt on you, let alone armour!. -
Message 34
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Hi Taz
medieval swords were always a mix of types. As has been said before there were chopping swords like the flachion being made long after the supposed triumph of the point and different cultures and fighting styles tend towards either using the edge in a cut or the point in a stab. There isnt a definete answer that I, or any one can give you.
Most of the european swords kept some ofthe edge even if the blade was built for stabbing. The only exception to this is the Estoc (sp) which was a two handed stabbing sword.
But you would probably use the edge only when you were fighting an unarmoured or lightly armed opponent.
A lot depends on what period we are talking about. we know quite a bit about late medieval swordsmanship as some of the manuals have survived. We know a lot more about later preiods though.
But the early period is a blank canvas. we only have the blades themselves to go on . and they seem geared to a slashing school of fencing with only a rounded or short stuby point.
Nik raises a good point about them being a last ditch weapon for much of the period.
most early medieval homes would have possesed or had access to a spear for hunting, and as this gives an advantage of reach over a sword and a thrust from a spear can be delivered with incredible force. it also doesnt require the degree of training that the sword would require.
As a back up weapon there used to be in the UK a knife called the Seax, this varied from the same length as a modern table knife to short sword length it could be a simple farmers weapon or an ornate noblemans sword. they all have one thing in common though their a thick bladed single edged weapon with a strong point, the primitive forms were almost certainly used as a tool in evrydaty life and going by the numbers found almost every male had one. In the early period a picture of a typical warrior would be a man with a sheild knife and spear
later periods when the sate starts assembling armories the standardising of the equipment plays a greater role but this hastily equiped warrior was the back bone of most armies almost up to the end of the medival period. When professional soldiers and mercenaries take his place. -
Message 35
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Friday, 27th February 2009
The last flowering of full plate armour in the UK was the lobster armour of the English Civil War.
At the Battle of Roundway Down, Sir Arthur Haselrigg's regiment of horse was routed, and he himself was set upon - receiving 3 pistol shots at very close range (ie. the muzzle of the pistol actually touching the helmet) and several cuts by sword. His armour sustained him, though, and Charles I later joked:
"Had he been victualled as well as fortified, he might have endured a siege!" -
Message 36
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:58 GMT, in reply to WarsawPact in message 35
Ah, the Cuirassiers. I believe that during the Civil War there were only two regiments, both Parliamentarian - the aforemention Haselrigg's 'Lobsters', and Essex's Lifeguard of Horse. That class of cavalry rapidly died out, though - the armour was too expensive and impractical ("It would kill a man to serve in a full cuirass" observed Sir Edmund Verney, before discovering that not having one didn't make things any safer), the heavy horses required were, I suspect, more expensive than standard troop horses, and Rupert (and those following his example) demonstrated that the more lightly equipped Harquebusiers could do the job of Cuirassiers just as well, if not better.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.