|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Mar 14, 2012 20:55:22 GMT
One thing you have to take into account there is that they didn't just fight man-to-man. The crusaders brought in things like siege weapons such as trebuchets; while a siege weapon's primary purpose is to bring down fortifications, it can also deal ridiculous amounts of death to people. Even a 3lb stone lobbed on high from a trebuchet would likely destroy a human skull and they would have been hurling larger stones than that en masse. Plus, the majority of a siege is a waiting game rather than actual fighting. One side tries to starve the other out or let disease do their job. Now, if the fight for Jerusalem had been fought in an open field with armored knights, it would have been a different story entirely, but since it was a siege against a fortified city, well, it doesn't really matter much how they were armored.
A bodkin, I believe, would likely get maybe 1/4" penetration or so if you're lucky on a straight shot; there was a video floating around online showing as much, but there were some complaints as to the accuracy, though I don't remember that well.
Anyways, penetration into the knights is the least thing you should be considering. Imagine you're a knight in full plate in the midst of a charge surrounded on all sides by other, similarly armored knights when suddenly a hail of arrows tears into your formation. The arrows do little to the knights themselves, armored as they are, but what about the horses? Generally speaking, a horse in tip-top shape (as all warhorses would be) can generally run somewhere around 40 miles an hour while pulling or carrying something, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. Say your horse or the horse in front of you takes an arrow to the face and dies in mid-stride. You're going to pitch headfirst over your horse's neck, into the ground, at 40 miles an hour, likely on your neck. And let's not forget the little fact of the dozens of other thousand pound beasts racing along behind you.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if most of the deaths of actual knights in plate armor would have come from trampling or being tossed during a charge. Also, was the French army composed of 10,000 knights in plate armor or 10,000 French soldiers, including knights and lightly armored foot?
|
|
ecovolo
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,074
|
Post by ecovolo on Mar 14, 2012 20:59:20 GMT
I used to regularly participate in an archery-themed Ren Fair guild. One of our guys had a 100-plus pound bow that he regularly shot. One of our demonstrations that the public *loved* was when he brought out a breastplate, and shot at it from varying distances: ten yards, twenty yards, thirty yards, and sometimes more. Now, going from the finds that were in the wreck of the Mary Rose the average archer from the time of Henry VIII used a yew bow that regularly pulled over 100 pounds. Did arrows penetrate the armor in my guildmate's demonstration? Using different points --including bodkins-- Some arrows were buried up to the head, and some *went in deeper*, to usually a depth of about two inches. I'd say he mostly had the same results these guys did: Consider that if someone was wearing that armor, the force would be enough to knock them off their horse, or down. Enough poundage can cause blunt trauma damage. Also consider that, while the archer did not kill the armor-wearing person in question, the archer made inverted rough edges on that breastplate that will cut through a padded gambeson, with enough movement applied. With enough archers on the field, hundreds of men firing up in the air will mean that armored knights and footmen will be hit by several arrows each, causing varying levels of damage. My personal favorite story about the guy in my guild, is when he shot a bodkin point into a sandbag covered in chainmail, backed by a 3/4-thick piece of plywood, at a distance of about thirty yards. The arrow went through the chainmail, and *poked out the back of the plywood.* --Edward P.S. Some info: www.primitivearcher.com/articles/warbow.htmlwww.maryrose.org/ship/bows1.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Mar 14, 2012 21:45:13 GMT
Great points from all of you. About the exact composition of the French and English army, history was quite unanimous. Here at the museum it said about 9-10,000 gens d'armes (men at arms), EDIT: got it wrong, they just say 10,000 men at arms but not clear how many were mounted, plus other infantry. vincent: good to put it that way. It's like driving motorbike in formation when one of them explode in front of you, I guess. Plus the terrain and weather wasn't favorable. What I can't understand was that, according to the museum again, the French pulled about a dozen charges on the English. If the first charges didn't go so well, why the hell would you NOT change strategy/tactic instead of rushing headlong into the carnage? What was the French command thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Mar 14, 2012 22:11:48 GMT
I happen to be a fan of sword-n-sorcery style fantasy novels and quite a few involve horse charges where that exact tactic is used. Even though it's a fantasy book, such things have their roots in truth, and if you think of it as hitting a pole on a bike at 30mph, well, it's easy to see what the results would be. Add in several hundred where the bike just disappears from under you and it's pretty nasty thinking.
As to that, well, I've heard various tales about the French ideals of knighthood and how the bow was not a knightly weapon; in fact, what I heard was that they considered it cowardly and any bowman they caught, they cut off his index and middle finger, so he couldn't pull a bow, which is where the British "V" comes from as an equivalent to the middle finger in terms of vulgarity. It was the archer's way of saying "ha-ha! we beat you and still have our fingers!" or something to that effect. Considering these thoughts towards the bow as a weapon, I'd imagine the French art of war consisted of a valiant charge from a thousand armed knights nobly cutting down their enemy in a display of chivalrous virtues. If so, then it'd be impossible for them to change their strategy, particularly when they considered the bow that was wreaking so much havoc on their soldiers to be an inferior weapon.
|
|
|
Post by u02rjs4 on Mar 14, 2012 23:23:25 GMT
I'm no expert but i do remember seeing a documentary on Agincourt. The arrows penetrated plate armour a little at very close range. However any raised visor or armpit would be lethal. Horses have many open areas to shoot. As already mentioned falling off the horse could cause death. Also the ground was very muddy and the French knights in armour were sloshing around in mud. The archers also had hammers knives etc so could also finish off a knight stuck in mud. The sheer amount of arrows shot was also a factor as even if they went in a little bit, you get hit a lot of times it can't be a picnic! Apparently the English V insult is a legend not based on truth as if the french captured peasant archers not worth ransoming who had killed nobility they aren't going to be allowed to live! Chivalry only existed for the rich!
|
|
jhart06
Member
Slowly coming back from the depths...
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by jhart06 on Mar 15, 2012 1:32:48 GMT
Mine came from roughly five years of mixed theatric/stage combat mixed with some historical sword techniques. And a lot of broken bones and injuries thinking I knew better.
|
|
Taran
Member
Posts: 2,621
|
Post by Taran on Apr 2, 2012 6:39:06 GMT
After all the rest and the obligatory "Longbows vs armour" debate, I just wish to add that these videos from Pennsic involve blows that oftentimes dent or even Break 14Gg steel and yet consistently fail to stun or stagger the recipients. So, frankly, whoever told you the above doesn't know what he's talking about. 2 major factors affect this: Padding; and Helmet Weight. The very weight of the helm provides protection against stunning, concussion and whiplash because the head is that much harder to move at all, let alone a sufficient amount at a sufficient speed to produce any impact on the brain itself. Not that it doesn't happen, and I have seen it myself, but that is extremely uncommon and usually from polearms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2012 9:09:36 GMT
Even Japanese arnour, which is inferior to full plate (small steel plates laced together by cords, which can be cut, resulting in armour that was cut to pieces after battles) managed to do a decent job protecting the wearer. Here's such an example "...A sword could also become wedged when a wellmade suit of armour successfully provided the protection for which it was designed by absorbing the blow over several layers. One armoured samurai survived 13 cuts to his body..." from "Katana: The Samurai Sword" by Stephen Turnbull, Osprey Publishing.
|
|
Taran
Member
Posts: 2,621
|
Post by Taran on Apr 3, 2012 4:24:59 GMT
Having worn both, my medieval armour has better ventilation and fits better, moves better, and is all around less of a hindrance to movement than my IOTV.
|
|
|
Post by 14thforsaken on Apr 3, 2012 4:39:59 GMT
The other thing to consider when looking at archers vs armored knights was that the most effective tactic was to shoot the horse. Nice big target, caused havoc in the ranks when they fell, basically all sorts of bad things to the knights.
|
|
|
Post by 14thforsaken on Apr 3, 2012 4:42:32 GMT
I've worn heavy, medium and light armor. Its basically a choice between being able to avoid blows or adsorb them in my experience. My personal preference is to use light or medium weight armor to retain a nice measure of mobility. For me that means a chain hauberk and some pieces of leather armor over certain spots.
|
|
jhart06
Member
Slowly coming back from the depths...
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by jhart06 on Apr 3, 2012 4:49:24 GMT
I will only say this- The SCA combat should be taken case by case, kingdom by kingdom. Some of them fight in modified pickle jars cut to look like armor with what are poorly made LARP weapons. Others have real backgrounds in history in both their use of armor and weapons, and in the products themselves.
Helmet stun blows depend on any huge number of events, so one can't say yes or no immediately to it. But it's definitely something you feel, and that happens. To think otherwise is to deny a lot of common sense physics. It can be lessened to neglibility, true, but it's still there.
As to archery v.s. armor.. I'm not an archer, though I liked to shoot a few arrows in the early morn to pass time at Faire on occasion. However, i've seen enough demo of the arrows and what they can do from then, to know the I'm certainly not going to dismiss an archer. They can, could, and would seriously ruin your christmas, so to speak. No matter what you were wearing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 9:49:55 GMT
I'm an archer, and in my opinion arrows against plate are a waste of arrows at long range, and suicide at short range. You might get an inch of penetration at close range, which won't make it through the layers below. By the time you get a second arrow to the bow, the armoured opponent will be in striking range. At long range, they would 'clout shoot' by firing into the sky and letting the arrows rain down. Longbows were used to create a wall of projectiles like a squad machine guns does on the modern battlefield, while long range targeted shots are the place of the crossbow, used like a sniper rifle. The archers traditionally held back well behind the front lines and fired over the front lines into the enemy from overhead. Any unprotected enemy troops might get injured or killed but on armoured troops this attack did not have the same effect. Also at close range arrows lose momentum very quickly, as shooting an angled piece of steel plate that is moving is damn hard. Massed archers were mainly used for breaking up formations on the battlefield. Crossbows on the other hand, banned by the Pope at one point, were a great equalizer in that they allowed a peasant with little training to down an armoured knight, an aristocrat with extensive training, hence the reason for banning them. If a longbow could do the same, they would have banned those too. Here's an extract from 'The Medieval Crossbow" ( h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A2866061) The devastating effect of the crossbow and the wounds it could inflict are reflected by early weapon bans. In April 1139, the Second Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent II, banned the use of the crossbow against Christians. The Latin text is as follows: Artem autem illam mortiferam et Deo odibilem ballistoriorum et sagittariorum, adversus christianos et catholicos de cetero sub anathemate prohibemus.Translation: We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hated by God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on. This ban was reissued many times over the following years, although it continued to be largely ignored by many. Similarly, the Magna Carta banned the use of the crossbow as a battlefield weapon in England. This was, again, ignored by all concerned. Article (51) Et statim post pacis reformacionem amovebimus de regno omnes alienigenas milites, balistarios, servientes, stipendiarios, qui venerint cum equis et armis ad nocumentum regni.Translation: As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbow men, sergeants and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's hurt. Thise were the original decrees against the crossbow... The down side of the crossbows is the low rate of fire. With a crossbow utilizing a windlass to cock it, it could have a draw weight of 400lb or more, and fire a very short heavy 'bolt' with an armour piercing point weigh a few ounces. Coupled with an accuracy far superior to a longbow, and requiring less training to use, they were a real danger to a knight, but a longbow was not. The battle of Crecy could have had a very different conclusion if the weather wasn't bad, which wet the bow strings of the Genoese mercenary crossbow men, so they couldn't use their crossbows. I think a lot of the archery vs plate debate is wishful thinking on behalf of the longbow fans. The weapon has its place on the ancient battlefield, but to ignore the fact that an armoured knight in full plate was highly formidable, the solo medieval equivalent of a main battle tank in modern warfare is just short sighted. Archers were never meant to take out knights in full plate. In Crecy, where the stupid French created a stampede in the mud and trod over their own men at the point where the path narrowed drastically and funnelled the French troops into a very tight space, the English archers dropped their fabled bows and finished off the immobilized knights stuck fast in the mud with mauls (wooden hammers for constructing fortifications), daggers and swords. I too would like to think that my recurve, which, by design, stores more energy than a longbow, and is therefore more efficient, and can fire arrows faster, could somehow penetrate plate and could be deployed against an opponent in full plate, but, alas, as nice as the fantasy is, it's just wishful thinking... There are arguments about how hard plate wwas, how hard bodkin points on the arrows were, what the real draw weight of longbows was based on the remains found in the shipwreck of the Mary Rose, what range is reasonable to test the bow fom, it never ends... Seriously, if archers and longbows could do all this that some claim, common sense would tell us that there would have been no need for swords to evolve into the shape they did with fast tapering ponts and wide bases, nor would we have had the development of warhammers and poleaxes. Armour would have been abandoned as outdated in function, and archers would have dominated every battlefield, which was clearly not the case. I reckon it's a case of people just mixing up which weapons were used for what purpose on the medieval battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by Ceebs on Apr 3, 2012 10:42:36 GMT
Blackthorn, I'd say be careful when talking about how archers were used in battle. By all accounts Archer formations were dictated by terrain, enemy threats to the battle line, and, of course, the commander in charge. There was no singly determined tactic with regards to archer formations in the 100 years war. As a Mary Rose replica Warbow Archer myself I can say that one can 'snipe' just as effective with a Warbow as one can with a crossbow. Archers did practice at the butts after all and marksmanship was prized. For every primary source that says arrows penetrated plate there is an equally reliable source that says they didn't. My opinion? Tunnel vision regarding arrows vs plate is a waste of time. Penetration was contextual. Piercing a quality armour was highly unlikey but may have happened in the appropriate circumstances. As would plate being virtually unscathed by arrow shot. Here is a rather topsy-turvy thread on the issue www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15454. RE that papal edict: I can almost guarantee that just because the pope declared the crossbow outlawed doesn't mean it was abandoned. Though he no doubt meant well it did not mean his erstwhile subjects would completely drop crossbowmen from their armies. Perhaps, but this myth has gone the way of the katana for the most part in educated circles Combined arms tactics utilising archers helped the english win many battles. Not the archers by themselves. English Warbows shot arrows that weighed a quarter pound or more and half an inch in diameter. In order to shoot these arrows your bow would have to be of a comparable draw weight (around 140 pounds for a quarter pounder). Totally agree with recurves being more efficient though. I wholeheartedly suggest reading The Great Warbow by Strickland and Hardy. It debunks many myths surrounding medieval archery. And it's a cracking good read to boot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 11:01:04 GMT
Good points Ceebs, and yes, archers could be deployed in a variety of ways, and they could shoot targeted shots, as they would from behind fortifications of a castle wall or siege engines. I totally agree with your assessment "Penetration was contextual. Piercing a quality armour was highly unlikey but may have happened in the appropriate circumstances." The way it's presented in some debates, you could be forgiven for thinking that some people are proposing that a bow is an anti-armour weapon par excellence! :lol: Thanks for the book reference, sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out.
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Apr 3, 2012 20:37:17 GMT
Holy crap Ceebs and Blackthorn you guys are real scholars! Thanks for the good reading. On the bow vs plate debate, I found these vids, from the Conquest TV shows. Really really good watch! The first vid shows how the bow could be employed in various situation, but also how it could NOT be used. Apparently there's a lot more factor involved than simply archer vs plate. Training, morale, conditioning, experience and all that. I particularly like the second one. Just as archers could be employed smartly, so can knights. Dismounted knights/men at arms moving in box formation with their shield raised, as shown in the video, would be impenetrable to arrow storm. And frankly, if I'm an archer (even a good one), when I see a bunch of killing machines in a steel box wielding sword running at me, I'm out of here. Agincourt was really a shame on the French due to poor tactic and poor weather. Funny how the French always lose because of the rain (same thing happen to Napoleon at Waterloo. The rain prevented him from moving artilery into position) About the weight of the bow, I'm really not sure about the 140lb thing... In the vid it shows how even a 100lb bow was so hard to pull. Given that archers were not particularly wealthy, I doubt they have the nutrition/diet to support such a training. Hell, I mean, in my archery group we have 2 giant of a man marines and they have a hard time pulling their 100lb recurves.
|
|
|
Post by u02rjs4 on Apr 3, 2012 21:13:28 GMT
the series weapons that made britain has been brought up a few times before and the longbow episode contains tests against plate etc. It concurs with blackthorn in that at long range no penetration but at close range some penetration. Like i posted earlier though even the most heavily armoured cavalry have small week points in the armour and the horses cannot be fully clad in plate so can be brought down. I could see a knight on foot being harder to bring down but he's slower so as mentioned earlier a combination of the different aspects of the entire army could be used. The sheer amount of arrows fired i would imagine would be a factor. If thousands of arrows are being shot then it would be impossible to not hit the horses leg,open visors, armpits etc on some of the knights. I think i'm correct in remembering at some battle Henry V took an arrow in the face.
|
|
|
Post by Ceebs on Apr 4, 2012 6:02:48 GMT
Dalaran. as recently as Sunday I was drawing and shooting my 110 pound draw English Warbow Replica. A bow of this draw weight can barely throw a heavy War arrow the required distance required in the various statutes. Around 140 pounds is the 'sweet spot' for maximum efficiency with these types of arrows.
I would also be careful with the validity of the Conquest series. They are not shooting those bows in the English style.
Why are those guys at your club barely pulling their bows? It sounds harsh but they are simply not doing it efficiently by the sounds of it. The English style of 'shooting in the bow' requires you to have most of your weight driving down the back foot with your front leg reasonably strait. You utilise the large muscles in your back rather than isolating the arm and blowing out your acromion(SP?) process . Hence 'shooting in the bow'. You are literally putting your body IN the draw. Astonishingly, there is a plethora of period artworks showing this stance.
The English Warbow society in England have ludicrously skinny guys pulling 130 pounds upward. Check youtube for a guy called Glennan Carnie.
The 'archers were malnourished' theory has also been debunked by various scholars. Though they may have had scarce food in certain situations, the average diet of an Archer, or even a general 'peasant' was reasonably good.
|
|
Taran
Member
Posts: 2,621
|
Post by Taran on Apr 16, 2012 18:22:00 GMT
I will grant the variety in SCA armour (I know guys who wear carpet, although that is surprisingly tough to cut through with a sword), but the weapons are Strictly and uniformly regulated Society-wide. You will find no "poorly made LARP weapons" on an SCA field.
As for the crossbow being banned because it was "too effective," Blackthorn, the problem wasn't the effectiveness, it was the training required. Any random person can learn to be effective with a crossbow in weeks. It takes a lifetime to learn to be effective with the longbow.The longbowman, like the knight, built his Life around his weapon. The crossbowman, not so much. Nor the handgunner/arquebusier in the later period.
As for the longbow not spreading across Europe, You need to compare the English training process for their longbowmen versus, say, the French, the best-known and perhaps most spectacular failure of the Continental European longbow training efforts. The most significant difference is that the British started their training 3 Generations before they first used longbows in massed units on a large scale. No one else had that kind of patience.
On the Conquest vids, they Do admit that no one there is using an English style or has English-type training. They, including the "instructor" are comparable only to the Continental archers, and they are using mere 30-40 Lb bows. Good for hunting, useless against armour. No power, no weight in the arrows, no way to penetrate a hard surface. I thought it was funny that, while all their archers are rubbing and stretching their backs, the "instructor" is talking about chest and arm strength. Just look around, man, chest and arm strength isn't the problem...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 1:06:38 GMT
That's what I meant, being the more advanced weapon technologically, it was more effective in being able to mobilise an army of arbalests who could shoot it accurately, and being able to scale up to mechanically cocked monsters of ridiculous draw weights, it could increase range and penetration. As you correctly point out, the arbalests and arquebusiers did not have to dedicaye their lives to training, and could down at range a knight who did.
Yes, agreed, hunting bows are nothing like the war bows used in medieval times either. People need to realise that you can get a complete pass through of an arrow on a large deer with a hunting weight compund bow with a 60lb draw weigh, which is basically overkill. Such a bow would be ineffective against armour, and a war bow would be ridiculously excessive in power for hunting, and possible nowhere near as accurate.
A hunting bow needs to strike a vital point target on an animal about 6" in size at hunting ranges to be effective, on an animal that will be running away from you if it can, with a light accurate arrow and a wide razor sharp broadhead point to cut a wide wound channel. A war bow had to simply hit centre of mass of a armoured human who is most likely coming toward you or will at least fight back, and it needs to penetrate the armour with its heavy, blunt sided, pointed bodkin arrowhead and a heavy arrow to give it momentum.
Basically, we're talking two completely different weapons in my opinion, though they're both bows, that's where the similarity ends. People mix up the two these days... Now, crossbows, they're a completely different beast altogether!
The advance in technology was from bow to crossbow, then with the invention of mounting a small hand cannon on a crossbow stock, we created the arquebus, and this heralded the birth of firearms, which began the declibe of armour. The rest is history.
|
|