Bow values
- Thread starter geala
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Harith
Regular
Lazyman said:
ok... ur right.... but lets think outside the box. The janissary which are renowned soldiers and by far the best up to the 17th century were a form of a mamluke... but how many janissaries were there??? not many, I did a piece of investigation on the corp and according to two books and a documentary... during the siege of constantinople... the janissary didnt even participate until the end of the battle after the regular troops have already vanquished most of the traps and the resistance became weak. It also said that the janissary werent many and they numbered about 2k at that time (cant remember properly).
Point is, if all the mamlukes were elite.... then there very few numbers of them. If they were many... then why didnt Saladin just conquer half of the earth.... or why did the Ottomans fail at the siege of vienna?? Sure weather, supply and morale have sumthin to do with it... but arent the janissaries meant to be very brave??? their morale should be sky rocketin?? think about.
oroboros said:
The tests I mentioned were made with replica breastplates of a somewhat hardened steel. Wether that corresponded with historical armour is always a matter of debate. We have to take into account that most armour prior to the 15th century was made just of iron or very mild steel. The proportion of hardened steel plate rose considerably in the 15th century.
Tests with mail + padding show different results, depending of the quality of the mail, the arrow used and the draw weight of the bow. It can be pierced by stronger bows up from the range of 80 to 100 lbs. Maybe earlier bows were not that strong, we don't know. But we have to recognize the fact that knights started from the 12th/13th century to wear more and more plate armour, first in the form of coat and plates. If mail and padding were enough and such a marvellous defense, that's difficult to explain. The spread of plate may be linked with the use of the couched lance or the spread of the horn crossbow. Or other reasons, perhaps fashion, but they did use more plate and I don't think on the first hand that they all were fools who don't know of the arms and armour they used and faced. May it be as it want, a new competition between arms and armour was started, which was finally lost by bow and crossbow in the late 15th century. Firearms and the resulting huge changes in army composition, operations and tactics started the slow decline of armour. Armour could stand against firearms, but it was a very heavy and expensive armour.
In the 13th century bows might not have been that strong than later. I think so. "Longbow" is not the equivalent of very strong bows. The bows of the Germanic people in antiquity were also very long, but not extremely strong. The draw weight of the Mary Rose bows is debated. There are two opinions, the one you cited, who estimates the draw weights to 70 to 100 lbs and another that have them in the range of 120 to 180 lbs. I beleave in the second opinion, they have by far the better arguments and math. The problem is that the Mary Rose bows were under water for a long time and don't have the original draw weights. So you cannot just measure it but you have to use complicated math to calculate it.
oroboros
Squire
Completely agree on medieval material and its huge variety in quality. So your tests then were realistic as the power of an arrow on very short distances is concerned, which is ok and valid in itself. But archers did never fire on such short distances, and this is what I don't understand. Why the hull do people (this means not you) do not take themselves some 10-20 experienced archers, place two dozens properly armoured and unarmoured targets together in a group some 200 metres away, then 160, 120, 80 and 40 metres, and let them go for it and see what they can do with their bows. Only if I wanted to demonstrate how "effective" the bow is then I would shoot on distances below 20 metres (this most probably never happened or at least was a very, very rare occurence in reality) on perhaps intentively or not intentively wrong and weakly armoured targets - this also does not mean you but it is just a general observation I made while looking for proof of the effectiveness of bows vs. mail.
The coat of plates had nothing to do with the ability/inability of mail to protect against arrows which it did quite well, not always but in most cases. It was a technological development like for instance the development of the assault rifle which gave you who has them an advantage over the people who don't have them. Or look at tanks, was there a necessity to build them besides being superior to your enemy? I don't think so. The same with the coat of plates. Therefore it's not at all difficult to explain and has nothing to do with bows&crossbows getting stronger which anyway wasn't the case in 13th C. One of the main reasons for using plate armour was not only that it did better protect you as compared to mail, which it did in certain areas of the body, but also the fact that it was easier and much quicker to produce as well as it was way cheaper then a mail hauberk.
The longbows found on the Mary Rose were definitely war bows because they were found along with other stuff like muskets, swords, etc. - they were not for hunting. They are just called longbows by everybody therefore longbows, 6 - 7 feet long, from 60-110 lbs draw weight, ie. in a huge variety the findings were on the Mary Rose. So, appearantly there was no uniform war bow meaning everyone shooting the same 6'8'' warbows with 150lbs draw weight but it appears that every archer had his own bow made after his own taste or the bowyers themselves made bows in a huge variety concerning draw weights. And I don't know but I don't think that you can uphold a constant shooting of let's say 100-200 arrows with 1 shot every 5 seconds with an 180lbs bow, of course with several breaks in it and the whole procedure lasted perhaps over a couple of hours, shooting on command i.e. holding the fully drawn bow until "lose" is shouted. Perhaps I am wrong on this. I don't know how much the researchers took into account that they were under water for several centuries and how much this would have altered their physical condition as to what they were like in 1545. Could you provide me with a link or book title on the 120-180lbs calculated draw weights for these bows? Don't mind about higher mathematics as I was not bad at it in university
The coat of plates had nothing to do with the ability/inability of mail to protect against arrows which it did quite well, not always but in most cases. It was a technological development like for instance the development of the assault rifle which gave you who has them an advantage over the people who don't have them. Or look at tanks, was there a necessity to build them besides being superior to your enemy? I don't think so. The same with the coat of plates. Therefore it's not at all difficult to explain and has nothing to do with bows&crossbows getting stronger which anyway wasn't the case in 13th C. One of the main reasons for using plate armour was not only that it did better protect you as compared to mail, which it did in certain areas of the body, but also the fact that it was easier and much quicker to produce as well as it was way cheaper then a mail hauberk.
The longbows found on the Mary Rose were definitely war bows because they were found along with other stuff like muskets, swords, etc. - they were not for hunting. They are just called longbows by everybody therefore longbows, 6 - 7 feet long, from 60-110 lbs draw weight, ie. in a huge variety the findings were on the Mary Rose. So, appearantly there was no uniform war bow meaning everyone shooting the same 6'8'' warbows with 150lbs draw weight but it appears that every archer had his own bow made after his own taste or the bowyers themselves made bows in a huge variety concerning draw weights. And I don't know but I don't think that you can uphold a constant shooting of let's say 100-200 arrows with 1 shot every 5 seconds with an 180lbs bow, of course with several breaks in it and the whole procedure lasted perhaps over a couple of hours, shooting on command i.e. holding the fully drawn bow until "lose" is shouted. Perhaps I am wrong on this. I don't know how much the researchers took into account that they were under water for several centuries and how much this would have altered their physical condition as to what they were like in 1545. Could you provide me with a link or book title on the 120-180lbs calculated draw weights for these bows? Don't mind about higher mathematics as I was not bad at it in university
Tests with arrows over wider distances were made, you can even find some on youtube. An arrow however, other than a bullet, is a nearly perfect projectile. It has a very high energy density and does not loose so much energy over the whole ballistic trajectory. So, although an arrow of a strong longbow has very low energy compared to a firearm bullet, it has a lot of its initial energy even beyond 100 metres. If you like I could give some data of arrows shot with a strong warbow.
Unlike a bullet or a crossbow bolt, which have the highest energy and penetrating power close behind the "muzzle", an arrow needs some distance to develop real penetratiuon power. The reason is that the arrow has to wind itself around the bow when shot (nobody "fires" a bow apart from he uses it as fire wood), so it is not stable on the first 10 to 15 metres. A testing distance of 20 metres is therefore a good choice.
I concur with you however, I think, therein that bows were not superweapons, not the machine gun of the middle ages, and often not capable to penetrate armour. It was the combination of very well trained archers with heavily armoured knights and men-at-arms on foot, set in a defensive manner, that let the English win a lot of battles against their foes. Crecy and Agincourt are well known but there were a lot more. However, England lost the war against France and lost it against Scotland despite frequent victories on the field, seems to me that the longbow was not the only factor in these wars...
Coats of plates were first an additon to mail as far as I know, not a replacement. That the more frequent use of it came together with the spread of crossbows might be pure coincidence. But it is difficult to explain why it was used. If mail was sufficient, why burden yourself with an additional heavy armour which also stops air exchange even more than the padding beneath the mail? The argument that technological advance makes it possible is not very convincing to me. The smiths could make helmets from iron plates before, a very difficult task, so they could have made also simple plates in a coat of plate. However, I have to confess that my sources for the high medieval period are mainly just Osprey books, a source you have to be very careful with. So perhaps I don't have the necessary overview about the actual facts.
That bows were used on battlefields for hours and hours seems to be a misconception for me. Often there were not so much arrows at all available. It is true that sometimes additional sheafs of arrows were brought, but that was not the rule. At Towton 1461 for example, an interesting battle, the Lancastrians faded all their arrows due to misjudgement of wind and distance (it was poor vision because of heavy snowing), after that the Yorkist archers could march forwards and pepper the enemy without any own risk, forcing them at last to an attack not planned before. That tells us three things: 1. only a limited amount of arrows was present even in a long planned mayor battle (it was one of the biggest battles ever in England), 2. shot at with arrows was such a nasty thing that a well prepared and very strong battle position, with a carefully prepared force for an ambush, was given up and a march towards the enemy was made, 3. because there was close combat after the incident described that lasted for some hours, the thousands of unopposed Yorkist longbowmen, shooting tenthousands of arrows, had not been able to inflict such terrible losses to the advancing Lancastrians that it counted for much (the more frequent Lancastrians were near to a victory later but lost because of reinforcements to the Yorkists).
Unlike a bullet or a crossbow bolt, which have the highest energy and penetrating power close behind the "muzzle", an arrow needs some distance to develop real penetratiuon power. The reason is that the arrow has to wind itself around the bow when shot (nobody "fires" a bow apart from he uses it as fire wood
), so it is not stable on the first 10 to 15 metres. A testing distance of 20 metres is therefore a good choice.I concur with you however, I think, therein that bows were not superweapons, not the machine gun of the middle ages, and often not capable to penetrate armour. It was the combination of very well trained archers with heavily armoured knights and men-at-arms on foot, set in a defensive manner, that let the English win a lot of battles against their foes. Crecy and Agincourt are well known but there were a lot more. However, England lost the war against France and lost it against Scotland despite frequent victories on the field, seems to me that the longbow was not the only factor in these wars...
Coats of plates were first an additon to mail as far as I know, not a replacement. That the more frequent use of it came together with the spread of crossbows might be pure coincidence. But it is difficult to explain why it was used. If mail was sufficient, why burden yourself with an additional heavy armour which also stops air exchange even more than the padding beneath the mail? The argument that technological advance makes it possible is not very convincing to me. The smiths could make helmets from iron plates before, a very difficult task, so they could have made also simple plates in a coat of plate. However, I have to confess that my sources for the high medieval period are mainly just Osprey books, a source you have to be very careful with. So perhaps I don't have the necessary overview about the actual facts.
That bows were used on battlefields for hours and hours seems to be a misconception for me. Often there were not so much arrows at all available. It is true that sometimes additional sheafs of arrows were brought, but that was not the rule. At Towton 1461 for example, an interesting battle, the Lancastrians faded all their arrows due to misjudgement of wind and distance (it was poor vision because of heavy snowing), after that the Yorkist archers could march forwards and pepper the enemy without any own risk, forcing them at last to an attack not planned before. That tells us three things: 1. only a limited amount of arrows was present even in a long planned mayor battle (it was one of the biggest battles ever in England), 2. shot at with arrows was such a nasty thing that a well prepared and very strong battle position, with a carefully prepared force for an ambush, was given up and a march towards the enemy was made, 3. because there was close combat after the incident described that lasted for some hours, the thousands of unopposed Yorkist longbowmen, shooting tenthousands of arrows, had not been able to inflict such terrible losses to the advancing Lancastrians that it counted for much (the more frequent Lancastrians were near to a victory later but lost because of reinforcements to the Yorkists).
oroboros
Squire
I would be very interested in some info on this topic, so if you have some please do tell . And I thought about it, when archers were firing on great distances they would shoot balistically and therefore the arrows would "drop" which additionally would add some gravitational force to the projectile. So you maybe even didn't need that of a strong bow because the arrow gained enough momentum from "dropping" down on the enemy. Maybe that could be another reason why the Mary Rose bows weren't that strong on the whole, as archers were supposed to shoot on some distance.
I did never say something like that coat of plates replaced the mail hauberk it was something like an addition to the mail, yes, and was often termed a plated mail. Coat of plates were not earlier developed because the earliest forms of this armour was the one in which the plates were sewn unto the surcoat which itself wasn't introduced until around 1100 or later. So it seems that before no one really cared or thought about strengthening the mail with a corset of plates because it very obviously was not necessary. And if you want to accredit their invention on the ability to protect against something, it was surely not against arrows, but more against a couched lance which also somehow doesn't make sense as they would then have invented them even earlier. If a mail hauberk didn't protect properly against arrows, then the people would have already invented better armours during the late Roman or the later Frankish era, while fighting against hunny bunnys or the Muslims. But it was not until 500-600 years later that the coat of plates came to life which is another proof that the mail hauberk alone even with unsufficient padding was more than enough of a protection against any projectiles. By the way, technological advance is the only thing or main reason that I would account for if it comes to development of weaponry and armours. You just have to look at what it's like today, no one needs stronger a-bombs, like the h-bomb or other stuff, there is not even the possibility to apply them without risking the sure destruction of the whole world but nevertheless they continue on further developing that stuff.
Wasn't it that the Lancastrians had to shoot against the wind and up hill while the Yorkists shot with the wind and down hill? I thought I once read something about that.
. And I thought about it, when archers were firing on great distances they would shoot balistically and therefore the arrows would "drop" which additionally would add some gravitational force to the projectile. So you maybe even didn't need that of a strong bow because the arrow gained enough momentum from "dropping" down on the enemy. Maybe that could be another reason why the Mary Rose bows weren't that strong on the whole, as archers were supposed to shoot on some distance.I did never say something like that coat of plates replaced the mail hauberk it was something like an addition to the mail, yes, and was often termed a plated mail. Coat of plates were not earlier developed because the earliest forms of this armour was the one in which the plates were sewn unto the surcoat which itself wasn't introduced until around 1100 or later. So it seems that before no one really cared or thought about strengthening the mail with a corset of plates because it very obviously was not necessary. And if you want to accredit their invention on the ability to protect against something, it was surely not against arrows, but more against a couched lance which also somehow doesn't make sense as they would then have invented them even earlier. If a mail hauberk didn't protect properly against arrows, then the people would have already invented better armours during the late Roman or the later Frankish era, while fighting against hunny bunnys or the Muslims. But it was not until 500-600 years later that the coat of plates came to life which is another proof that the mail hauberk alone even with unsufficient padding was more than enough of a protection against any projectiles. By the way, technological advance is the only thing or main reason that I would account for if it comes to development of weaponry and armours. You just have to look at what it's like today, no one needs stronger a-bombs, like the h-bomb or other stuff, there is not even the possibility to apply them without risking the sure destruction of the whole world but nevertheless they continue on further developing that stuff.
Wasn't it that the Lancastrians had to shoot against the wind and up hill while the Yorkists shot with the wind and down hill? I thought I once read something about that.
Lazyman
Knight
Harith said:
You are comparing two completely different empires, the Bahri Dynasty relied exclusively on its Mamluks, which made up most of its fighting force, at the time of Baibars according to David Nicolle they numbered 4000, during Qalaun's reign 6-7000, in 1313, it lists them as more than 25000 while the total army numbered much larger than that.The whole point of a Slave soldier is that he has nothing else to do with his miserable life except train for war .While the Jannisaries were a rather small part of the Ottoman army which relied more on their Sipahis .
@Armor discussion oroboros started *again*;
You might be interested in this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3_h4cF8iTE
I was most impressed by the Lamellar over maille .
oroboros
Squire
Lazyman said:
No, I did not this time, that was geala. I just happened to have something to say about it when I stumbled upon it while surfing through the threads
And I am very thankful for the above vid as now everybody can see, at 3:50, what a really poor riveted mail looks like, with no flattened rings way to "broad" and poorly hammered rivets, and again on which realistic distance did they shoot? 20-30 metres... Come on now, don't they have a little bit more space in whatever country they made this vid, or can't they hit anything beyond 30 metres?
And here are some examples of properly riveted mails
http://www.revivalclothing.com/images/articles/mt2.jpg
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/gjermundbu_mail.jpg
http://www.getdressedforbattle.co.uk/acatalog/ULF-FRW-fabricnw.jpg
And through these mails you don't shoot through. These mails can be pierced by an arrow of a strong bow on a very close distance of about 5-10 metres. And even on this short distance the wearer of this armours combined with a gambeson would just get a scratch from the arrow, nothing that would impress him not even in the slightest. Every distance more than 10-20 metres were absolutely proof to any arrows by most bows. And again I have to say that besides sieges, most probably archers did not wait until the enemy had reached 20 metres before they decided to shoot, I would doubt this very much. I would be more of the opinion that by this time they probably would have long ago decided to fall back a little bit, just in case...
Now keep on talking about Mamluks, as it wasn't enough in the last 3 threads, he?
Cuthalion
Sergeant at Arms
I'd throw in this because it has alternating rows of riveted round-profile rings and flat pierced ones.
I think you still cling to the idea of wearing armour to be invincible. By this logic modern soldiers would wear these bomb disposal suits when patrolling in the Middle East with the whole danger of being blown away by a suicide bomber. But they don't, simply because the movement restriction and heating is too wearisome compared to the benefit of being better protected. Mobility overrides cover. To come back to our arrows, of course maille will often protect you from being seriously wounded, but it's not like anyone would take the chances, people rather held heavy wooden shields instead when confronted with archers, you can see that on basically every siege illustration. And then you again have the effect of arrow volleys to be of a different use than just to kill.
Can we do this experiment with you in a hauberk and see what kind of impression an arrow makes on you?oroboros said:
I think you still cling to the idea of wearing armour to be invincible. By this logic modern soldiers would wear these bomb disposal suits when patrolling in the Middle East with the whole danger of being blown away by a suicide bomber. But they don't, simply because the movement restriction and heating is too wearisome compared to the benefit of being better protected. Mobility overrides cover. To come back to our arrows, of course maille will often protect you from being seriously wounded, but it's not like anyone would take the chances, people rather held heavy wooden shields instead when confronted with archers, you can see that on basically every siege illustration. And then you again have the effect of arrow volleys to be of a different use than just to kill.oroboros
Squire
Cuthalion said:I'd throw in this because it has alternating rows of riveted round-profile rings and flat pierced ones.Can we do this experiment with you in a hauberk and see what kind of impression an arrow makes on you?oroboros said:
You're little too trigger happy for my taste, pal. No, I wouldn't let you shoot me with anything unless you would agree on me retaliating on you with a wooden quarter staff, which I surely would do even if you didn't agree on it. Especially then when you wouldn't be aware of it. Or even half an hour before our shooting test appointment, as a kind of pre-emtive strike.
Yes, yes, I cling to whatever you like me to cling to in your invincible imagination. That's exactly why I wrote "proof to any arrow by most bows", more correct would even be "proof to most arrows and most bows". And yes, you're right about the shiny weather down there, but then they would of course wear no mail hauberks but just a gambeson so therefore easier to kill by arrows etc., how does this have anything to do with how arrow proof an hauberk is or not, I can't get it? Yes about the shields too, and I tell you another reason why they held their shields high, because they very obviously didn't want their faces to be hit or an arrow slipping through their helmets eye slits moreover it would be very stupid to have a shield and not use it in a siege where you're constantly under fire if you're somewhat close to the walls and the same on a battlefield where there's always the possibility of someone throwing or shooting something at you or using it to counter the reach of polearms, multiple opponents or whatever. Yes and no, arrow volleys were demoralizing to a degree but also there for killing or at least wounding some unarmoured or weakly armoured people/horses and maybe if they are very lucky incapacitate some heavy armoured people, which also didn't happen that often in history if I recall correctly. I mean an army stopped by volleys of arrows didn't happen that often, just if they gave the enemy enough time to prepare their position and were forced to squeeze themselves to death through the worst and muddiest sh*t hole all around the place. As I don't want to make the lazy man getting hasty again, because of me talking about armours againg, can we please now just leave it there and finish this topic by leaving everybody to his own imagination. I mean, you already know it by experience Cuthalion - it has no end as neither of us will give in...
Firstly, I’m not convinced by the argument that they invented plate armour just because they had a clothing with a different purpose to sew it in. Additional armour is a burden and I think there was a certain incentive necessary, at least a mental one. And the opinion that it had something to do with the more common use of the composite crossbow or the increase of use in archery in the 13th century in general does not sound so bad. Couching on the other hand was common from about 1100, so it’s for me a worse argument. Yesterday I read that there are some hints that the use of coat of plates started in eastern Germany. I think that such hints are not relevant but just coincidence, but it would be interesting to speculate about the impact of Mongol archery during the invasion of Europe. However, the word has been used, it’s all just speculation, so different opinions are usual and should be accepted.
Some data for projectiles:
1. Arrows from a longbow: the background of the test was to evaluate the range of bodkin arrows and the performance of different arrows. Most were shot by an angle of 40 to 45 degrees from a 150 lbs wooden longbow (yew), some in addition from a 170 lbs fibre-glass flat bow. I only give some data of the lightest and the heaviest arrow from the longbow. The data is averaged from several shots.
range initial energy energy at 200 m
Arrow 53,6 g: 315 m 111 Joule 60 Joule
Arrow 95,9 g: 230 m 134 Joule 78 Joule
(Edit: there is something wrong with the editor, I cannot bring the data beneath the correct row. I hope you can read it nevertheless.)
Modern armies differ in the thoughts what energy is necessary to put a warrior out of fight. In western armies 80 Joule is the most common value given for an unprotected person. That’s a very theoretical value of course. The second arrow had that energy at 180 m.
We see a very small loss in energy over a long distance, in complete contrast to firearms (at least black powder firearms). When the historical data is put together with reconstructions and tests, it appears that the most common arrows for late longbows weighted about 100 g and had to be shot from bows over 120 lbs to achieve the reported performance (that is for example that practice shooting with bows at distances below 240 yards (219 m) was discouraged by advice in the Tudor times). So the data of the second arrow might be close to the historical performance.
(Source: “The Great Warbow”, by Strickland/Hardy, 2005, mostly pg. 408-414)
Some data to compare:
2. A reconstructed composite recurve bow of late antiquity and eastern origin (Sassanids) with a draw weight of 80 lbs achieved with the usual 50 g arrow a range of 188 m and an initial energy of 62 Joule. That energy an arrow from the 150 lbs longbow had not at 10 m, but at 200 m!
(Source: „Die Reiter Roms, Teil III, Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung“, by M. Junkelmann, 1992, pg. 162-173)
To get some impression what the "energy" means at all: a very experienced fighter can achieve an energy of about 130 Joule with a fist stroke, if using the whole body weight behind it. You know, often persons cannot be knocked out with this energy. The stroke with an 1 kg weapon with one arm achieves an energy of about 65 Joule, an 2 kg weapon with both hands of about 130 Joule. The thrust with a 4 kg polearm achieves about 50 Joule, with a 800 g light lance about 30 Joule. Used from a galloping horse the 800 g lance would have an energy of 160 Joule and an impressive penetrating power considering the weight behind it, wouldn’t it be an elastic stroke. The heavier lances used with a lance rest would have been terrible weapons (but perhaps one-time weapons).
We see, hand held weapons are low energy weapons, that’s the reason why bladed and pointed weapons were usually used in war.
3. Modern stronger compound bows are in the range of 60 to 100 Joule initial energy.
4. Arquebuses of the 16th century (late 15th c. guns were not much different) shot projectiles of about 20 to 30 g with an initial energy of about 1500 to 2700 Joule. The energy depended on the amount of powder used. 18th century muskets shot bullets of about the same weight and the same energy. A test with a 16,6 mm caliber 18th c. musket with a 26,7 g bullet showed the following results:
Initial energy 2764 Joule, energy at 200 m: 671 Joule. (The energy is thought to be higher than originally achieved because modern black powder was used in the test). We see a dramatic loss in energy at distance, however the energy is still much higher than what any bow or crossbow could ever have achieved. But we have to take in account that a fat lead bullet needs a lot more energy to penetrate than a needle pointed arrow (a question of energy density, I don’t want to discuss this here).
5. Modern guns achieve initial energies of about 3500 Joule for a medium rifle bullet (f.e. .308 Winchester) or 500 Joule for a medium pistol bullet (f.e. 9 mm Luger or .45 ACP). Of course there are much stronger calibres, a 12,7x99 bullet from a .50 cal machine gun has an initial energy of about 16500 Joule and 6500 Joule at a distance of 1000 m. A .308 Winchester bullet with an energy of 3273 Joule and a weight of 10,9 g has an energy in 200 m of 2345 Joule and in 300 m of 1966 Joule.
(Sources: mainly “Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe” by B.S. Hall, 1997; “Geschosse Band 2: Ballistik, Wirksamkeit, Messtechnik” by B.P. Kneubüehl, 2004; “Wundballistik” by Kneubuehl, Coupland, Rothschild, Tali, 200
Some data for projectiles:
1. Arrows from a longbow: the background of the test was to evaluate the range of bodkin arrows and the performance of different arrows. Most were shot by an angle of 40 to 45 degrees from a 150 lbs wooden longbow (yew), some in addition from a 170 lbs fibre-glass flat bow. I only give some data of the lightest and the heaviest arrow from the longbow. The data is averaged from several shots.
range initial energy energy at 200 m
Arrow 53,6 g: 315 m 111 Joule 60 Joule
Arrow 95,9 g: 230 m 134 Joule 78 Joule
(Edit: there is something wrong with the editor, I cannot bring the data beneath the correct row. I hope you can read it nevertheless.)
Modern armies differ in the thoughts what energy is necessary to put a warrior out of fight. In western armies 80 Joule is the most common value given for an unprotected person. That’s a very theoretical value of course. The second arrow had that energy at 180 m.
We see a very small loss in energy over a long distance, in complete contrast to firearms (at least black powder firearms). When the historical data is put together with reconstructions and tests, it appears that the most common arrows for late longbows weighted about 100 g and had to be shot from bows over 120 lbs to achieve the reported performance (that is for example that practice shooting with bows at distances below 240 yards (219 m) was discouraged by advice in the Tudor times). So the data of the second arrow might be close to the historical performance.
(Source: “The Great Warbow”, by Strickland/Hardy, 2005, mostly pg. 408-414)
Some data to compare:
2. A reconstructed composite recurve bow of late antiquity and eastern origin (Sassanids) with a draw weight of 80 lbs achieved with the usual 50 g arrow a range of 188 m and an initial energy of 62 Joule. That energy an arrow from the 150 lbs longbow had not at 10 m, but at 200 m!
(Source: „Die Reiter Roms, Teil III, Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung“, by M. Junkelmann, 1992, pg. 162-173)
To get some impression what the "energy" means at all: a very experienced fighter can achieve an energy of about 130 Joule with a fist stroke, if using the whole body weight behind it. You know, often persons cannot be knocked out with this energy. The stroke with an 1 kg weapon with one arm achieves an energy of about 65 Joule, an 2 kg weapon with both hands of about 130 Joule. The thrust with a 4 kg polearm achieves about 50 Joule, with a 800 g light lance about 30 Joule. Used from a galloping horse the 800 g lance would have an energy of 160 Joule and an impressive penetrating power considering the weight behind it, wouldn’t it be an elastic stroke. The heavier lances used with a lance rest would have been terrible weapons (but perhaps one-time weapons).
We see, hand held weapons are low energy weapons, that’s the reason why bladed and pointed weapons were usually used in war.
3. Modern stronger compound bows are in the range of 60 to 100 Joule initial energy.
4. Arquebuses of the 16th century (late 15th c. guns were not much different) shot projectiles of about 20 to 30 g with an initial energy of about 1500 to 2700 Joule. The energy depended on the amount of powder used. 18th century muskets shot bullets of about the same weight and the same energy. A test with a 16,6 mm caliber 18th c. musket with a 26,7 g bullet showed the following results:
Initial energy 2764 Joule, energy at 200 m: 671 Joule. (The energy is thought to be higher than originally achieved because modern black powder was used in the test). We see a dramatic loss in energy at distance, however the energy is still much higher than what any bow or crossbow could ever have achieved. But we have to take in account that a fat lead bullet needs a lot more energy to penetrate than a needle pointed arrow (a question of energy density, I don’t want to discuss this here).
5. Modern guns achieve initial energies of about 3500 Joule for a medium rifle bullet (f.e. .308 Winchester) or 500 Joule for a medium pistol bullet (f.e. 9 mm Luger or .45 ACP). Of course there are much stronger calibres, a 12,7x99 bullet from a .50 cal machine gun has an initial energy of about 16500 Joule and 6500 Joule at a distance of 1000 m. A .308 Winchester bullet with an energy of 3273 Joule and a weight of 10,9 g has an energy in 200 m of 2345 Joule and in 300 m of 1966 Joule.
(Sources: mainly “Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe” by B.S. Hall, 1997; “Geschosse Band 2: Ballistik, Wirksamkeit, Messtechnik” by B.P. Kneubüehl, 2004; “Wundballistik” by Kneubuehl, Coupland, Rothschild, Tali, 200
A very good argument. Lucky Legolas, he was able to use a child bow because he hit every time everything he wanted to hit, but only Legolas and Chuck Norris were ever so good.
To be honest, aiming for weak spots of armour was one method in close combat and for experienced sharpshooters alike. But that's no help in the "penetration" debate. I just read about the battle of Poitiers 732. Abd al-Rahman was killed by a javelin or arrow through the body and he surely wore at least the best mail, if not mail and lamellar together. How if mail was impenetrable?
To be honest, aiming for weak spots of armour was one method in close combat and for experienced sharpshooters alike. But that's no help in the "penetration" debate. I just read about the battle of Poitiers 732. Abd al-Rahman was killed by a javelin or arrow through the body and he surely wore at least the best mail, if not mail and lamellar together. How if mail was impenetrable?
oroboros
Squire
First, thanks for the great info.
It was not about plate armour but coat of plates and if couching became more common in use from around 1100 onwards and heavy cavalry warfare spread over almost all of Europe therefrom isn't it then quite surprising that a few decades later the coat of plates came up with the first samples being that which had the plates sewn unto their surcoats which surprisingly came to life around the same time? The first example of a coat of plates they found is on a statue in a church in Magdeburg which wasn't eastern Germany until after 1945. And to repeat it again, in the 4th/5th the Romans and Merovingians fought the Huns over and over and over again and in the end the Romans+allies won, although they were outnumbered by the Huns by far and the Huns had what main weapon? Right, the Hun bow and many, many horse archers. They never needed to improve the mails back then because it simply was not necessary as mail was a good enough of a protection against most of them arrows and bows. The same with the Muslims and the Franks later on in the beginning 8th century, of course the composite bows were much better than comparative bows in Europe at that time but obviously the Franks were suicidal in your opinion as no-one ever thought of improving their mails - and again, the Muslims didn't succeed like before in Iberia. Last to say about this - there is absolutely no reliable historic proof around for bows or crossbows becoming significantly "stronger" in the 13th Century. And by the way no-one used a 170lbs glass fibre bow during the middle ages and I still miss the proof for the 180lbs war bows during the Middle ages including the maths behind it. As up to now there is no proof around for your propositions at all, besides some empty allegations of some bow boys. The most findings, including that of the Mary Rose, suggest that the average Medieval longbow had around 80-100 lbs draw weight and the bows of the Mongol horse archers or horse archers in general had even less draw weight with about the same power outcome as that of the longbow or somewhat less. Very obviously you know more about this stuff like that other guy Cuthalion knew more about armour than most people I know and have read of. Then show me the countless numbers of battles won by "The Bow" against a heavily armoured opponent in which most of the casualties were due to bows+arrows. And to repeat myself again for the last time - they didn't shoot on distances of 20 metres back then. So put an armoured target some 200, 160, 120, 80, 40 metres away and then tell me what the results are, but don't bother me to death with your ever so "punched through mail on 20 metres" because it's getting very boring. So be happy with your speculations about the impact of Mongol archery who like the Huns before them or the Ottomans after them would have been beaten the sh*t out of them if they ever had to face a united Central European knights army, consisting of French, English, HRE and Polish knights - this time not outnumbered by the Mongols as it usually was the case - they would have been slaughtered en masse. But luckily, the Mongols just focussed on the "weaker" parts of Europe - their greatest luck in history.
It was not about plate armour but coat of plates and if couching became more common in use from around 1100 onwards and heavy cavalry warfare spread over almost all of Europe therefrom isn't it then quite surprising that a few decades later the coat of plates came up with the first samples being that which had the plates sewn unto their surcoats which surprisingly came to life around the same time? The first example of a coat of plates they found is on a statue in a church in Magdeburg which wasn't eastern Germany until after 1945. And to repeat it again, in the 4th/5th the Romans and Merovingians fought the Huns over and over and over again and in the end the Romans+allies won, although they were outnumbered by the Huns by far and the Huns had what main weapon? Right, the Hun bow and many, many horse archers. They never needed to improve the mails back then because it simply was not necessary as mail was a good enough of a protection against most of them arrows and bows. The same with the Muslims and the Franks later on in the beginning 8th century, of course the composite bows were much better than comparative bows in Europe at that time but obviously the Franks were suicidal in your opinion as no-one ever thought of improving their mails - and again, the Muslims didn't succeed like before in Iberia. Last to say about this - there is absolutely no reliable historic proof around for bows or crossbows becoming significantly "stronger" in the 13th Century. And by the way no-one used a 170lbs glass fibre bow during the middle ages and I still miss the proof for the 180lbs war bows during the Middle ages including the maths behind it. As up to now there is no proof around for your propositions at all, besides some empty allegations of some bow boys. The most findings, including that of the Mary Rose, suggest that the average Medieval longbow had around 80-100 lbs draw weight and the bows of the Mongol horse archers or horse archers in general had even less draw weight with about the same power outcome as that of the longbow or somewhat less. Very obviously you know more about this stuff like that other guy Cuthalion knew more about armour than most people I know and have read of. Then show me the countless numbers of battles won by "The Bow" against a heavily armoured opponent in which most of the casualties were due to bows+arrows. And to repeat myself again for the last time - they didn't shoot on distances of 20 metres back then. So put an armoured target some 200, 160, 120, 80, 40 metres away and then tell me what the results are, but don't bother me to death with your ever so "punched through mail on 20 metres" because it's getting very boring. So be happy with your speculations about the impact of Mongol archery who like the Huns before them or the Ottomans after them would have been beaten the sh*t out of them if they ever had to face a united Central European knights army, consisting of French, English, HRE and Polish knights - this time not outnumbered by the Mongols as it usually was the case - they would have been slaughtered en masse. But luckily, the Mongols just focussed on the "weaker" parts of Europe - their greatest luck in history.
I'm a bit disappointed by your overly aggressive tone. If you think that explanations should be given about the strenghts of Mary Rose bows, please explain how the draw weights of 80 to 100 lbs were evaluated that in your opinion are seemingly the holy gral. I don't know from where you have the data. That you name Matthew Strickland, who is lecturer at the university of Glasgow, a "bow boy" (to make it easier to argue against him without arguments of your own?) is a pity, too.
I told you that the bows were under water for a long time and don't have the original draw weights because of cellular deterioration of the wood. The draw weight of the bows was measured at about 60 lbs. To get the original draw weights you have to use calculation. Dr. David Clark calculated the bows to about 70 to 80 lbs, Dr. B.W. Kooi of the Groningen University to about 150 lbs. The latter modell fits better with tests made with reconstructed bows of all kind and strenght. If you like more explanation, please reread the book, also interesting could be the thesis "The Mechanik of Bows and Arrows", Groningen 1983, by the said B.W. Kooi.
War arrows of the period had weights of about 100 g. You cannot at all achieve the reported performances of the bows with such arrows with draw weights under 120 lbs. So the higher estimates of Dr. Kooi are totally congruent with the reports and advices from the late medieval times. Of course also longbows with less draw weights existed because every person used a bow tailored to their own abilities.
You get hints (no evidence) for the growing use of archery in the 13th century (crossbows and bows alike) by comparing the data of the assizes of the days. You see an increase in the number of stored crossbows, bows, bolts and arrows during the 13th century.
I'm from Germany and I know where the boundaries were in the 13th century.
Ok, I'm done with the discussion.
I told you that the bows were under water for a long time and don't have the original draw weights because of cellular deterioration of the wood. The draw weight of the bows was measured at about 60 lbs. To get the original draw weights you have to use calculation. Dr. David Clark calculated the bows to about 70 to 80 lbs, Dr. B.W. Kooi of the Groningen University to about 150 lbs. The latter modell fits better with tests made with reconstructed bows of all kind and strenght. If you like more explanation, please reread the book, also interesting could be the thesis "The Mechanik of Bows and Arrows", Groningen 1983, by the said B.W. Kooi.
War arrows of the period had weights of about 100 g. You cannot at all achieve the reported performances of the bows with such arrows with draw weights under 120 lbs. So the higher estimates of Dr. Kooi are totally congruent with the reports and advices from the late medieval times. Of course also longbows with less draw weights existed because every person used a bow tailored to their own abilities.
You get hints (no evidence) for the growing use of archery in the 13th century (crossbows and bows alike) by comparing the data of the assizes of the days. You see an increase in the number of stored crossbows, bows, bolts and arrows during the 13th century.
I'm from Germany and I know where the boundaries were in the 13th century.
Ok, I'm done with the discussion.
Cuthalion
Sergeant at Arms
There's a difference between armour saving peoples lives because they "only" cause light wounds... and armour being strong enough that any impact wouldn't matter (that's what your "would impress him not even in the slightest" suggested to me). The former is a rather valid reason why a – by our modern, maybe non-military noob standards – "insufficient" piece of armour might still have prevailed at some point of history. It is not replaced by the second assumption.
To make only a few remarks to your examples, the Huns were not "beaten" out of central Europe, they just fell back and disintegrated due to (among other things) their nomad lifestyle which worked only at the borders of urban civilisation. Even if they suffered a few military defeats, there is no structural military weakness to be seen (e.g. not enough power to penetrate Roman maille). The Arabs/Berbers hardly campaigned in France. Left aside that they were no classical mounted archery people, there was no serious military engagement in which Frankish maille armour might have been put to the test. The Turks and Mongols were the first real and constant threats, which the Franks countered with their close formation, infantry with shields, but also by setting up comparable troops (i.e. turcopoles, since the Franks could rely on a tradition of mounted archery themselves). The sources suggest that maille was as widespread as it was because it worked. The sources don't suggest that "worked" meaned people being largely impenetrable. If the shields were mainly supposed to protect everything not clad in maille, then why do they cover none of that? Why do horseman shields decrease in size after the appearance of greater helmets and cuisses, being left to cover only what's clad in maille anyway?
I know it sounds more sharp-tounged now, but I guess a healthy discussion culture can stand it:
I'd say that maille was enough to prevent serious injuries (hence its popularity), but required additional protection if meant to really save the wearer from impacts. That's why we have shields, that's why we have a few hints at padding underneath, that's why we have a few hints at double maille. Another sort of protection is to be not exhausted by the armour's weight too quickly, hence being able to use e.g. sword and shield more confidently, get away from the crowded fighting etc.... When (in the later 13th century) faced with weapons that could more easily penetrate maille and indeed cause serious injuries (composite bows in great numbers, longer swords with rhombical stabbing points etc.), people tried to upgrade the armour. They installed plate armour at the kneecaps (cuisses), shoulders (ailettes), legs (greaves) and also at the torso (coat of plates).
If I got your point right, you say that maille was usually worn with padding underneath (you know my opinion about the (lack of) sources for that), but even if not, it was enough armour for everything that could harm them in the 11th–13th century. When coates of plates appeared, it was merely because they could do it, not because there was an immediate military reason.
This is IMHO putting the cart before the horse, as I already said in the last thread. It's re-interpreting the available evidence to fit a certain "understanding" (i.e. that armour makes only sense if it protects agains weapon impacts of the time) and re-aligning everything else around it (i.e. coats of plates were not introduced because the current armour was insufficient in some ways, but because it could be done even better). You see, our differences are not hidden in the actual facts, but in the methodical approach to it.
To make only a few remarks to your examples, the Huns were not "beaten" out of central Europe, they just fell back and disintegrated due to (among other things) their nomad lifestyle which worked only at the borders of urban civilisation. Even if they suffered a few military defeats, there is no structural military weakness to be seen (e.g. not enough power to penetrate Roman maille). The Arabs/Berbers hardly campaigned in France. Left aside that they were no classical mounted archery people, there was no serious military engagement in which Frankish maille armour might have been put to the test. The Turks and Mongols were the first real and constant threats, which the Franks countered with their close formation, infantry with shields, but also by setting up comparable troops (i.e. turcopoles, since the Franks could rely on a tradition of mounted archery themselves). The sources suggest that maille was as widespread as it was because it worked. The sources don't suggest that "worked" meaned people being largely impenetrable. If the shields were mainly supposed to protect everything not clad in maille, then why do they cover none of that? Why do horseman shields decrease in size after the appearance of greater helmets and cuisses, being left to cover only what's clad in maille anyway?
I know it sounds more sharp-tounged now, but I guess a healthy discussion culture can stand it:
I'd say that maille was enough to prevent serious injuries (hence its popularity), but required additional protection if meant to really save the wearer from impacts. That's why we have shields, that's why we have a few hints at padding underneath, that's why we have a few hints at double maille. Another sort of protection is to be not exhausted by the armour's weight too quickly, hence being able to use e.g. sword and shield more confidently, get away from the crowded fighting etc.... When (in the later 13th century) faced with weapons that could more easily penetrate maille and indeed cause serious injuries (composite bows in great numbers, longer swords with rhombical stabbing points etc.), people tried to upgrade the armour. They installed plate armour at the kneecaps (cuisses), shoulders (ailettes), legs (greaves) and also at the torso (coat of plates).
If I got your point right, you say that maille was usually worn with padding underneath (you know my opinion about the (lack of) sources for that), but even if not, it was enough armour for everything that could harm them in the 11th–13th century. When coates of plates appeared, it was merely because they could do it, not because there was an immediate military reason.
This is IMHO putting the cart before the horse, as I already said in the last thread. It's re-interpreting the available evidence to fit a certain "understanding" (i.e. that armour makes only sense if it protects agains weapon impacts of the time) and re-aligning everything else around it (i.e. coats of plates were not introduced because the current armour was insufficient in some ways, but because it could be done even better). You see, our differences are not hidden in the actual facts, but in the methodical approach to it.
oroboros
Squire
geala said:
Sorry to have disappointed you, but where was I overly aggresive in my tone? Please show me where in which text passage I was overly aggressive towards you. Because you counter my arguments with "It seems not convinvcing to me" and ask me on the other hand to provide you with proof that you are wrong? You gave me some nice examples of your tests, which I really enjoyed to read and even thanked you for it and I never doubted their validity in their own. If I would have been aggressive towards you then my written message would have been not the like as it in fact was. You leave out complete strings of arguments of mine because they are inconvenient to you, like to name me the numberless battles won by the bow and the numberless dead because of the bow, you cannot provide me with historic findings of plated armour punched through the plates by an arrow, or the fact that both the Huns and the Muslims were beaten in the end although they had their superior bows and many people around who used them, much more than the Europeans. I was just tired of repeating myself over and over again with no-one ever rudimentarily trying to discuss the topic, just stating that they think that it was the other way round as it actually had been shown to us by many archeologists, their findings, and historians. So, to end this one and for all I will follow your example and further refrain from ever talking to you again about weapons performances, armours or whatever stuff. I have no time at all to discuss the topic with people who are just convinced about their opinion being the right one while ignoring the humonguous amount of proof against their opinions, and just citing those opinions of some singled out researchers who happen to have roughly the same opinion about a certain topic. You were just insulted by me calling you bow boy, then go on and call me a sword sister - so what?! I wouldn't walk into a corner crying like a little baby and tell the other kid that I didn't want to play with him anymore because he was mean to me, which I never was. What about this ridiculous remark about the German border, where did I say that you didn't know where the German borders were in 13th C.? I just stated what is known to me as a fact, if facts are insulting to you or overly aggressive then ignore them as you do with all the rest of the proof. And to sum it up once again, I did never say that it was impossible for an arrow to pierce mail in any case, just that it seems to have occured very rarely in reality and therefore stated that a properly riveted mail hauberk was arrow proof in most cases. So bye then.
http://www.the-tudors.org.uk/mary-rose-longbows.htm
http://www.archers-review.com/magazine-articles/june-2010-longbows-of-the-mary-rose
http://www.primitivearcher.com/articles/warbow.html
http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html
http://www.alanesq.com/sidenock.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=longbows+of+the+Mary+Rose&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CFEQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.currentmiddleages.org%2Fartsci%2Fdocs%2FChamp_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf&ei=RlJPT-m-BcqYOpvz2bEK&usg=AFQjCNHQ9M7bqKR7aJG0OHxFbKz5fIHxBw
Excerpt thereof:
There are only
5 sources of existing medieval longbows:
The Spencer Bow
Dating to the 14th or 15th century, this was the model that I based my experiments on. The bow
is 79” long with a draw weight of 100 lbs. It is made of English yew wood and had horn nocks
on the ends to hold the string. (Hardy, p. 54)
The Mendlesham bow
This 53 inch bow was found in Suffolk England. It dates to approximately 1540, had a draw
weight of 80 lbs. (Keiser)
The Hedgeley Moor Bow
Presented to Alnwick Castle around 1464. It is 65.5 inches long with a draw weight of 50 lbs.
(Keiser)
The Flodden Bow
A 90 lbs bow claimed to date to 1513 where it was used in the Battle of Flodden. “a landmark
in the history of archery, as the last battle on English soil to be fought with the longbow as the
principal weapon.” (Keiser)
The last source is the H.M.S. Mary Rose. A ship in the English fleet that sank off Portsmouth
on Sunday July 19th 1545. There were 167 bows recovered from this ship. They range in size
from 75 inches to 80 inches and with a draw weight average of 100 lbs. (Wikipedia)
“All of these bows are similar. They are nearly six feet long; made of wood; shaped in order to
use both the center and sap wood; are symmetrically tapered; and appear to have a very stiff
Longbow
4/28 Figure 3. Oregon self yew longbow
Figure 4. Oregon self yew longbow detail
draw weight.” (Keiser)
I don't feel insulted by you, oroboros, it's more the scolars you slur a little bit by treating them as silly boys. You gave not a single argument or source that had to do with the scientific quarrel about the strenght of the Mary Rose bows but called the authors of the book I cited "bow boys". Such terms are not very estimated by the people I usually speak with. So maybe I'm not accustomed to it. I would not discuss even a little bit with some people on the forums, but you had always good arguments in all your posts I read before, so I was just disappointed by the one before the last one. Maybe I've overreacted. I'm not in the best mood, having broken yesterday a very expensive reproduction of an ancient composite bow of mine and in addition got the message that I was again not able to lay my hand on an exemplar of Williams "Knight and the Blast Furnace". 
That I'm not convinced by your arguments about the reasons for the introduction of high medieval plate armour should not worry you. I did not say that you are a fool, just that I'm of another opinion. You cannot convince every one and different ideas are usually the norm in historic sciences.
Battles are usually not won by single weapons. If you have read my posts before you should have seen that I don't think that the bow was a super weapon. Armour was able to protect against bolts and arrows, but it was not impenetrable. I don't intend to look in detail for all the anecdotal records I have read in 25 years about bows or crossbows able to pierce armour, because often we don't know what armour was and what bows were used. You can find such remarks often in literature like that: "..., there was a great press and great mischief to the assailants, for such English archers as there were shot so wholly together that their arrows pierced men and horse, ..." (Froissart, ed. Luce, XII, 148, describing the fate of the Castillian vanguard together with French men-at-arms at Lisbon 1384). We have some excavations of medieval battlefield victims, but bolts and arrows often inflicted only wounds in soft tissue long gone. We see from the Wisby dead that a lot bolts penetrated the scull, maybe all dead men did not wear helmets or the bolts penetrated the helmet. Sometimes we have exact reports, like that of Jean La Pucille who was wounded by an arrow or bolt in the shoulder through the armour by a depth of 6 inches during the Orleans siege, presumably through the mail beneath the plate harness.
I did not understand what your remark that Magdeburg was eastern Germany only after 1945 had to do with the question of the introduction of coats of plates. Magdeburg was surely very eastern Germany in some times prior to 1945, sometimes not, but what's the importance of this? So I felt a little bit ridiculed, but that might have been a misunderstanding.
That I'm not convinced by your arguments about the reasons for the introduction of high medieval plate armour should not worry you. I did not say that you are a fool, just that I'm of another opinion. You cannot convince every one and different ideas are usually the norm in historic sciences.
Battles are usually not won by single weapons. If you have read my posts before you should have seen that I don't think that the bow was a super weapon. Armour was able to protect against bolts and arrows, but it was not impenetrable. I don't intend to look in detail for all the anecdotal records I have read in 25 years about bows or crossbows able to pierce armour, because often we don't know what armour was and what bows were used. You can find such remarks often in literature like that: "..., there was a great press and great mischief to the assailants, for such English archers as there were shot so wholly together that their arrows pierced men and horse, ..." (Froissart, ed. Luce, XII, 148, describing the fate of the Castillian vanguard together with French men-at-arms at Lisbon 1384). We have some excavations of medieval battlefield victims, but bolts and arrows often inflicted only wounds in soft tissue long gone. We see from the Wisby dead that a lot bolts penetrated the scull, maybe all dead men did not wear helmets or the bolts penetrated the helmet. Sometimes we have exact reports, like that of Jean La Pucille who was wounded by an arrow or bolt in the shoulder through the armour by a depth of 6 inches during the Orleans siege, presumably through the mail beneath the plate harness.
I did not understand what your remark that Magdeburg was eastern Germany only after 1945 had to do with the question of the introduction of coats of plates. Magdeburg was surely very eastern Germany in some times prior to 1945, sometimes not, but what's the importance of this? So I felt a little bit ridiculed, but that might have been a misunderstanding.
oroboros
Squire
Cuthalion said:There's a difference between armour saving peoples lives because they "only" cause light wounds... and armour being strong enough that any impact wouldn't matter (that's what your "would impress him not even in the slightest" suggested to me). The former is a rather valid reason why a – by our modern, maybe non-military noob standards – "insufficient" piece of armour might still have prevailed at some point of history. It is not replaced by the second assumption.
To make only a few remarks to your examples, the Huns were not "beaten" out of central Europe, they just fell back and disintegrated due to (among other things) their nomad lifestyle which worked only at the borders of urban civilisation. Even if they suffered a few military defeats, there is no structural military weakness to be seen (e.g. not enough power to penetrate Roman maille). The Arabs/Berbers hardly campaigned in France. Left aside that they were no classical mounted archery people, there was no serious military engagement in which Frankish maille armour might have been put to the test. The Turks and Mongols were the first real and constant threats, which the Franks countered with their close formation, infantry with shields, but also by setting up comparable troops (i.e. turcopoles, since the Franks could rely on a tradition of mounted archery themselves). The sources suggest that maille was as widespread as it was because it worked. The sources don't suggest that "worked" meaned people being largely impenetrable. If the shields were mainly supposed to protect everything not clad in maille, then why do they cover none of that? Why do horseman shields decrease in size after the appearance of greater helmets and cuisses, being left to cover only what's clad in maille anyway?
I know it sounds more sharp-tounged now, but I guess a healthy discussion culture can stand it:
I'd say that maille was enough to prevent serious injuries (hence its popularity), but required additional protection if meant to really save the wearer from impacts. That's why we have shields, that's why we have a few hints at padding underneath, that's why we have a few hints at double maille. Another sort of protection is to be not exhausted by the armour's weight too quickly, hence being able to use e.g. sword and shield more confidently, get away from the crowded fighting etc.... When (in the later 13th century) faced with weapons that could more easily penetrate maille and indeed cause serious injuries (composite bows in great numbers, longer swords with rhombical stabbing points etc.), people tried to upgrade the armour. They installed plate armour at the kneecaps (cuisses), shoulders (ailettes), legs (greaves) and also at the torso (coat of plates).
If I got your point right, you say that maille was usually worn with padding underneath (you know my opinion about the (lack of) sources for that), but even if not, it was enough armour for everything that could harm them in the 11th–13th century. When coates of plates appeared, it was merely because they could do it, not because there was an immediate military reason.
This is IMHO putting the cart before the horse, as I already said in the last thread. It's re-interpreting the available evidence to fit a certain "understanding" (i.e. that armour makes only sense if it protects agains weapon impacts of the time) and re-aligning everything else around it (i.e. coats of plates were not introduced because the current armour was insufficient in some ways, but because it could be done even better). You see, our differences are not hidden in the actual facts, but in the methodical approach to it.
The Huns were not beaten out of Europe, are you serious? After Attila was beaten the first time in THE decisive battle (beaten because it was him who had to withdraw, not the Romans) and later died, the Huns lost EVERY decisive battle in Europe during the later periods after they had been beaten by the Romans. What are you saying? -> Let me quote you "The Frankish mail was never put to the test"...
... sorry bro, but that disqualifies you for, well, a lot of things I guess... If not Muslims, who then tried to invade Central Europe via invading the South of France in the 8th C.? Was it the re-surrected Hannibal of Carthago? So, the Franks, that European people that quasi invented mounted warfare anew and revolutionized mounted warfare over the Centuries to become the prime dominator in Medieval warfare and were very proud of their heavy knights, still relied on infantry and the shield wall in order to win their battles? Yes, I clearly see the logic in this. If you at least would have said somethin like "maybe", "in some cases", "depending on"... and at least as much sources do indeed tell of them, mail hauberks, being "impenetrable" by arrows, probably more than tell it the other way round. And if you say that there were many composite bows around in 13th C. I will reply that there were even more composite bows around in Central Europe with the Huns in the 4th/5th C. - and still they didn't improve the mail then, so what? And for this "...there is no structural military weakness to be seen (e.g. not enough power to penetrate Roman maille)" - show me the countless Roman mails that have been penetrated by arrows from the Huns, then, show me the proof as you seem to have it available at your hands. Their arrows certainly wounded, incapacitated or killed a lot of soldiers by hitting their uncovered arms, legs or faces, certainly not by penetrating (besides in rare cases) the mail itself.
No, it was not due to the bow people started to reinforce their joints, very surely not. Did you ever get yourself a proper stroke with a sword or even a 1-h axe upon your knee or shoulder? Do you remember how that felt like? There you have the reason why they reinforced joints and of course because they could do this as technology and knowledge had advanced enough for that by then. Now compare the impact of an arrow hitting your armoured (with mail+padding) shoulder joint, do you want to imply that an arrow hit harder than an axe blow and so the joints were additionally protected because of arrows? To decrease blunt trauma on joints and prevent them from breaking because of a direct hit by some melee weapon was the first and foremost reason to improve this areas of the body, which people also rudimentarily did or started with during the early Roman and Greek era (metal greaves and shoulder protection and some such, even something similar to a metal "cuirass").
Ok then this is your humble opinion concerning coat of plates - now we are just missing the historic proof for your opinion. And concerning padding, there is actually more proof around, that wearing a gambeson was quite common, then there is proof around for the opposite, besides that almost every expert and people who have actually tried the stuff in real life agrees on this as a fact. I know, I know, you have other stuff that proves the opposite, but as I am right now the one who writes, let me write it down, ok?
And again I have to ask you that why didn't the US invent the h-bomb right from the start? Maybe because they didn't have the knowledge and technology for that? But then why did they develop it later and why do they still keep on developping these bombs? Is there any reason for this besides being superior? --> where is here the "immediate military reason" according to your statement and opinion? And of course you were so free to leave out my somewhat uncertain comment (because I don't know for sure) about that the coat of plates maybe could have been developed to counter a couched lance as mounted warfare still further increased from 1100 onwards up to its peak during the High Middle Ages.Oh gawd, I think Cuthalion and geala have both conspirated against me in order to increase my blood pressure off from its way too healthy levels, concerning the way of life I lead... you both are being paid by my physician, aren't you?
I agree that the whole topic of armour vs. bows is a highly controversial topic and even if there was the definitive proof for one of the sides it would still be very controversial.
@geala:
Ok, now I can understand you much better and I do actually agree with you on the whole, but not in some peculiar points and I think we are best off if we accredit this difference to a difference in personal opinions on a highly controversial topic (the same with @Cuthalion, I hope). No I just mentioned Magdeburg because the first official "proof" of a coat of plates was found there. I think I have overreacted too, I shouldn't write after drinking several jars of wine... so sorry, I didn't want to insult anybody here or out there.
And I think I can finally sum my opinion up by this, written before: "I did never say that it was impossible for an arrow to pierce mail in any case, just that it seems to have occured very rarely in reality and therefore stated that a properly riveted mail hauberk was arrow proof in most cases."
Lazyman
Knight
@Oroboros;
Well I CBA to read all those posts but... if at such close range the arrow cannot pierce such poor riveted maille just shows how impossible it would be to pierce those Double Mail suits
And I do not really understand why you keep bringing up the battle of Tours (at which archery was hardly important), or the Ottomans, who did use archery, but were more famous for their gunpowder, and they DID face combined European armies.
Cuthalion is right though, Tours was the high point of raids aimed at loot .
Well I CBA to read all those posts but... if at such close range the arrow cannot pierce such poor riveted maille just shows how impossible it would be to pierce those Double Mail suits
And I do not really understand why you keep bringing up the battle of Tours (at which archery was hardly important), or the Ottomans, who did use archery, but were more famous for their gunpowder, and they DID face combined European armies.
Cuthalion is right though, Tours was the high point of raids aimed at loot .
