Eye witness vs tests.

[Oldtimer]

Hi all,

in some topics I`ve seen that posters tend to disregard one of the above, according to their opinion of where the truth is.
As I do not wish to start a flame war please allow me to write a few thoughts based on more then 20 yrs experience in research work and teaching at academic level.

The main problem seems to be how far you can generalise accounts and/or tests.

Let`s look at archery as an example. Tests carried out today in order to serve as a good approximation of medieval reality must recreate:

- hardness and tensile strength of armour and arrowhead,

- good spread of realistic striking angles,

- good spread of  bow power. Bows of same type had variation in this and the same bow could show variation with, say air humidity.

These few variables already call for lots of test shots if you want to make a prediction within a 95% confidence interval, the minimum acceptable in research. In RL you actually have more variables than that.

OTOH the infamous welsh arrow going through everything...

Well, the door could have been rotten... The arrow could have stricken between the studs in the doors and in the "eye" of mail rings... And so on. What chance is there of such circumstances happening in 95% of shots?

I think that a more humble approach to the validity of witness accounts and test results as a basis for general conclusions may be called for. If I have erred there myself, I humbly apologize to all I may have offended.

Regards, Oldtimer

 

[Ezias]

I don't see why you should be apologizing at all, or why anyone should be taking offense -- the points you bring up are perfectly reasonable and true.  We should keep in mind that there can be freak incidents, things that would happen only 1 out of a million.

I personally would love to out out into a field and test out all these armors and all these wepaons thoroughly, but there are a few things topping me:
Most importantly, I don't have acess to all this stuff (apologies at calling it all stuff, hehe) and won't for quite some time -- if ever.
Second, I don't have the knowledge on how to properly use all the stuff.
Third, I suppose that I don't want to risk major injruy or death -- though I think that's one my mother would carea bout more than me

 

[Maeglin Dubh]

When I'm a famous historian with a massive research grant, I will be glad to use as many recreated arrows on as many pieces of period armor as I can get my hands on.

Not insulting or anything.... I really would love to do that.

 

[Ezias]

When I'm a famous historian with a massive research grant, I will be glad to use as many recreated arrows on as many pieces of period armor as I can get my hands on.

Not insulting or anything.... I really would love to do that.

Amen -- exactly what I meant.  Of course then I'd have to do tons of research into teh different types of arrows and such as well.

 

[Pnakotus]

I don't think anyone believes historical accounts are worthless.  However, basing an argument on a single unverified historical account is stupid, and any competent historian would tell you that.  It's even WORSE when tests show how unlikely it is.

As I've said before, some of these dubious events are reported as noteworthy prodigies: that hardly suggests it happens all the time (quite the contrary, anything 'newsworthy' would be rare).  I have no problem throwing out historical accounts that are satisfactarily shown to be wrong.  Or were the pyramids build by slaves because Herodotus said so?  Don't tell me, you want 'truth' and no experiment is 100% accurate so you can ignore them all for your preferred conclusion?  A scientific approach must include all relevant information, whether you like it or not.

 

[Rameusb5]

I agree that anecdotal historical evidence cannot be used as a basis for historical fact.  The problem with these stories is that they are typically of some extraordinary circumstance, and not the norm.  Just because Robin Hood could shoot a bullseye at 200 meters with his longbow doesn't mean everyone could (overexacturation combined with myth is always the best, right? )

 

[Halden The Borch shooter]

The English longbows were... let's just put it at this... they were very scary to charge against. They were supposed to be able to shoot 300 yards in an experienced bowman's hand, and at 100 yards they could go through plate armor. Think about it this way. Reallistically, plate armor would be made of iron, not steel. It would be about a quarter of an inch thick, not two inches thick (Who would be able to carry around an iron platebody that was an inch thick, and still swing a sword or mace? IMPOSSIBLE!). The arrow would kind of punch through. It would not be hard. Try it sometime! Oh, and please have a first aid kit nearby...

 

[Manitas]

OTOH the infamous welsh arrow going through everything...

Well, the door could have been rotten... The arrow could have stricken between the studs in the doors and in the "eye" of mail rings... And so on. What chance is there of such circumstances happening in 95% of shots?

I think that a more humble approach to the validity of witness accounts and test results as a basis for general conclusions may be called for. If I have erred there myself, I humbly apologize to all I may have offended.

Regards, Oldtimer

I remember that example well, and I sustain my oppinion about it, nothing related to any sort of offence though, why?

Validity of eyewitness accounts varies. People are known to confabulate, especially when it comes to great battles, and oversea travels
I dont see why we should approach them with humble. Indeed, some of them can be relied upon, but that particular one is clearly on the invalid end of the spectrum, no matter how you twist the variables involved.

 

[Ezias]

Borch, armor wouldnt be a 1/4 inch thick -- it'd be way too heavy if it were. I'm also pretty sure that it would in fact be crafted from steel -- iron isnt suitable enough of a material to really make armor out of. I'd venture to guess that a gambeson would be a better armor (in weight, mobility and protection) than iron.

 

[Kissaki]

How steel is defined depends on whom you ask. The textbook answer is that steel is carbonized iron. I overheard an argument between an archaeology professor and a blacksmith once, however, and the latter maintained that cast iron is iron -- all other forms of iron is steel. It appears, then, that there is no straight-cut, one size fit all answer.

 

[holybandit]

Well, imagine yourself as a historian back in the medieval days. You see a battle and write down everything you see, your bound to make mistakes because of how awsome the sight is.

 

[Kissaki]

Even more mistakes would be made, because historians back then would rely on oral accounts. They would rarely be present themselves.

 

[James]

Most armour in the time of the peak of longbows (1300s - 1500ish) was not thick at all, at most probably around 1/16 of an inch, which is 16 ga. US. Armour may have reached a thickness of about 1/4 inch when guns became more popular (don't quote me on this).

On the topic of armour material, however, most plate was probably some sort of steel; though not consistent, the forging process would have introduced carbon into the iron, in varying amounts. Early armour, i.e. Norman, 1000s, would have more likely been made of iron or weak steel. This was why mail was riveted, as without said connection the rings would have been too weak to hold themselves closed. Plate would have been small, as the casting and forging process was extremely difficult; probably the reason spangenhelms were made in sections, to minimize the size of sheet needed.

 

[Halden The Borch shooter]

Roman swords from 200 b.c. have been found that are half-steel, as the metal was carbonized when the swords were being forged. Apparently, steel was an accident... and it was quite ancient...

 

[Damien]

Early armour, i.e. Norman, 1000s, would have more likely been made of iron or weak steel. This was why mail was riveted, as without said connection the rings would have been too weak to hold themselves closed.

Mail was -always- properly "iron" more than it was truly "steel." You -want- the rings of mail to be soft, not hard. Hard metal will crack and split, soft metal will bend and warp. A bent, warped ring will still afford some protection, and will help diffuse the force of a blow. Harder links would break, not only leaving gaps in your armour, but quite possibly making it much easier to drive them into your skin through your gambeson. Riveting was simply the strongest way to hold the links together. The rings can and did hold themselves closed, but it was suboptimal. But still, the fact that mail was softer had nothing to do with the technology of the time, because it remained that way as long as it was used. That was simply the best way to make it.

Plate armour, on the other hand, would be far stronger, but still somewhat soft by comparison to say. . modern stainless or tool-grade steel. You -want- your plate armour to warp before it cracks. The harder it is, the more likely it will actually crack and not warp at all. Bent armour can still protect, and be hammered out again later. Cracked armour would be a ***** to mend, and would make you quite vulnerable while it's still damaged.