Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
Marius Marich, did you misunderstand my post on purpose?
Sure thing, like I have nothing better to antagonize you.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
Most likely because it was redundant to even mention it. As I said, redundant to even mention it because it was so common.
That is just horribly absolute of you to say.
It is not redundant, it is shocking, borderline appalling to any archery enthusiast, which is why you give your best to just nonchalantly wave it away like a complete child.
The fact that we have a mountains of detailed descriptions of every day life, battles and wide varieties of causes of deaths of all peoples regardless of gender and class through the entire middle ages and we have 0 mentions of anyone getting killed by an arrow or a bolt directly penetrating his plate armor is a deal breaker to your entire argument and every single argument before and after given by any archery enthusiast ever and wherever.
Deal with that for a second.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
The sources focus on the nobility, not the majority of men-at-arms of less wealth equipped with poor quality armor.
No they don't, there is a wide spectrum of battlefield accounts that deal with all kinds of reports that mention participants from all sides of society, the reason why I made a list of prominent nobles is because they were literally at the front rank during the main assaults, which means that they took the majority of the arrow volleys...and still did not even end up seriously wounded by them let alone killed.
Also, during the initial usage of plate armor, it was reserved almost exclusively for nobility and the rich in general, thus every single set was made from the highest quality iron available and by the most skilled smiths, by the time plate armor got wide spread enough to be used by regular soldiers, advancements in heat treating and metallurgy in general were so ahead it made no difference of the type of armory it was produced by or from where it came from.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
During the battle of Agincourt the estimates give us 7000 killed, and the fact that it's mentioned in the sources that certain people of prominent status survived the arrow-storm indicate that others of lesser status did not.
...and those who died from arrows did not wear plate armor, those who did survived 100-200 000 arrows launched at them and where almost all either killed in melee or captured and later murdered. There were more than 2000 men who walked through all those frontal volleys and survived/were captured, that already is a very significant portion of of all French armored forces right there.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
No, that's a fact.
Meh, no it is not.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
A lance like the one in this documentary was designed to break on impact. The armor is also quality armor of about 500 VPH, not the type of armor in use during the Wars of Scottish Independence and Hundred Years' War. It's irrelevant to my point.
I see you don't really read the written text above the links I provide.
The lance video was my attempt to finally resolve the ridiculous myth that arrows and bolts can cause blunt trauma to the wearer of plate armor, if a frontal direct lance strike from a galloping horse did no concussive damage, surely an arrow/bolt would not.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
If you are so sure plate armor is impenetrable and arrows doesn't effect you in any way, would you volunteer to wear plate armor of 250 VPH while someone loose shafts of 95,5 gram with type 16 heads at you with a 150 lbs bow at point blank, multiple times, yielding 134 J? I didn't think so.
I would, definitely.
However, I must then get a sword and be given a chance to charge at you though, I believe it would be a most gruesome job for the forensic team to clean up the place.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
I have read The Great Warbow by Matthew Strickland & Robert Hardy and you are simply wrong. You generalize and forget the nuances. My entire post was about the nuances.
I have also read it and I must say, it has a level of objectivity as one would expect from a Mexican cartel writing a book about the War on Drugs.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
Here you talk about archers with bows designed to be used from horseback, not even close to the draw weight of a longbow, loosing lightweight shafts in comparison to the longbow, with arrowheads not designed to penetrate armor. And this proves what?
Oh for the love of God,
because they were shooting at early medieval mail, at point blank, and still did nothing.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
You place great emphasis on the sources in everything but this it seems. I think you forget that not all the archers were lightly armored. The archers in the front during the Battle of Agincourt probably had both training in hand to hand fighting and equipment to engage in it. Richard II and Henry IV had their own elite company of longbowmen, and there's no reason to believe Henry V didn't continue this practice. Welsh spearmen protected the archers during The Battle of Crécy.
Their armor is irrelevant, we have detailed sources of the equipment of longbowmen and there is no mention of them ever carrying anti armor weapons of any sort in any significant number or ever being directly ordered to engage heavy infantry.
Their shortswords and falchions would do absolutely nothing to the armor they would be facing against and the notion of them using daggers to stab the weak points mid-combat within or along the thick formation of French knights is ludicrous, regardless of how tired or broken the heavy armored men were.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
Once more, those were Knights and Lords of status worthy of being mentioned, men of such wealth that they could buy the best armor available.
I still don't think you understand the gravity of that argument, the highest status soldiers were almost always at the front of the assault, meaning they would get the most of the volleys.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
The sources say nothing about how many men-at-arms of low status dying from arrow-wounds during The Battle of Crécy, except that there were many many thousands. Why do they not give them any more consideration? Because they had no value, simple as that.
Men-at-arms and low status do not go together during the battle of Crecy, and there was barely any plate armor during the battle of Crecy...and most of the French that died at the battle of Crecy died at the English front line in melee...
You are loosing me completely here, what part of "those who the arrows actually killed most likely did not wear any decent armor at all" don't you understand exactly?
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
In some of these battles the majority of the casualties were during the melee, predominantly battles fought during the 15th century. In the beginning of the 14th century archers had bows of 100-120 lbs. With quality mail, 100 lbs bows loosing light arrows will give you trouble at long range. This is the main reason some of the men made their way to the English lines during the War of Scottish Independence.
Yes, and still most casualties were in close combat, now imagine those same bows a century later...
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
This is plate armor of quality, in the 340-400 VPH range. It's irrelevant to my point. As I have stated.
This is also quality armor and irrelevant to my point. This only prove why they use sturdy 95,5 gram arrows able to withstand the impact.
Wow, you seriously believe that there was some major quality difference in plate armor production?
Also, you realize they are using arrowheads made from modern steel instead of crappy recycled iron?
Apart from armor sets being forged specifically for ones individual body and maybe a noticeable enough quality of iron difference, there was really not that much of a difference between forging the armor worn by a king or that worn by an average mercenary.
I think you have a very skewed picture of how smithing works in general.
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
This is a short bodkin arrowhead. Mass-produced and cheap in comparison to a type 16 arrowhead. Its only purpose: dent and knock a hole in plate armor of poor quality and transfer the impact to the wearer and cause blunt trauma.
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...ing-arrowheads
Well firstly, type 16 arrowhead is not a bodkin arrowhead
Secondly it truly is a short bodkin arrowhead, not mass-produced/cheaperbut designed differently, the reason it is not a long(needle) bodkin arrowhead is because the longer was better used for dealing with mail armor while the shorter was used(or at least tried to be used) against plate armor.
The same difference you will clearly see when analyzing crossbow bolts.
Thirdly, to deal any serious blunt trauma through plate armor with arrows is insane and ludicrous.
Fourthly, the arrowheads they used(and all those used in every single internet video or "academic" test btw) were made from modern steel while the majority of the arrowheads made back in those days were from the low quality iron.
Not so sure the quality of linen as a fabric increased since the middle ages though...
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
The same test done with gambeson + mail stood no chance against the type 16 arrowhead and needle bodkin.
Which test?
Why has Mike Loades or the warbow society not posted it anywhere in either video or textual form?
Why would Mike Loades himself and one of the chairmen of the British Warbow Society mislead the public about the power of the bow and arrow?
Are they all in some conspiracy started by a time traveling French knight who survived Agincourt and wants to deal with his enemy, the longbow, through the winds of historical documentaries?
Originally Posted by
Strategos Autokrator
That is a broadhead arrowtip
Completely useless against good mail and all plate.
Whelp, here's another video of why plate armor was sloped;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8FGmqU25JQ
Good luck getting a 90* shot to actually achieve surface bite in order to even hope penetration.