Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 76

Thread: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

  1. #21
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Yes, longbow shafts could penetrate plate armor. An arrow shot from a longbow of 150 lbs will go through mild steel without problems.
    Yes, except there is not a single mention in the history of plate usage of an arrow or bolt ever penetrating plate armor and killing its user.
    Not a single one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    There's of cause many variables to take into consideration, everything from plate hardness, thickness and impurities such as slag content, to weight of the arrow, draw weight of the bow, angel of impact, armor design, and shape and quality of the arrowheads.
    Yes, and all of those factors go in favor of armors, even mail armor is reported of stopping warbows and crossbows very often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    However, the impact of the arrow in and on its own was usually enough to incapacitate the man underneath the armor.
    That is idiotic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    You don't have to penetrate armor if you want to hurt someone, The force behind an arrow equals a blow from a carpenters hammer! Imaging being hit 3-4 times like that at the start of a fight. You would be at a great disadvantage!
    The aketon/gambeson worn underneath plate armor has an extreme amortization effect that not only absorbs blunt impact but also spreads it across the entire plate section that is struck, it is faaaar more difficult to deliver blunt trauma to a plate armor wearer than most people seem to believe;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEX21WgJzA8&t=28m0s

    Frontal lance strike; continues talking like nothing happpened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Early plate armor only had a Vickers plate hardness of around 100-250. Modern mild steel have a hardness of around 100 VPH, tool steel is around 250 VPH and hardened tool steel is around 500-600 VPH to put this in perspective. In the early 13th century, quality armor, mail or plate was extremely rare. In the end of the 13th century technology made the production of plate armor possible. In the start blacksmiths only slack-quenched steel with low carbon content. That will give you about 200-250 VPH. In the mid-14th century Milanese armor had a hardness of 300-340 VPH. Now they started to slack-quench high carbon steel. By the end of the 15th century the average quality of armor from Innsbruck, Augsburg, Nüremburg and Landshut had reached a hardness of around 400-500 VPH. Now they started to full-quench and reheat high carbon steel. Only the wealthiest of noblemen could afford this quality armor in the beginning. Supply and demand. It was not available to everyone. Anything from 350 VPH and upwards will prevent arrows penetrating the armor but it doesn't help much if only a small fraction of the soldiers wear this protection. On the battlefield, strength comes with numbers.
    Irrelevant, historical sources are far more important than modern researth of historical metalurgy.
    Sources say mail stopped arrows and bolts extremely often and that plate armor was virtually impossible to penetrate with both.
    That's just how it is reported from those times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    The strength of a bow is not just the speed of the arrow and therefor the range, it's predominantly the weight of the arrow. E=(1/2)mv^2. A 150 lbs longbow bow will shoot a 95,9 gram arrow at 53 m/s out to 233 meters and give you an initial kinetic energy of 134 J. A 74,4 gram arrow will shoot out to 258 meters with the speed of 57,8 m/s and give you 124,3 J. A livery arrow, the multipurpose arrow of the time, of 63,7 grams will shoot out to 265 meters at about 61 m/s and give you 118,5 J. And even more extreme, a 53,6 gram arrow will reach 314 meters at 65 m/s and give you 113 J. The arrow will regain 76-82 % of its speed as it hit a target on its way down. The 53,6 grams arrow will regain 58 % and the 95,9 grams arrow will regain 67% of its initial kinetic energy at max distance. The advantage of a heavy bow is the ability to shoot those heavy shafts the same distance a weaker bow will shot a light arrow, in other words, at the same speed. The 53,6 grams arrow will give you 113 J at point blank and 65 J at max distance. The 95,9 grams arrow will give you 134,7 J at point blank and 90 J at max distance. That small amount of extra kinetic energy at max distance is crucial when dealing with early plate armor of low quality and even more so when dealing with average armor at point blank. With a 170 lbs bow or even 200 lbs bow this will increase even more because you can shoot an even heavier arrow. The elite archers of the Mary Rose vessel did use predominantly 150 lbs bows and a few 170 lbs bows.
    Yea, that's all nice and all, but still irrelevant in comparison to the available historical sources that describe crossbowmen wearing only gambesons reloading under arrow fire and looking like pincushions during their own volley release.
    Armor worked extremely well, there is a reason why people sacrificed so much money, resources and mobility just to wear it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Against mail the type 16 arrowhead will burst open links and cut through the padding underneath like a warm knife through butter. It's actually better than a needle bodkin. In the 13th century horses were protected by mail and boiled leather. Archers would literally mow down horses from 200 meters away with bows in the 110-130 lbs range in the beginning of the 13th century.
    Utter nonsense.
    Walter of Châtillon was shot over 20-30 times by horse archers at point blank during a single engagement in the Levant and none of the arrows penetrated his body.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    It doesn't matter much if you even wear Gothic plate armor if you get your expensive horse shot from underneath you by a common archer and than have his buddies gang up on you and strike you down with mallets, polaxes and bills.
    Archers engaging knights in melee is a modern myth, after the French(I suppose you were pulling the Agincourt/Crecy argument) were dehorsed, they were engaged by English knights and men at arms who were far more experienced at fighting on foot than their French counterparts.

    Archers and light infantry engaging in close melee against heavy infantry, regardless of how tired or broken they are, would result in an massacre of the archers and light infantry and was never done.
    The modern myth of archers actually engaging in melee during the battle of Agincourt is a modern lie told to make the lower classes feel better about sticking it up to the "Man", nothing else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    We have many historical sources of men with relatively good armor being massacred by warbows. Falkirk 1314, Boroughbridge 1322, Dupplin Moor 1332, Halidon Hill 1333, Crécy 1346, Nevills's Cross 1346, Poitiers 1356, Aljubarrota 1385, Homildon Hill 1402, Shrewsbury 1403, Agincourt 1415, Formigny 1450, Towton 1461 and Tewkesbury 1471.
    No we don't, in all of those mentioned battles the vast majority of casualties were during the melee, even at Crecy, 1542 of the 2000 deceased "knights" died at the English front line, and at Agincourt there is not a single named armored person that died from an arrow, all were mentioned as reaching the frontline and getting owned by the more experienced English knights and men at arms.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    True. Only the elite companies. Most of them had 110-130 lbs bows. A 110 lbs bow will still give you 73 J at 250 yards, enough to penetrate a gambeson, and mail of average quality, by 3 inches.
    Warbow vs plate armor at extremely close range fired from perfect conditions;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk&t=1m30s

    Warbow vs plate armor at extremely close range fired from an imperfect angle;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8FG...bOVmQOVGFjCMcA

    Warbow vs the gambeson alone(that was worn underneath that plate/mail) also fired upon from close range;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

    End of story.
    Last edited by +Marius+; February 01, 2015 at 07:09 AM.

  2. #22

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    i think only the medieval french who known the effects of the longbows on the battlefield,can say about the longbow,if it is a myth ore not....

  3. #23
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevietheconquer View Post
    i think only the medieval french who known the effects of the longbows on the battlefield,can say about the longbow,if it is a myth ore not....
    Named French knights who participated in the frontal charge at Agincourt;

    Jacques de Châtillon - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
    David de Rambures - survived the arrow volleys and later captured while fighting the English in melee, murdered as a prisoner of war
    Guichard Dauphin - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
    Antoine of Burgundy - participated in the secondary charge, survived the arrows storm, fought in melee, captured and later murdered as prisoner of war
    Jean I, Duke of Alençon - survived the arrow storm completely unharmed, fought his way to king Henry himself, killed four of king Henrys bodyguards while trying to kill king Henry, died while fighting other bodyguards
    Edward III, Duke of Bar - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
    Philip II, Count of Nevers - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
    Frederick I, Count of Vaudémont - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
    Robert of Bar, Count of Marle and Soissons - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war
    John VI, Count of Roucy - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
    Waleran III, Count of Ligny - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war
    Edward II, Count of Grandpré - captured during the melee against the English
    Henry II, Count of Blâmont - captured during the melee against the English
    Jean de Montaigu, Archbishop of Sens - captured during the melee against the English
    John of Bar - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war
    Jean I de Croÿ - died in close melee while fighting against Henry's bodyguards while trying to capture king Henry, he managed to hit Henry with a mace to the face
    Jean de Béthune - captured during the melee against the English
    Jan I van Brederode - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war


    These men were at the front of the front during the assaults, about 100 to 200 000 arrows were launched their way.

  4. #24

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    then their was no use of put longbow units in the medieval english army lol

  5. #25

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Marius Marich, did you misunderstand my post on purpose?
    Yes, except there is not a single mention in the history of plate usage of an arrow or bolt ever penetrating plate armor and killing its user.
    Not a single one.
    Most likely because it was redundant to even mention it. The sources focus on the nobility, not the majority of men-at-arms of less wealth equipped with poor quality armor. 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. As I said, redundant to even mention it because it was so common. Your list of Counts, Dukes and Lords proves nothing. I don't even understand what its purpose would be in this discussion. I stated that the nobility of higher status had access to quality armor myself.

    That is idiotic.
    No, that's a fact.

    The aketon/gambeson worn underneath plate armor has an extreme amortization effect that not only absorbs blunt impact but also spreads it across the entire plate section that is struck, it is faaaar more difficult to deliver blunt trauma to a plate armor wearer than most people seem to believe;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEX21WgJzA8&t=28m0s

    Frontal lance strike; continues talking like nothing happpened.
    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.

    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.

    Irrelevant, historical sources are far more important than modern researth of historical metalurgy.
    Sources say mail stopped arrows and bolts extremely often and that plate armor was virtually impossible to penetrate with both.
    That's just how it is reported from those times.
    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.

    Walter of Châtillon was shot over 20-30 times by horse archers at point blank during a single engagement in the Levant and none of the arrows penetrated his body.
    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?

    Archers engaging knights in melee is a modern myth, after the French(I suppose you were pulling the Agincourt/Crecy argument) were dehorsed, they were engaged by English knights and men at arms who were far more experienced at fighting on foot than their French counterparts.

    Archers and light infantry engaging in close melee against heavy infantry, regardless of how tired or broken they are, would result in an massacre of the archers and light infantry and was never done.
    The modern myth of archers actually engaging in melee during the battle of Agincourt is a modern lie told to make the lower classes feel better about sticking it up to the "Man", nothing else.
    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.

    No we don't, in all of those mentioned battles the vast majority of casualties were during the melee, even at Crecy, 1542 of the 2000 deceased "knights" died at the English front line, and at Agincourt there is not a single named armored person that died from an arrow, all were mentioned as reaching the frontline and getting owned by the more experienced English knights and men at arms.
    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. 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.

    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.

    Warbow vs plate armor at extremely close range fired from perfect conditions;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk&t=1m30s
    This is plate armor of quality, in the 340-400 VPH range. It's irrelevant to my point. As I have stated.

    Warbow vs plate armor at extremely close range fired from an imperfect angle;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8FG...bOVmQOVGFjCMcA
    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.

    Warbow vs the gambeson alone(that was worn underneath that plate/mail) also fired upon from close range;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso
    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. The same test done with gambeson + mail stood no chance against the type 16 arrowhead and needle bodkin. Mike Loads said so himself and it's in his book, The Longbow. You along with so many else misunderstood this test. An arrow with a lozenge cross section and two sharp edges of quality steel will punch through, even plate armor of low quality. https://www.flickr.com/photos/interactives/3881592797/
    Last edited by Strategos Autokrator; February 07, 2015 at 10:36 AM.
    "Alea iacta est"

  6. #26
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Marius Marich, did you misunderstand my post on purpose?
    Sure thing, like I have nothing better to antagonize you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    No, that's a fact.
    Meh, no it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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/cheaper
    but 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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    An arrow with a lozenge cross section and two sharp edges of quality steel will punch through, even plate armor of low quality. https://www.flickr.com/photos/interactives/3881592797/
    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.
    Last edited by +Marius+; February 13, 2015 at 02:42 AM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    To everyone else reading this thread. I will not continue this discussion with Marius unless he comes up with something worthwhile to say. He continues to attack me with the same straw-man argument and is not at all interested in the nuances. To him plate armor is the same even if it's from the early 14th century or if it's from the mid 15th century and early 16th century. Then he continues with his rant and calls me a child. I expect everyone to see this. I do not have time to debunk all this nonsense. I consider most of his rant as mere trolling.

    However, I will address some of his arguments but I won't care to quote them. In his opinion, men wearing armor doesn't take any blunt damage at all. He also dispute Mike Loads' test and started to ramble on about conspiracy theories. It's actually beneath giving an answer to this, but I'll do it for now. I'm going to quote from Mike Load's book on page 72-74.

    "The archers stood approximately 10 yr away and shot livery arrows shod with short bodkins from 140lbs yew warbows. As anticipated, the mail was defeated by many of the arrows.(...) We knew that if the archers had used long bodkins, this type of armor could have been penetrated at this distance, but that was not the purpose of this test. Arrowhead selection was informed by our objective of determining a measure of blunt trauma in the event that the armor did its job.(...) The vast majority of hits being between 160 and 250lbs. Nevertheless (and 300lbs), the test did highlight what I consider to be the key role of the longbow on the battlefield - to thump the enemy with very heavy hits. The really big hits would rock a man and, before the advent of rigid plate armor, they could cause flexible armor to deform into the body, causing damage to internal organs."

    Here you see, Mike made it perfectly clear. The test was done to measure the impact, and the impact on it's own is enough to break bones and bruise the man underneath. He also point out that arrows would penetrate the armor if they rather used long bodkins. And when I asked him myself he pointed out that a type 16 would penetrate too.

    The type 16 will penetrate plate armor of around 100-250VPH and cut through the gambeson and kill the man underneath. The short bodkin is designed to penetrate plate armor of 250-300 VPH and transfer blunt trauma to the man underneath. Not penetrate and kill. It takes considerably longer time to produce a type 16 arrowhead in comparison to a short bodkin arrowhead. Why waste time producing a type 16 arrowhead if the only thing the arrow will do is transfer energy and cause blunt trauma as armor quality increases? When armor quality reaches a point where arrows no longer fully penetrate, the armor will start to dent and transfer blunt trauma to the person underneath instead. This is the reason they started to produce short bodkins. When armor reaches 400-500 VPH you no longer have this problem. Are these nuances hard to understand?

    Your statement about the type 16 arrowhead, classifying it as a broadhead, didn't make any sense at all. This is when I understood that you have very limited understanding of archery.

    I do smithing regularly and have an understanding of metallurgy. You understand that scientists have done tests to establish exactly the average quality of armor from different time periods?

    The average draw weight of a longbow in the mid 15th century was around 130-140lbs, not 100-120lbs. Your "imagine those same bows a century later" argument doesn't make sense.

    From 1405 all arrwoheads was to be of quality steel. Did you forget I wrote this in an earlier post?

    You have not debunked a single one of my arguments. What you have, however, is coming up with the fantastic claim that between 900 and 1500 dismounted English men-at-arms won against 8000 men-at-arms in the mêleé during the battle of Agincourt and won without the archers having any impact on the outcome? Did I understand you correctly? This is what you have argued for in your post. Yeah, 2000 of them had quality armor and made it to the English lines. What about the 6000 apart from these 2000? Care to clarify this?

    The sources say they picked up the weapons of the dead French men-at-arms. They didn't have to carry such weapons, obviously.

    early medieval mail, at point blank, and still did nothing
    I just have to quote this. Have it occurred to you that it's mention because it was remarkable? If mail can withstand a low poundage bow loosing light arrows with broadheads, what does that say about a longbow and what it can do? Precisely nothing. What do we know about the quality of his armor? Nothing. I can't believe you are serious.
    "Alea iacta est"

  8. #28
    Navajo Joe's Avatar SS Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,015

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    THREAD WARNING:

    GUYS, I HAVE BEEN AROUND ON THIS FORUM ALONGTIME TO SEE THE ENGLISH LONGBOW DEBATE, ARGUED INTO OBLIVION. I AM HAPPY TO LEAVE THIS THREAD OPEN FOR DEBATE ON THE BASIS OF ATTACKING THE POST, NOT THE POSTER. LETS KEEP TO THE TOPIC AND DEBATE WITH RESPECT OF OTHER POSTER'S VIEWS. IF YOU CANNOT COMPLY, THIS THREAD WILL BE CLOSED.

    NAVAJO JOE
    SS FORUM MODERATOR













    'Proud to be patronised by cedric37(My Father and My Guardian)

  9. #29
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    To everyone else reading this thread.
    Hahaha you are amazing
    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I will not continue this discussion with Marius unless he comes up with something worthwhile to say.
    You make me a sad panda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    He continues to attack me with the same straw-man argument
    Pretty thick straws for a straw-man, so thick he would definitely stand his ground in winds that would blow your straw-man away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    To him plate armor is the same even if it's from the early 14th century or if it's from the mid 15th century and early 16th century.
    I never said or implied that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Then he continues with his rant and calls me a child.
    I did not call you a child, I called the way you responded to a deal breaking argument regarding plate armor arrow penetration.
    It was like a person covering their ears and going "la la la la la".

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I expect everyone to see this. I do not have time to debunk all this nonsense. I consider most of his rant as mere trolling.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    In his opinion, men wearing armor doesn't take any blunt damage at all.
    Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    He also dispute Mike Loads' test
    Nope I did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    and started to ramble on about conspiracy theories.
    ...that was a joke...wow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    It's actually beneath giving an answer to this, but I'll do it for now. I'm going to quote from Mike Load's book on page 72-74.

    "before the advent of rigid plate armor, they could cause flexible armor to deform into the body, causing damage to internal organs."
    All plate armor is rigid.
    Get a dictionary.
    The blunt trauma caused by deformation of flexible armor he is talking about is done to mail, lamellar, scale and similar armors which are not constructed out of large set pieces of metal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Here you see, Mike made it perfectly clear. The test was done to measure the impact, and the impact on it's own is enough to break bones and bruise the man underneath. He also point out that arrows would penetrate the armor if they rather used long bodkins. And when I asked him myself he pointed out that a type 16 would penetrate too.
    You do realize that a gambeson stopping a short bodkin is terrible news for all other arrowheads who will be blunted after initial impact with the plate/mail worn over the gambeson?
    The blunt trauma caused by wearing the gambeson alone is irrelevant if plate armor is worn over it since the impact force of the arrow will be completely distributed along the entire section of the plate that it struck.
    Your entire quest to imply that blunt trauma could be delivered to a wearer of armor simply because the gambeson itself is susceptible to blunt trauma is a giant fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    The type 16 will penetrate plate armor of around 100-250VPH and cut through the gambeson and kill the man underneath.
    That is idiotic, even with a modern steel tip an arrow going through plate, gambeson and going through enough flesh to kill a man underneath is hilarious.
    Even most unarmored people would not die of just a single arrow, especially not a bodkin tip arrow which is like getting stabbed with a giant needle.
    The claim that it will penetrate is also very debatable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    The short bodkin is designed to penetrate plate armor of 250-300 VPH and transfer blunt trauma to the man underneath. Not penetrate and kill.
    Again, that makes no sense, an arrow is simply to light to deliver enough blunt trauma to a wearer of plate armor to even make a bruise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    It takes considerably longer time to produce a type 16 arrowhead in comparison to a short bodkin arrowhead.
    ...and that is true how exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Why waste time producing a type 16 arrowhead if the only thing the arrow will do is transfer energy and cause blunt trauma as armor quality increases?When armor quality reaches a point where arrows no longer fully penetrate, the armor will start to dent and transfer blunt trauma to the person underneath instead.
    Again, and I will keep saying this until it reaches through your thick skull; arrows cannot deliver noticeable blunt trauma to a person wearing plate armor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    This is when I understood that you have very limited understanding of archery.
    Well, at least you met Mike Loades


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I do smithing regularly and have an understanding of metallurgy.
    Sure you do

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    You understand that scientists have done tests to establish exactly the average quality of armor from different time periods?
    Holy Christ Almighty, really?
    They did?!
    I had no idea, nobody tells me anything

    Better start reading books and stuff to learn history



    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    The average draw weight of a longbow in the mid 15th century was around 130-140lbs, not 100-120lbs. Your "imagine those same bows a century later" argument doesn't make sense.
    There was no noticeable difference in the design or power of the longbow throught the hundred years war, meaning that while the longbow(and all bows) remained the same, armor got stronger, how strong you ask?
    There was a frontal charge uphill of French cavalry against a well fortified position in a forest consisting of 1600 English men at arms and archers 26th September 1423, only 1 French knight died while every single Englishman was slaughtered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    From 1405 all arrwoheads was to be of quality steel. Did you forget I wrote this in an earlier post?


    This just reached another level of comedy.

    How is the weather down there in Archerenthusiastwille?
    Such silly and obvious bias it is almost sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    You have not debunked a single one of my arguments.
    You presented none.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    What you have, however, is coming up with the fantastic claim that between 900 and 1500 dismounted English men-at-arms won against 8000 men-at-arms in the mêleé during the battle of Agincourt and won without the archers having any impact on the outcome?
    Now this is a straw man.

    The archers were of colossal importance and I never denied that(I merely denied their lethality), they halted the French charge leading up to the disorganized French march through the mud destroying all French forces that were not armored enough. The English beating the numerically superior French is no rare occasion in the history of battlefields and such things happened all the time.

    It is not even that surprising, the French were tired and charging in disorganized waves with the English being far more experienced in fighting on foot in formations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Yeah, 2000 of them had quality armor and made it to the English lines. What about the 6000 apart from these 2000? Care to clarify this?
    Died in the melee.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    The sources say they picked up the weapons of the dead French men-at-arms. They didn't have to carry such weapons, obviously.
    Oh really?
    Which sources?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I just have to quote this. Have it occurred to you that it's mention because it was remarkable?
    No, because it would not have been written in a biography just as a traveling mention.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    If mail can withstand a low poundage bow loosing light arrows with broadheads, what does that say about a longbow and what it can do? Precisely nothing. What do we know about the quality of his armor? Nothing. I can't believe you are serious.
    I don't think it ever meant to say anything about the longbow, you just don't read very well before you respond to other peoples quotes.




    Edit:


    Notes on the Crusaders;

    "...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks." - Bahā'al-Dīn

    "A common misconception is that mail was highly susceptible to arrows—particularly the bodkin arrowhead. Further, some have argued that plate armour was developed specifically to counter these arrows because of the ineffectiveness of mail. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this may not have been the case. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting), inadequate padding was used (if employed at all), the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect, all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991. An experiment conducted recently concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against even the Mary Rose longbows." - (British)Royal Armouries

    "The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour protected him from the arrows" - Odo of Deuil

    "Gambeson felt is especially effective against bodkins because it has no woven structure for the point to open up and slide through. The felt deforms around the bodkin and pushes it back out of the target. Broadhead typologies, on the other hand, have cutting edges that can allow them to slice through felt. So felt would be less protective against these arrowheads. However, mail is extremely effective against cutting edges. The combination of mail and felt provide good protection against both bodkins and broadheads." - Russ Mitchell

    Pre 15th century battlefield sources;

    - Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk.

    - During the Battles of Dupplin Moor (1332) and Halidon Hill (1333), the English longbowmen inflicted few casualties because of Scottish armour but caused great disorder by attacking the faces and heads of their foes, many of whom were either not wearing helmets or did not have visors.

    - "And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmored or put fright to those who were armored, whom his shots stunned, even if they did not wound." - Galbert of Bruges, describing Benkin, the "champion longbow archer"

    - "...an iron shirt, woven from iron rings, through which no arrow fired from a bow could cause injury." - Chronicon Colmariense, year 1398

    - "...a type of mail known as double mail was considered arrow-proof, even against arrows specifically designed to be armour-piercers." - Devin Cottlage


    ...and you come here with naive, wishful thinking about plate armor being vulnerable to arrows?!


    Best regards.
    Last edited by +Marius+; February 13, 2015 at 01:59 PM.

  10. #30

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post


    This just reached another level of comedy.

    How is the weather down there in Archerenthusiastwille?
    Such silly and obvious bias it is almost sad.
    He's speaking of the Arrow Heads Act of 1405, wherein Parliament required all arrow heads to be "boiled or brased, and hardened at the point with steel"

    You could argue that the act was not followed, or dispute the quality of the steel or how much counts as the "point", but to me it's pretty clear you had no idea what he was talking about, nor bothered to look it up.

  11. #31

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    For anyone interested in this I suggest following this project.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ra/description

    The blunt trauma caused by deformation of flexible armor he is talking about is done to mail, lamellar, scale and similar armors which are not constructed out of large set pieces of metal.
    Regardless of his test it's 250lbs behind a sharp point after the absorption of the gambeson, and the force is delivered quickly. And these arrows only hit with about 100 J because of their light weight. That equals a blow from a carpenters hammer with it's hammerhead shaped like a point. This will break your ribs and knock the wind out of you. With plate armor of relatively soft steel on top of the gambeson it will not be much difference. You also disputed whether longbow arrows could penetrate mail + gambeson.

    You do realize that a gambeson stopping a short bodkin is terrible news for all other arrowheads who will be blunted after initial impact with the plate/mail worn over the gambeson?
    No, that's not the way it works. Soft steel with low carbon content will not blunt a type 16 case-carburized arrowhead enough to prevent it cutting through the gambeson. Anyone who have used a lathe will know that case-carburized steel will cut through soft steel without much wear on the tool made for the task at hand. I have made specialized tools like this many times. Do a test. Take a rod with low carbon content, make one of the points into a type 16 arrowhead, case-carburize it, quench and reheat it until it gets a yellow/light red color. Take a piece of plate with low carbon content and quench and reheat it too. Now, attach a handle to the rod and ram it into the plate. It will penetrate with ease and without much wear on the edges.

    arrows cannot deliver noticeable blunt trauma to a person wearing plate armor.
    We'll see when that study is done. I will repost the results.

    The archers were of colossal importance and I never denied that(I merely denied their lethality), they halted the French charge leading up to the disorganized French march through the mud destroying all French forces that were not armored enough.
    Thank you. I'm glad you admit it. No reason to argue about this any further.
    "Alea iacta est"

  12. #32
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolaris8472 View Post
    He's speaking of the Arrow Heads Act of 1405, wherein Parliament required all arrow heads to be "boiled or brased, and hardened at the point with steel"

    You could argue that the act was not followed, or dispute the quality of the steel or how much counts as the "point", but to me it's pretty clear you had no idea what he was talking about, nor bothered to look it up.
    Oh I know a fairly decent amount about the parliamentary acts of Henry IV don't you worry, however it is a wide known fact that that act, as all others of its type was not followed by most armories because the price of production of such arrowheads did not justify the value and selling price that the finished product of that type received, even when funded by the royal treasury itself.

    I have already stated with sources from the Royal Armories that the vast majority of arrowheads of that period(and the period after 1405, basically through the entire 15th century) that were found and analyzed...were not found adequate for armor piercing. They were made from low quality iron and by lower skilled smiths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I will not continue this discussion with Marius unless he comes up with something worthwhile to say.
    Glad I managed to deliver


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Regardless of his test it's 250lbs behind a sharp point after the absorption of the gambeson, and the force is delivered quickly. And these arrows only hit with about 100 J because of their light weight. That equals a blow from a carpenters hammer with it's hammerhead shaped like a point. This will break your ribs and knock the wind out of you. With plate armor of relatively soft steel on top of the gambeson it will not be much difference. You also disputed whether longbow arrows could penetrate mail + gambeson.
    Oh for the love of Christ;

    Full contact jousting
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVZgp-eQG8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJkjB2dK4Q

    The way it was actually(well, kinda) done back in the day; frontal strikes with both horses running in full gallop delivered by lances that were not designed to break.
    Now watch that video and please come back here again and speak again about arrows delivering blunt trauma to plate armor wearers.

    I double dare you.

    Deal with the fact that plate armor is amazing at absorbing blunt trauma.
    Deal with that fact as an adult human being.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    No, that's not the way it works. Soft steel with low carbon content will not blunt a type 16 case-carburized arrowhead enough to prevent it cutting through the gambeson. Anyone who have used a lathe will know that case-carburized steel will cut through soft steel without much wear on the tool made for the task at hand. I have made specialized tools like this many times. Do a test. Take a rod with low carbon content, make one of the points into a type 16 arrowhead, case-carburize it, quench and reheat it until it gets a yellow/light red color. Take a piece of plate with low carbon content and quench and reheat it too. Now, attach a handle to the rod and ram it into the plate. It will penetrate with ease and without much wear on the edges.
    Did you seriously just insinuate that the proposed arrowheads delivering blows to plate armor would be of higher quality than the armor?
    In what archery fanboy fairy land did you fall asleep in and refuse to wake up from?


    Just do me a favor and read the sources I added to my previous post, I believe that will beat the archery myths out of you just enough to have an actual sensible conversation.
    Last edited by +Marius+; February 13, 2015 at 03:35 PM.

  13. #33

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    I talk about armor of soft quality and you keep on posting about quality armor designed to be used during jousting in the 16th century. Its hilarious to say the least.

    Yes, it was, they didn't caburize armor. Another thing is the production of plate armor in the early 14th century. The bigger the piece of metal you try to produce with the techniques they used early on, the more slag it will be in it and less carbon. You have to increase the temperature and the time the metal is in liquid form to rid the ingot of slag and increase the carbon content. You don't have that problem with small scale production. The type of production you need to make arrowheads.

    The test from the Royal armory page produced a test not true to the average armor quality of the time. They use small slack quenched links of high carbon content. This has been pointed out numerous times. Links vary between 12 and 4 mm, and the huge majority is 250 VPH or less.

    During The battle of Dupplin Moore and Halidon hill the longbowmen predominantly used 100-120 lbs bows, loosing arrows from far away delivering less than 65 J. Only when the Scottish forces came up close did the bows do significant damage, and at this range they would aim at their faces of obvious reasons. If you march uphill, arrows descending down on you will hit what is on top of you body first, and if it miss, continue in the same arch and hit the man further down the hill in the face. This was also among the first times the mass-deployment of longbowmen took place. At this time they most likely hadn't figured out the light/heavy weight arrow difference. It is also mentioned that the Scottish forces in the front had quality mail from France.

    I have read all your sources before. Nothing new to me. Single incidents prove nothing. Could have been a arrow from a low poundage bow striking Bruce's standard bearer.

    And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmored or put fright to those who were armored, whom his shots stunned, even if they did not wound."
    Thank you. This goes against your argument. You remember you told me this was, and I'm quoting you here "That's idiotic"

    The combination of mail and felt provide good protection against both bodkins and broadheads
    Not type 16 arrowheads. Big difference.

    Deal with the fact that plate armor is amazing at absorbing blunt trauma.
    Deal with that fact as an adult human being.
    I said so in my first post. Did you read it or just saw 'longbow' and decided to throw a tantrum?
    Last edited by Strategos Autokrator; February 13, 2015 at 04:48 PM.
    "Alea iacta est"

  14. #34
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I talk about armor of soft quality and you keep on posting about quality armor designed to be used during jousting in the 16th century. Its hilarious to say the least.
    Those are 15th century amateur reproductions, the 16th century jousting armors look completely different, and I love how you completely avoided the topic of the usage of full contact lances against the armor...which makes the thickness of the armor not as relevant as the padding underneath.

    So generally it makes absolutely zero difference when talking about blunt trauma delivered since neither impacts on 15th or 16th century armor were delivered by the same blunt tipped lances that generated the same amount of insane energy upon strike.

    Well, at least you abandoned the hilarious argument of arrows delivering serious blunt trauma...or at least decided not to pursue it further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Yes, it was, they didn't caburize armor. Another thing is the production of plate armor in the early 14th century. The bigger the piece of metal you try to produce with the techniques they used early on, the more slag it will be in it and less carbon. You have to increase the temperature and the time the metal is in liquid form to rid the ingot of slag and increase the carbon content. You don't have that problem with small scale production. The type of production you need to make arrowheads.
    The hardened heat treated arrowheads were barely in usage during the 15th century, speaking about them being launched at 14th century or pre 1420s armor is ludicrous since they were not even produced at the time in any noticeable numbers.
    Through the entire period of plate armor usage the production of high quality arrowheads did not reach any significant volume so using the argument that having a very rare arrowhead launched at an pre-heat-treating era armor is misleading to say the least, borderline argument forgery to say the most.

    By the time those arrowhead could be found in any decent amount of quivers, the development of armor already made it obsolete.
    If you just stopped for a second and grasped the fact that the medieval arms race was always in favor of armors since the armor smiths were the ones far better financed since they were payed by the nobility to keep them alive, you would finally understand the reason why people kept spending mountains of gold into full suits of armor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    The test from the Royal armory page produced a test not true to the average armor quality of the time. They use small slack quenched links of high carbon content. This has been pointed out numerous times. Links vary between 12 and 4 mm, and the huge majority is 250 VPH or less.
    Sigh,
    they also gave the arrowhead the same advancement by forging it out of far better quality steel than the average arrowhead of the time would be forged...so the same argument can be launched back, just reversed.
    I swear, this is like a constant carousel of historical hilarity with you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    During The battle of Dupplin Moore and Halidon hill the longbowmen predominantly used 100-120 lbs bows, loosing arrows from far away delivering less than 65 J. Only when the Scottish forces came up close did the bows do significant damage, and at this range they would aim at their faces of obvious reasons. If you march uphill, arrows descending down on you will hit what is on top of you body first, and if it miss, continue in the same arch and hit the man further down the hill in the face. This was also among the first times the mass-deployment of longbowmen took place. At this time they most likely hadn't figured out the light/heavy weight arrow difference. It is also mentioned that the Scottish forces in the front had quality mail from France.
    Still you completely evade the true meaning of the historical source and the given quote merely to try and give a contra argument for the sole sake of argumenting.
    The account indicates that the regular Scottish infantry along with the nobles were close enough for the bowmen to aim at the unarmored parts of their bodies, and the longbow still could not penetrate the armor, at close range and downhill.

    Also, both of the mentioned battles still recount as most casualties dying in melee or being crushed by friendly forces.

    So my argument resumes;

    the archers were of immense importance to the army and were the key battle unit in nearly every single English victory during the 14th and 15th century.
    However, they were not important because of their lethality but the damage they could do to the enemy army regarding discipline, unit cohesion, damage to lightly armored troops as well as posing a direct threat to cavalry charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Could have been a arrow from a low poundage bow striking Bruce's standard bearer.
    Most likely a longbow, the only vague detail is the distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Thank you. This goes against your argument. You remember you told me this was, and I'm quoting you here "That's idiotic"
    Stunned does not in any way mean injured, you were not arguing about thumps on the helmet but describing shattered ribcages so you do not have the privilege to be snark here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Not type 16 arrowheads. Big difference.
    Yes them also, and to repeat myself for the 5th time, the high quality type 16 arrowhead is not a standard bowman ammo.
    They were never mass produced in a way and with quality that you so ignorantly keep to resume believing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I said so in my first post. Did you read it or just saw 'longbow' and decided to throw a tantrum?
    No, you did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    I have read all your sources before. Nothing new to me. Single incidents prove nothing.

    Single incidents prove nothing?

    How about this;

    We have 0 mentions of anyone getting killed by an arrow or a bolt directly penetrating his plate armor
    We have 0 mentions of anyone getting killed by an arrow or a bolt directly penetrating his plate armor
    We have 0 mentions of anyone getting killed by an arrow or a bolt directly penetrating his plate armor
    We have 0 mentions of anyone getting killed by an arrow or a bolt directly penetrating his plate armor
    We have 0 mentions of anyone getting killed by an arrow or a bolt directly penetrating his plate armor





    I suggest you write it down about 100 times in a text document to let that sink in.

    Because that sentence alone makes every single word you wrote down on this thread just baseless textual archery fandom and a desperate journey of denial.

  15. #35

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    I love how you completely avoided the topic of the usage of full contact lances against the armor...which makes the thickness of the armor not as relevant as the padding underneath.
    This is irrelevant if the armor is of such quality that it does not deform.

    The hardened heat treated arrowheads were barely in usage during the 15th century, speaking about them being launched at 14th century or pre 1420s armor is ludicrous since they were not even produced at the time in any noticeable numbers.
    Case-carburized. Do you know the difference? I guess you base that assumption on the numbers of arrows of poor quality found during excavation of historical battlefields. Those are short bodkins, they do not have to be of quality steel, however, type 16 heads are generally of much better quality. Short bodkins had one purpose and little value in comparison to a type 16. This is why they are more numerous. After a battle the archers on the winning side would retrieve their most valuable shafts and to a greater extent discard lower quality damaged arrows and arrowheads, in other words, short bodkins. Arrowhead findings say nothing about the number of arrows produced, and especially not when the sources clearly state that the type 16 was the most common type of arrows.

    If you just stopped for a second and grasped the fact that the medieval arms race was always in favor of armors since the armor smiths were the ones far better financed since they were payed by the nobility to keep them alive, you would finally understand the reason why people kept spending mountains of gold into full suits of armor.
    Thank you. My exact point. Keywords here. The Nobility and better financed. Where did obsolete armor go? To poor knights and men of lower status.

    they also gave the arrowhead the same advancement by forging it out of far better quality steel than the average arrowhead of the time would be forged...so the same argument can be launched back, just reversed.
    Yes, they did use quality steel in the production of mail, which is why you can find quality mail armor. However, a small link will not stay intact when hit by a heavy arrow from an average longbow unless its of top quality. That is ductility and a Rockwell hardness of around 40-50. You do not need that with an arrowhead. A bigger piece of metal is wedged into an object shaped as a small ring.

    Also, both of the mentioned battles still recount as most casualties dying in melee or being crushed by friendly forces.
    Actually during the rout and secondly on the lower part of the hill during the arrow-storm.

    Most likely a longbow, the only vague detail is the distance.
    Distance, draw weight of the bow, weight of the arrow and type of arrowhead.

    Stunned does not in any way mean injured, you were not arguing about thumps on the helmet but describing shattered ribcages so you do not have the privilege to be snark here.
    Shattered ribcages? I never said that. In my first post I wrote "However, the impact of the arrow in and on its own was usually enough to incapacitate the man underneath the armor." I also said 250lbs will break a rib, not shatter the ribcage.

    Yes them also, and to repeat myself for the 5th time, the high quality type 16 arrowhead is not a standard bowman ammo.
    Not high quality. Case-carburized. Type 16 was standard shafts.

    No, you did not.
    Well, I didn't use those exact words, but I said, and I'm quoting here, even though it shouldn't be necessary: "Anything from 350 VPH and upwards will prevent arrows penetrating the armor..."

    We have 0 mentions of anyone getting killed by an arrow or a bolt directly penetrating his plate armor
    After examining the body of Richard the III they found a mark of a barbed arrowhead in his spine (type 16). The sources say nothing about this either. Does that prove anything. No.

    It's usually not mentioned in sources how people died during battle, and when it's mentioned it's usually something obvious like being run through by a lance, and even when this happened, like during the Battle of Evesham, many prominent men died this way without the sources saying anything about it in detail.

    Let's say for the sake of argument that an arrow penetrate enough to puncture one of your lungs. The end of you will, regardless of this, usually be someone smashing your head in when you are unable to fight or you get trampled and drown in the mud. This doesn't mean that no one would have died by their arrow wounds if it was not for someone killing them during the mêleé and aftermath. How do you think the sources would have described this? Wounded by arrows and trampled in the mud, like most of the sources already do?

    Most of the 2000 nobles attacking the center during the Battle of Agincourt probably had quality armor, however, it would be ridicules to assume that non of those 6000 men-at-arms the longbowmen mowed down that day didn't wear plate armor.
    Last edited by Strategos Autokrator; February 14, 2015 at 04:50 AM.
    "Alea iacta est"

  16. #36
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    My exact point. Keywords here. The Nobility and better financed. Where did obsolete armor go? To poor knights and men of lower status.
    That "obsolete" armor was still pretty hard to penetrate, as well was the padding underneath.
    A combination of both still meant that there was little chance of lethal arrow/bolt penetration.




    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Shattered ribcages? I never said that. In my first post I wrote "However, the impact of the arrow in and on its own was usually enough to incapacitate the man underneath the armor." I also said 250lbs will break a rib, not shatter the ribcage.
    "That equals a blow from a carpenters hammer with it's hammerhead shaped like a point. This will break your ribs" - Strategos Autokrator, ribs, plural

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    After examining the body of Richard the III they found a mark of a barbed arrowhead in his spine (type 16). The sources say nothing about this either. Does that prove anything. No.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumat...III_of_England

    "An X-ray analysis was performed on the corroded metal found under the vertebrae, which the excavators had speculated might be an arrowhead formerly embedded in the man's back. The analysis revealed that it was a nail, probably Roman, that by chance had been in the ground immediately under the grave and had nothing to do with the body."

    So its still 0 score and the time is ticking.
    Better luck next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    It's usually not mentioned in sources how people died during battle, and when it's mentioned it's usually something obvious like being run through by a lance, and even when this happened, like during the Battle of Evesham, many prominent men died this way without the sources saying anything about it in detail.
    Um, yes it is...just not on wikipedia.
    If you ever bothered to dig a bit deeper you would find that much is written on the subject of people getting killed and "killed by arrow" is definitely a mark that would not pass unwritten.
    The fact that there is not a single mention or description of any kind is very argument breaking for your side, regardless of how unlikely you claim that such descriptions would be write-worthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Let's say for the sake of argument that an arrow penetrate enough to puncture one of your lungs.
    ...and how about we don't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    The end of you will, regardless of this, usually be someone smashing your head in when you are unable to fight or you get trampled and drown in the mud. This doesn't mean that no one would have died by their arrow wounds if it was not for someone killing them during the mêleé and aftermath. How do you think the sources would have described this? Wounded by arrows and trampled in the mud, like most of the sources already do?
    I don't think you still understand what I tried to elaborate to you.

    It is not the fact that there is not a single named person killed by an arrow by it penetrating his plate that is the shock fact here, it is the complete lack of any kind of source describing arrows/bolts delivering lethal blows through plate in general...like at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strategos Autokrator View Post
    Most of the 2000 nobles attacking the center during the Battle of Agincourt probably had quality armor, however, it would be ridicules to assume that non of those 6000 men-at-arms the longbowmen mowed down that day didn't wear plate armor.
    True, however the potential French casualties could have been as low as 1500-4000(the lower estimates of contemporary sources of the time) and as high as 7000, the problem is that there is no way of determining the percentage of casualties that were heavily armored or even armored at all.

  17. #37

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    The longbowmen didn't mow them down, as most died in melee or were executed later.

  18. #38
    Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Germany ,NRW
    Posts
    1,143

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Last edited by Sint; September 09, 2015 at 08:20 PM.
    Elder Scrolls Online :Messing up the Lore since 2007...

    Well overhand or underhand: 3:50 Onwards...

  19. #39

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    English longbows are secondary in destructive capability only to katanas.








  20. #40

    Default Re: English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sint View Post
    Can you link the part of the videos where they penetrate armour? I couldn't find it

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •