Longbow VS plate.

[David Mastro]

James,

An interesting episode of the European adaption of arms and armour to the prevaling conditions was with the early North American colonists.

I can't find the source for this off hand -- one of my books -- so I'm a bit fuzzy on the whys and wherefores.

By then the firearm had supplanted the bow, and the cuirasses had developed to deflect the lead balls. In one demonstration of this to the local Indians, they discovered that while proof against balls, the cuirasses were not proof against the native arrows. I can't remember the reason for this off the top of my head, but it had to do with forging tailored for deflecting soft lead balls moving very fast; left it sufficiently brittle IIRC.

Show me a source for this.

No arrow can pierce the very best plate armor, i.e., armor "of proof".

However, munition-grade plate is a different story. There are references to "inferior plate" by Spanish conquistadores. These mutition plate armors were considered by the Spanish to be inferior (in terms of resisting arrows) to the native Indian corselets of quilted cotton and maguey fibers (ichcahuipiliis). The conquistadores thus adopted the native armor, which they referred to alternately as escaupillas (a corruption of the Indian word) or armas de la tierra ("arms of the country").

But again, munition-grade plate is no more representative of plate armor as a whole than armor "of proof" is. There was obviously a fairly broad range of quality.

In the later battles with the Indians the colonists fell back to using jack and brigadine, which was better against the arrows. In the account one fellow was described as looking like a porcupine.

In war, use what works.

Various combinations of quilted jacks, jacks-of-plate, brigandines, and maille were used by European colonists in the Americas.

Peace,

David

[David Mastro]

Mike,

"Very little was made of shooting the horses out from under them, by the way."

I would be very interested in looking up literature that talks about casulties amongst heavy calvary mounts from arrow fire. Intuitively, I should think that it would be very difficult to drop a horse at any significant range with a bow if it had barding and was coming head on or at a sharp angle of approach. I have noticed a tendency amongst modern secondary sources and tv programs to underestimate the effect of war mount body size.

A partially armored, 1,500 pound animal will probably not drop easily to arrows. Sadly, testing this is rather unethical, but if anyone has references I would much appreciate it.

I think "partially armored" may be the key here.

Not to mention that such armor is expensive, so again, just as with armor for men, there's going to be wide variations in how horses are protected.

Sir John Smythe, the great longbow advocate of the late 16th century, was an experienced soldier, and had seen action in both Western and Eastern Europe. He was therefore not only familiar with the longbow and firearms, but also with the Turkish composite bow. In his Certain Discourses Military of 1590, he wrote about the effects of arrow volleys on horses:

"...so the arrows of brave archers reduced into herses, being delivered out of their bows, do become so terrible pikes in the eyes and sight of the horses, as also in lighting upon their chanfrons, crinets or steel pectorals or, being not barbed, upon their bare faces and every disarmed part, that the horses, with the huzzing, striking, and unaccustomed noise and with the blows and wounding of arrows, do fly back and athwart the one the other in such sort as no force of spurs can make them go any further against the archers, but they do disorder and overthrow one another."

Smythe also mentioned the specifics of why even non-fatal arrows wounds were so effective against horses:

"Besides all which, it is to be noted that horses in the field, being wounded or but lightly hurt with arrows, they, through the great pain that upon every motion they do feel in their flesh, veins, and sinews by the shaking of the arrows with their barbed heads hanging in them, do presently fall a-yerking, flinging, and leaping as if they were mad, in such sort as be it in squadron or in troop they do disorder one another and never leave until they have thrown and cast their masters."

Makes sense.

Peace,

David

[Joachim Nilsson]

Here is what Olaus Magnus (exiled Swedish archbishop) had to say on the subject in 1555:

“These arrows are not fired straight ahead, such as it is usually done against oncoming cavalry, but skywards, so that they on account of their own weight fall down again like a close rain of hail and annihilate the enemy. The arrow can thus work in three different ways: either it strikes down on the rider, pierces his helmet or cuirass and kills him there on the spot, or puts him out of battle-ready condition; or it his the horse in the head or back, so that he rears up, snorting of rage, and throws of the rider; or it burrows down into the ground and pierces, when the haft is trampled, like a stud underneath in the horse’s hoof and sticks there, so that the animal becomes lame.”
-7th book, 14th chapter, pages 307-308
[Translation done by me]

[JeffGentry]

Hey Joachim

This is a very good point

; or it burrows down into the ground and pierces, when the haft is trampled, like a stud underneath in the horse’s hoof and sticks there, so that the animal becomes lame.”

I am no expert on horse's i do know that if you cut, pierce, or whatever a horse's foot(the frog), it is like you or i stepping on a nail and would not be a good thing for the horse, so evidently it was not about realy killing individual's it sound's like archer's were used more as an area weapon, like a machine gun would be, or any stand off suppresive weapon, it alway's amaze's me at how many "modern tactic's" can be seen at work in historic way's.


Jeff

[Mike Habib]

David,

Thanks for the reference and the quotations; both very helpful. I am going to do some digging on the subject when I get a chance as well (I have the advantage of easy access to several University Libraries).

In the meantime, non-lethal wounding of mounts was obviously of great importance. Given that actually killing an armored horse with arrows was probably difficult, this makes a great deal of sense. Thanks again.

Cheers,
--Mike Habib

[Douglas S]

I believe that I read in Saxton Pope's Hunting With the Bow and Arrow, how he dropped an elephant with a longbow arrow. Using the same tackle, I would presume a horse would present a lesser challenge, unless it had armor all over. Certainly a larger target than the man.

[J.Amiel_Angeles]

According to Keegan, and the sources do confirm this, the archers in the battle of Agincourt were unable to stop the charging cavalry of the French. It was the stakes that forced them to turn back, not the arrows.

[Mike Habib]

I would be interested to check up on the S. Pope reference. That sounds quite fantastic, though that doesn't mean it did not happen. Thanks for the ref., it's certainly interesting.

I am not certain how one could drop and elephant with an arrow, however. An eye shot would repel it, but most head shots would not penetrate sufficient depth to kill. Pope must have done something very unusual or extraordinary.

It is also worth noting that a mount traveling at high speed (such as a horse) will tend to deflect projectiles by virtual of its movement, especially if it is traveling at an acute angle relative to the archer.

Cheers,
--Mike Habib

[Casper Bradak]

I had always assumed that men at arms often made the tactical decision to fight dismounted primarily because of formidable enemy archers, secondarily for constraints of terrain or whatever METTT. But it sounds like a lot of accounts or theories conflict. Any more thoughts on that?

[James_Knowles]

David,

I'll have to dig a bit for the reference. I just looked through several of my books but couldn't find it off hand. I remember it wasn't in the usual suspects, and found that true. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think you missed my point and re-iterated it for me, which makes me think we're saying the same thing. Armour was of different grades, and proof armour was not the only armour on the field. By the later dates quality deteriorated as the firearm made it increasingly less useful.


Also, according to my copy of Ffolke's "proof" armour was not always the entire armour. More especially after the advent of the firearm it referred only to the breastplate.

The early colonists had the same experience as the Spanish and quickly dumped their "fancy" armour (which wasn't in great supply) for more typical "soft" armours which were greater protection against the native weapons.

[philippewillaume]

Hello being French and a rider, I have made a fair bit of researching on the topic horse/arrow/longbow. Here is what I ve come up so far

Armour quality.
We have written trace of proofing even for munitions Armour around 1430 (for garnison armour in a French town)
At the turn of the century 1400 an other text say to be careful to the quality of the bacinet for some will stop arrows and some won&amp;#8217;t&amp;#8230;

From English sources the English chronicle about pointier, we now that arrows were ineffective against horses and man even at close range and that the English archer were told to shoot at the hind quarters that were less armored.

We know from 1470-1480 from a French text and an Italian reporting about the war of the roses that a jack of 25 to 31 layer of linen will stop arrow and sword.

We know that in 1415 at agincourt the French main battle on foot (and composed of most of the nobility (hence probably high concentration of quality Armour) was able to walk across the filed (muddy and sticky) before making contact and pushing the English line a spear length

So clearly Armour worked (beside it is designed to take frontal hit between 5 to 10 time the energy of a WWII 0.50 caliber with the 36&amp;#8221; barrel (the one used in fighter not the ground/AAA version 41 or 45 inch barell, I can never remember) with a M2AP ammunition. (It does not mean that I think that plate Armour will resist of heavy machinegun Ap ammunition, it just to give an order of comparison)

Horse
The price of a war-horse decline in England but not in France. It was about 2 to 10 time the price of a suit of Armour.

Horse and horseman who were supposed to disperse archer seems to have been specially protected.
Potier and verneuil were Italian in Milanese plate on armored horse (plate ?) smashed through the English archers.

I totally agree that it is difficult to kill a horse with an arrow but you just need a little bit piecing the armour (metal or linen) to the effect of a taon (a big fly that bite with it mandible and lick the blood) and we all know the effect it has on a horse. (Basically, you do not need to squeeze his gonads to have a rodeo). I even think it is the best result you can want to achieve.



Archer
I cannot find an occurrence where the archer stood up to heavy cavalry in the open,
Each time it was from a prepared defensive position.

That being said horse and horse man that have been in charge to tackling them seems to have been either specially armored or at least have quality full plate (at Verneuil the Italian were Lombard equipped with Milanese harness)
At least for the transition Armour early plate period.


I think it is possible for an archer with a steel head to pierce hit the mail bit of a rider (may be it can piece plate but it can be deflected you may as well go for the soft part) at close range 10-20 meters
The problem is that a charging horse is like a small car. It does not go from 50 kmh to full stop in 3 meters. So personally I would not take the shoot unless I was sure that the hose is nor going to hit me. (ie it does not charge any more)

Fighting from horse back
Against another rider or a footman, energy is the key; if you are static you are buggered. This is a simple as that.
Finding a good horse is very hard, he/she will be you leg, and need to have total confidence in you as you have in him/her. He or she will need to be aggressive but obedient (this is possible my mare attacks dogs on side and trample people without qualms). It takes times to train, if you have one you do not want to it to be broken. So I can understand the price and the price decline in England (where horse were a mainly a means of transportantion, and for the main did not require the level of training of a warhorse proper.

[JeanryChandler]

it sound's like archer's were used more as an area weapon, like a machine gun would be, or any stand off suppresive weapon,

Or something a bit like a light mortar... this is the way I have always thought of the longbow and the recurve composite bow.

it alway's amaze's me at how many "modern tactic's" can be seen at work in historic way's.

indeed...

DB

[Joachim Nilsson]

Hey Jeff.

Yes indeed. The fact is that the above decribed tactic was the preferred tactic used by Swedish peasant armies when facing enemy cavalry on open ground. In most instances the peasants used crossbows instead of bows though, but the result was the same.

[JeffGentry]

Hey all

One other thing i can see happening in the way of an arrow hitting armour i did not think of, is the fact that the shaft of those arrow's were made of wood so when they hit armour they more than likely would broke the shaft of the arrow, and that would tend to disipate the energy, if anyone has ever seen a modern wood arrow go astray and hit something solid that is the usual effect that the shaft will break and not penetrate, because the shaft will absorb the kinetic energy and the shaft breaking disipate's the energy.

Is just another thought on the dynamic's aof archery.

Jeff

[JeanryChandler]

Archer
I cannot find an occurrence where the archer stood up to heavy cavalry in the open,
Each time it was from a prepared defensive position.

Well, lets not forget the Swiss fighting in the open with their pike formations, using primarily crossbow archers (with some muskets and a few small cannon). For example at Grandson in 1476 against Charles the Bold of Burgundy.

Interestingly, I beleive in some of these battles, Charles actually had hired English archers who were routed a long with the rest of his forces...

Jeanry