Longbow VS plate.

[JeanryChandler]

Hunting bears from the protected stand makes sense.

Without a doubt. It's just not quite as breathtakingly brave as the idea of hunting them with bows on foot...

Do you know where you read or heard information on spear hunting? I have focused over the years to some extent on thrown weapons and would be quite interested.

I don't remember offhand, but I did notice recently when watching the test-cutting DVD that Cold Steel sends out, they go into a lot of detail about using their boar-spear for hunting, including somehat amusingly throwing it at a rubber boar, and then using it in a rather sword-like manner to cut sides of beef to ribbons.

Cold Steel is one of many companies which make boar-spears for hunting.

A quick google search found me this site on hunting boar with spears in Florida...

http://www.a-wild-boar-hog-hunting-florida-guide-service.com/spear-hunting.htm

I don't know anything about the site though so I can't vouch for it!

DB

[JeanryChandler]

I want to add that those guys in that website who hunted those ferocious looking boars with spears and even knives are wimps, I want to see somebody hunt one with pure grappling techniques!

(just kidding)

J

[David_Knight]

I own a Cold Steel boar spear, and it's top notch. I also live about an hour away from prime Florida boar hunting territory. Now I just need to put two and two together, and apply my Paulus Hector Mair polearms studies to a large feral hog...

[Jaron Bernstein]

"I've seen this episode too. They were demonstrating the range and effectiveness of the archers defending the castle vs. the artillery crew, who wanted to stay just beyond that range. I don't remember the long range results, but at closer range they did thoroughly perforate a steel breastplate. I seem to recall the arrow having a rather stout-looking shaft. After reading this discussion I'd like to see that show again, which is already among my favorites. Here's a link to the PBS page for it:"

I own that trebuchet video. Veery cool. It indeed shows an archer punching right through a breastplate like it isn't there. My questions are then: 1. How thick was the breastplate and is it historically accurate. 2. What is the draw weight of the bow used in the video?

By my understanding, the average English yew longbow was around 180 pound draw weight (by comparing the ones raised from the Mary Rose). Today you use 70-80 pound bows to hunt things like moose, for contrast.

I would be most interested if anyone could point out any studies where bows of the appropriate weight (100# +) were used against period accurate replica armor and see how it worked out.

[Shawn Cathcart]

John Waller
One has to be careful with Keegan. The horse were severly mauled by the archery and thouse that did get through then could not easliyl get through the stakes and men there. The basic end result was that the remaining horsemen fled back and crashed into their own men who were following on behind.

Its been a little over a year since I last read Keegan's "Face of Battle" but I thought the above quote was basically Keegan's conclusion as well. My initial memory of reading it gave me the impression that the charge was made largely ineffective by the archers and the side result being that those that turned and retreated caused a large amount of havoc among the second wave.

To a large degree as I understood it, Calvary charges against foot soldiers was essentially a game of chicken. Horses to my understanding will not charge through what appears to be a solid mass, which is how pike formations would seem. They either attempt to jump over, stop, or go around. So I thought for the most part so long as the nerve of the foot soldiers in formation held strong it would usually cause havoc within a calvary charge due to the horses reaction of not wanting to collide with a solid mass. The catch obviously being that its rather hard to keep ones nerve in the face of a wave of charging calvary.

Correct me if I'm wrong by all means.

As for Agincourt from what I remember it was the muddy conditions of the field, in combination with a narrow yet very deep French column that lead to most of their problems. Within such a narrow yet deep column it becomes hard for those in the back to see what's going on, and in the case of agincourt they simply continued pushing forth, forcing the front lines onto the english pikes as well as trampling each other as men feel into the mud and on top of each other and couldn't get up.

[philippewillaume]

According to harris (a pro longbowman if there is any) from the marie rose the average draw weight was between 110-130 lbs
there is only one bwo that was 175-185 accoring to the arrow lengh. and there is conjectures about it being a real bow or a bow stave to be worked by it's owner. 150 seems to have been more the execptionb than the norm.

Jonathan a horse run at about 55-60 km on a flattish fields.
a good race horse runs a killometer under one minute (with a 50-55 kg rider on.) 45-50 kmh is very conservative

I do agree with you there is no magical weapon.
I think that the longbow can do little to disturb or stop a heavy cavalery charge unless it is used from defensive possition.

To take you analogy from the original text;
you are charging with a car with anti puncture screen, bullet proof windshield and an armoured engine.
at close range within 20-30 meters may be you can hit the painfull bits.
Nor is the heavy cavalery unstopable. If you have an obstacle natural or man made. i am tempted to include piques here.
i know that Marignano is a kind of counter exemple where the french heavy cavalery charged sucessfully the swiss pique formation. (but we do not really know if they charge penetrated them or just stoped the pique block (as in taking a charge recieving possition) avoided it and let the guns do the damage.
In fact i think that once you have taken the momentum away from the heavy cavalery, they are a relatively easy target for lightly armoured troups.

Yes i think tthe obstacle is responsible for the re-pellinng of the charge per se but you need troops to prevent the cavalery to negotiate the said obstacle safely.

I do agree with jonathan on agincourt, i think it is highly probable that a some archers when on an provoqued the french into attack and then when back into their line or in the wood.(It is not really realisct to beleive that you can move and plant stakes that easily).
i think most of the credit attibuted to the longbow is in fact due to edward III and henry V.
after all after the French recovered almost expelled the English from the continent between those two kings.
and there was no significant change in equipement. (there was at agincourt it seems that the french had for all intent and purposes a withe-harness.)

philippe

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hi Phillip, <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Are you aware if anyone has tried out a 110-130 pound bow against period accurate plate and the results?

[JeffGentry]

Hey guy's

I actualy saw a show just this morning{12/16} on the history channel about weapon's and armour, i have no idea of the title, anyway they did a test on a breastplate with a piece of gambeson under it with an arrow the arrow did penetrate the breastplate and deformed enough to not penetrate the padding underneath, it was a machine test so i do not know any real detail i thought it interesting though that the head of the arrow deformed and didn't penetrate the pad.

Jeff

[Andy Heath]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned it- but a recent book on Crecy ("The Road to Crecy") estimates the rate of arrow fire as 16,000 a minute (sorry thats from memory). Given period armour weakspots inconsistency of thickness, joins, etc etc; it only takes one or two to hit home....Also doesn't the Acta Bellicosa specifically mention knightly casualties from arrows, or is the discussion about the later armours?

[philippewillaume]

nope not really.

the problem with tv programs (well the one i have participated in anyway) is that the engineer the test so that it illustrate the point as opposed to be genuine test. IE they make sure that they have the resulte they wanted.
So it is usually slanted one way or the other

in the serie weaponsd that made britain, they showed that the longbow (120 m/s) could only penetrate and 14 cent plate (without mail under it) at very close range about 20 meters.
any further away was a not good.

The same intital speed 120 m/2 what shot against a tempered brasteplate and was able to puncture it without damaging the doublet or the clay being it at 20 meters.

but i do not know what the arrowhead was made of (it seems it was iron or may be faced herdened iron (ie forged iron)
in both case it was long bodkin.

but ido not know the thick it was nor what was the weight of the arrow

It was supposed to be a milaness breast plate and i know from experience that there is an othere layer of armour almost everywhere on it. pladrons, wrapper, plackard

now we know as well that a lord bought a 2lb as in money pound) longbow for one of his retainer.
I.E archer de maison (if i got that right for all intent and purpose it is really a men-at-arm that shoot the bow and probably has a lighter kit that a men at arms proper)
2 pound that is loads of money at the time and suit of armour top quality is about 8-10 pound).
so I would be surprised that that guy did noit get the best arrow head monney could get.
ie whatever type of steel is the best for an arrow head (may be it was forged iron at the time)
you do not really want springness in the steel and not to hard so it is not to fragile. Now we can produce very hard and yest not brtittle steel alloys but i am not sure of what was avaliable at the time.)

so i mainly go by original sources.

[Stacy Clifford]

arrow the arrow did penetrate the breastplate and deformed enough to not penetrate the padding underneath

The point occasionally arises in our sword discussions that you don't necessarily have to puncture the armor to damage the guy inside, and the same obviously applies to arrows. The deformed arrowhead might not pierce the chest cavity, but it could sure leave you with a broken rib or a hideous bruise. It's also important to remember that even a deflected arrow is still transferring some force to your body, and if you're getting hit by dozens of them it would be a punishing rain indeed, and I imagine it would impede your movement at least somewhat, especially the ones that jam in your armor. Stories of guys walking away from battle looking like porcupines but relatively unhurt are impressive, but I bet those guys walked kind of funny and were purple all over for weeks.

[Jack Lynn]

I think that with archer you only needed to have a comparatively limited effect on knights to be effective. It has been repeatedly emphasized how expensive armor was and earlier it was mentioned that a horse would be 2-10 times as expensive. If we consider these points along with the expense of the training and upkeep of the average knight it becomes obvious just how expensive a knight was to field. I would posit that, from a tactical sense, that archers didn't need to get anywhere near a 1:1 ratio when fighting knights and I would say that, as a general rule, they weren't likely to. Agincourt was an exception, and indeed has been hailed by many as the begining of the end of the knightly tradition, but I believe that in general these results weren't the norm. I would posit as evidence for this the simple fact that there were knights. Considering the enormous expense of this warrior aristocracy, I think that if there had been any cheap alternative that was anywhere near as effective it would have been used instead of knights.

[JeffGentry]

Hey folk's

The point occasionally arises in our sword discussions that you don't necessarily have to puncture the armor to damage the guy inside, and the same obviously applies to arrows. The deformed arrowhead might not pierce the chest cavity, but it could sure leave you with a broken rib or a hideous bruise. It's also important to remember that even a deflected arrow is still transferring some force to your body, and if you're getting hit by dozens of them it would be a punishing rain indeed, and I imagine it would impede your movement at least somewhat, especially the ones that jam in your armor. Stories of guys walking away from battle looking like porcupines but relatively unhurt are impressive, but I bet those guys walked kind of funny and were purple all over for weeks.

That is what i was getting at thank's for clearing that up for me.

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

i agree with you lynn.
i think as well that people tend to forgot that the english only favored the longbow and they developped tactic to use it efficiently.

IE fighting from a fixed possition with a comparatily small number of semi-professional fighter that had financial interest in the venture.

If you are a knight or a men at arms the likellyhood to be killed is relatively small. You are a moving bank account Ie you are worth much more alive than dead.
if you are an archer your are rabble to be trampled so no point to surrender.

On the armor penetartion and italian armour. (i joust in one)
the breat plate is really in two parts. The breast plate proper and the placard and fold.
only the breatplate is close to the boody the placard is furter away.(the idea of this type of armour is to be globular to deflect blow and we do not have a globular body)
on the top of that you will have the paldrons over the wrapper of the armet (that is teh only way to have mobility of teh head)
If you look at the battle of san romano you see that warpper overlaps the attach of the placard on the cuirasse. and that the pauldrons are covering the breast plate.
so the hit we saw on the program could not have armed the guy inside.

Philippe

[Shane Smith]

The point occasionally arises in our sword discussions that you don't necessarily have to puncture the armor to damage the guy inside, and the same obviously applies to arrows. The deformed arrowhead might not pierce the chest cavity, but it could sure leave you with a broken rib or a hideous bruise.

I'm not certain of this Stacy but it seems unlikely that a relatively light-weight projectile that is moving around 200 feet per second is going to be packing enough kinetic energy to hurt you much unless it strikes home in an unprotected bit of flesh.It would have to seriously crush the plate, maille and the gambeson to do you considerable harm and I don't see that happening.Once again,through just maille and a gambeson,I think it is possible that you may be right on, but I am sceptical of blunt-force trauma from a shaft quivering a man through plate that it does not penetrate outright.This is all opinion on my part based on my past experiences with both Longbows and armour but I will concede that I may still be very wrong and am speaking not from direct experience of the situation you desribe(I am now inclined to find a safe way to test your theory however <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> ).