Armor Durability vs. Ranged Weaponry

[James Brazas]

On the gun front, what would be the protective value of full plate armor against early guns such as the hand cannon or arquebis?

As I understand it, armor would provide only very limited protection (if any) from muskets at close range.

Is that correct?

[Jonathan Hill]

So regarding mail, was it essentially a faite accompli that knights clad in mail would be defeated by longbowman or was it still a coin toss? Would standard kite shields have been of much use?

Chainmail armor can be dated back to before the Roman empire, meaning for a time it was standard issue to a legionary. The Legionary also used a formation called the Testudo as defense against arrows (by the existence of this we know that their armor was not sufficient on its own,) creating a shield square to protect the unit. It is widely understood that this formation effectively protected them from the arrows of the time. At the battle of Carrhae the Parthians rained arrows on the Romans until they were happily in the Testudo and then would charge them with their Cataphrats (heavy cavalry.) Once the ranks were ‘loose’ again they would pull the Cataphrats back and start the arrows again. Basically the shields were used to add extra protection when the armor alone was not sufficient. Interestingly enough the Romans did not field ‘natural’ groups of archers, the archers they used were all mercenary’s. Crete was known for archery and most of the ‘stepps’ areas were known for horse archery, but Europe did not respect it as the other areas did.

Moving forward about 1000 years to the Crusades maile was also worn with a gambeson, between the two armors it protected them from the arrows being used at that time. Shields were still used when they could but at least against the horse archers bows, the combination of maile and gambeson was enough.

The longbow has been shown to exist longer than all of these, but when was it effectively fielded in battle? The English learned it from the Welsh in 1138. After that they became more known for using the bow.

While I don’t know where the reference for this is anymore but I read once that the first time we see hardened steel being used in the arrowheads was the Mongols. That would put hardening the arrowheads at about the 13th century. This is about the time we see a coat of plates and the beginning of plate armor, and the more common use of the Longbow in war over in England. As a side note on the Mongols it was their tactics that defeated the ‘Europeans’ they fought not the bow killing the knights in droves. More commonly was the Europeans giving chase and getting spread out then the Mongols taking them with their own heavy cavalry while the Europeans were spread too thin. Basically what I’m trying to say is they existed in different eras, and areas.

[Stacy Clifford]

@Stacy Clifford

Interesting. So would era would that sort of mail be used? You said it withstood any sword you attacked it with. Did that include thrusts? Would it withstand a longbow?

I'm not an expert on mail and I don't know what era that particular sample was meant to replicate. Here is the brief quote about it from our 2003 Gathering page:

There were several helmets available to hit on, including ones from Valentine Armories and MRL in addition to some finely made historically accurate riveted maile (which proved impregnable to all cuts) made by historical armor-researcher Brad Girod.

http://www.thearma.org/photos/Gathering03/G03.htm

It was eight years ago and I don't recall if anybody thrust at it, but I do remember the level of astonishment at how tough this piece was. The rings were thick and flattened and the weave was very dense, and I think it would have proved very resistant to thrusting or arrow penetration if we had tried it. A whole hauberk of this quality would be really heavy (and probably really expensive, in both our time and theirs) because of the dense weave, but it's the closest I've ever seen to indestructible mail. We haven't heard anything from Brad Girod in years, but it would be great to get another sample of this and really put it to a thorough test.

[James Brazas]

@Stacy Clifford

It really would be interesting to test sword thrusts, spears/lances, and various ranged weapons against a hauberk like that.

How heavy was that hauberk, by the way?

[Stacy Clifford]

There was no hauberk, it was just a test square of mail. I don't think anybody there weighed it, but for its size it wasn't light. Here's the one video clip we have (that I know of) showing it being cut against:

http://www.thearma.org/photos/Gathering ... _Maile.avi
Caption: John C. cuts at a section of fine riveted maile armor using an especially sharp Messer --but producing no affect on the maile or blade edge

[s_taillebois]

"So regarding mail, was it essentially a faite accompli that knights clad in mail would be defeated by longbowman or was it still a coin toss? Would standard kite shields have been of much use"

Kite shields (in the terms of the Norman style) had really gone out of use during the period of the predominance of the longbow (basically Crecy to Towton for a approximate range.

Mail could be pierced by a bodkin with a hardened tip. In general mail was vulnerable to point weapons such as bodkins. roundels, estocs and the like which is why the more affluent men used fitted plate. The less well kitted fighter did use it, as others did use gambesons, aketons and etc, but by the period of longbow ascendency fitted plate was the better kit. Especially the hardened plate the Italians had come up with about the time of Vernual (Sp).

But do have to remember that the horses were vulnerable, and in more than just getting arrows shot directly into them. 3000 or so archers loosing 15 or so arrows a minute would mean 40,000+ arrows being delivered to a fairly confined area. The horses of the time were shod (obviously) but charging a horse across something like that would mean a high probability of a arrow in the ground, or laying on ground, would get into the frog of that horses foot and take the animal down. Many of the cavalry killed at places like Crecy, Agincourt, would have been brought down by a wrecked horse. And that problem would magnify on the front of the longbowmen's zone of fire because getting through that also entailed getting a horse around already panicked or downed horses.

And modern conceptions of fairness et al aside, longbowmen knew that killing the horses was a effective tactic, and to preserve mobility it is not possible to completely armor a horse. (Another reason the nobility really hated longbowmen was their chargers were very expensive, some regarded them highly, and losing two or more horses to the fire of longbows must have been quite infuriating)

And the lethality of the longbow would have been increased even if the man did survive a hit which went past the armor. In formation the longbowmen routinely would place arrows into the ground for speed of access. Which meant that any of those tips which did puncture someone were likely to cause infection.
And medieval battlefield surgeons were more skilled than many think...but deep puncture wounds and infection presented them considerable problems. Ie cauterizing was a standard means of sterilizing and closing a wound, but that would not work for a bodkin wound, or that of a roundel, estoc, or thrust from a bastard sword.
So our noble knight who survived the battle with some bodkins stuck into him, may as likely gone home and died of infections and fevers.

Probably another reason longbowmen were so hated by the aristocracy...

[Anthony R. Camacho]

I hunt wild boar with a Bear Montana Longbow with a 55 pound draw weight which is very close to the Longbows used during the 100 years war between the French and the English ( i.e. the Battles of Agrincourt and Crecy where the English Longbows decimited the French Knights, who where wearing armor ranging from chain mail to transitional plate/mail armor). I agree with the posts stating that range and whether the targets are moving make a difference on the damage that can be done with a longbow. I am an average archer who, using the aforementioned longbow without modern sights, can accurately hit a wild boar for a one shot kill (a much smaller target than a man) at up to 25 yards. I can make consistant upper body hits on paper human silahouette targets up to about 50 yards. My longbow will certainly shoot much farther, and there are certainly many expert archers today who can send accurate aimed shots to 100 yards and beyond. However, I believe my archery skills are closer to the masses in the rank and file of medieval archery units whose marksmanship skills at 25 to 50 yards were good enough to put food on the table. At 25 to 50 yards, aimed shots from a longbow with a 55 pound draw weight would easily penatrate most plate and mail armor, further, at that range, especially for archers used to hunting smaller game, you could make consistent head shots or leg and groin shots if these areas were less protected.
Of course a moving target would be more difficult to hit. To shoot farther, you have to increase the trajectory of the shot so after 100 yards, the masses of arrows would be striking the targets at an angle, or what we call "plunging fire" today. At this range, chain mail is still easily penetrated, however, the damage is also easily mitigated or prevented if the soldier is wearing an arming jack (or gambeson, or jupon). Hence, I agree with the other posts stating medieval soldiers were more than capable of surviving a hail of arrows at long range. As for shields, these would certainly mitigate or prevent arrow injury at ranges greater than 100 yards. I have kite and heater shields, and I would personally prefer a kite shield if attacked by a volley of arrows.

Sincerely,

Anthony R. Camacho

[s_taillebois]

Another factor which is much harder to assess is the effect on the morale of troops subjected to arrow storms.

Armor did protect in some instances, however a chance hit, even if not lethal would present the victim with the very real possibility of major problems with infection later.

Another morale problem would have been with the armor plated aristocracy, especially the French who were so imbued with chivalric ideals for upper class warfare. The line of dead and wounded horses and men just in front of a archers/dismounted knights/'men at arms line was the antithesis of chivalric warfare. And that form of demoralization may account for the recklessness with which the French often continued to charge despite taking appalling losses. The whole concept of being killed, or seeing compatriots killed or mutilated by a 'man of no worth' would also have been demoralizing, and compromised tactics.

In many ways the longbow was a precursor to the pyschological and morale effects of the gun.

To some extent armor can be compromised by adversely influencing the mind of the man within it...especially since harness and armor do tend to somewhat isolate the man in it. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the Bygots (English) did seem to sometimes favor war 'hats' and bevors over such as the close helmet. Cheaper no doubt, and less protection, but better for seeing around, and keeping in contact which may have influenced morale. Looking at period illustrations of the hundred years war, these do seem to be common.

[Benjamin Abbott]

At 25 to 50 yards, aimed shots from a longbow with a 55 pound draw weight would easily penatrate most plate and mail armor

I find this exceedingly unlikely. The best tests to date suggest you need 120 J to inflict a serious wound through mail and padding. A 55lb English-style warbow would produce only around 50 J with a heavy arrow. Historical archers used 100-180lb bows for a reason!