Video of arrows vs. armor using period materials

[Ashley]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Who says so? What are their qualifications? Do other experts agree with them?

OK. To answer your imperious demand, how about, "The Crooked Stick: A history of the longbow" by Hugh D. H. Soar.

I refer you to chapter 6, The Decline of the Warbow.

And I would mention that most of what we know depends on Toxophilus by Roger Ascham, which was written long after the peak of the age of the longbow.

As for other references, they come from the records about the number of bows supplied, number of strings, and records of breakages.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Muscles that can draw 160 lb on a 6'2" frame are less out of proportion to the rest of the body that muscles that can draw 160 lb on a 5'8" frame, not because the muscles themselves are smaller, but because they're closer to normal size for the frame as a whole.

The size of the attachments is purely a function of the strength of the muscles; the size of the bearer is irrelevant, but strength is limited by available area to attach.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

The size of the attachments is purely a function of the strength of the muscles; the size of the bearer is irrelevant, but strength is limited by available area to attach.

Um.. what does that have to do with what I said?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, or how I should phrase things.
(Mods please adjust to make things clearer if needed.)

But here's a link to a group of professionals that got together to as accurately as possible test period made arrows and arrowheads shot by a 160 lbs longbow against armor that was of the type worn by knights at the battle of Agincourt.

They even tested the armor against both unhardened and case hardened arrowheads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE

I'm not sure what point they're trying to make. The English army at Agincourt was largely composed of longbowmen and the English didn't lose the battle. Eyewitness accounts by people present at the time (granted there are not very many) seem to indicate that the opening volley was a bowshot's distance (about 200 yards) which seems to give the lie to the English loosing in a flat arc. According to the Master of the Armoury, who was also the curator of the Mary Rose, when talking to a historian (I haven't been able to find that YouTube clip since, so no link) there are no arrows (and I think no bows) surviving from a period earlier than the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose was almost a century after Agincourt. I think the best that can be said is that the Mary Rose longbow and arrow isn't a good match for the longbow and arrows used at Agincourt.

The Master of the Armoury made a few interesting observations in general. First, English yew wasn't really suitable for making longbows so the yew was imported from the continent, which was one weakness of the English longbow (i.e., they couldn't make a good longbow out of local resources). Quivers weren't in use, a sheaf (24) of arrows was bound with a cord and untied for use when needed. The usual issue for a campaign was: 1 longbow, 2-5 bowstrings and 1, sometimes 2, sheaves of arrows per man. The issue for the Agincourt campaign was: 1 longbow, 2 bowstrings and 2 sheaves of arrows (in 2 bundles).

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I'm not sure what point they're trying to make.

They're attempting to answer the question "Can a bowman reliably penetrate a breastplate at a reasonable distance?"

They don't go in expecting a specific outcome, they go in to check which outcome is more likely.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

According to the Master of the Armoury, who was also the curator of the Mary Rose, when talking to a historian (I haven't been able to find that YouTube clip since, so no link) there are no arrows (and I think no bows) surviving from a period earlier than the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose was almost a century after Agincourt. I think the best that can be said is that the Mary Rose longbow and arrow isn't a good match for the longbow and arrows used at Agincourt.

Yes, that is absolutely an issue: we have the bows and arrows from one warship full of elite archers, 200 years after the sources on Poitiers tell us arrows could do nothing to good armour. And the bows were heavily waterlogged so any judgement of their properties is an estimate. But they are as close as we can get, and the multi-disciplinary team which estimated that the Mary Rose bows had draw weights around 150 pounds when new is widely respected. So far the only pushback I have met is from people who are angry that their Victorian target bows are not what medieval soldiers used, and one American academic who is mad that his theories about archers shooting down cavalry are wrong (even though you don't need to punch through breastplates to have an effective weapon! air-to-ground attacks rarely destroy many armoured vehicles, but they get the crews to bail out or crash or stop moving in daylight which is plenty effective). This other British guy Bickerstaffe might have something interesting or "Will S." might be right that he put himself up as an authority and can't admit that he was wrong because he didn't have access to all the evidence back then. The name Hugh Soar rings a bell but I don't know his work,

My understanding is that the best yew for bows grows in mountains in Spain and Italy, but that was not really an issue, the arms and armour industry stretched across the Old World. So English iron and steel mostly came from Spain and the Baltic, French knights wore Syrian silk, and a Chinese soldier's raincoat might be of English wool woven in Flemish mills and dyed with German woad or Indian kermes.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I think the best that can be said is that the Mary Rose longbow and arrow isn't a good match for the longbow and arrows used at Agincourt.

The constraints of shape, material, and training aren't going to be that different; being off by 20% or so isn't going to really change the outcome. The basic conclusion of this video is that a longbow can't shoot through a reasonable quality late medieval breastplate. This does not seem terribly controversial, and we can judge from the battle plan of the French that they believed their armor sufficient to stop arrows, and most likely it was, because if it wasn't, given the tactical situation (charging through a choke point across muddy ground at prepared positions) it's not likely they'd have even reached the English lines.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The constraints of shape, material, and training aren't going to be that different; being off by 20% or so isn't going to really change the outcome. The basic conclusion of this video is that a longbow can't shoot through a reasonable quality late medieval breastplate. This does not seem terribly controversial, and we can judge from the battle plan of the French that they believed their armor sufficient to stop arrows, and most likely it was, because if it wasn't, given the tactical situation (charging through a choke point across muddy ground at prepared positions) it's not likely they'd have even reached the English lines.

Problems with your assertion:

The breastplate was newly made; most worn would have had a dent or two hammered out, making portions brittle.

That the amount of deformation is linear with energy, rather than having a rather abrupt change at penetration level. (Having shot various sizes of .22 at uniform cans... the .22LR did not dent as much as the .22 short - but the .22S didn't penetrate, either.)

The breastplate was shot at from front center only.

The actual strength of bows in use is highly arguable.

We have very limited evidence about the construction of arrows; it very well could be that the mary rose arrows are unsuitable for such strength bows.

The archers at the ranges shown should be capable of hitting a foot higher... his shot grouping was about 6" diameter.

The fragmentation and splintering of the arrow is potentially as lethal as direct penetration.

What it shows is that it's good protection, and that chain is almost worthless against arrows., but much more? needs more data. Much more data.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

The breastplate was newly made; most worn would have had a dent or two hammered out, making portions brittle.

Such dents would have been fairly small, making the probability of hitting one rather low. Indeed, I expect once a knight has been struck by at least one arrow, the probability of an arrow hitting a fresh dent is greater than that of hitting an old one (the old one you need to hit very near the point of impact for the thinning to play much roll; the new one any hit to the dent itself will funnel the arrow to the weakest point). As they didn’t change armor between shots, I’d say every shot beyond the first was at least as problematic for the armor as a test using repaired armor.

The breastplate was shot at from front center only.

While side-on shots would have been welcome, I’m not certain they’d be common enough on the battlefield to play much role (a knight with his side to you is likely engaging someone else, and shooting arrows into melees is a bad idea if you don’t want to hit your own men).

The actual strength of bows in use is highly arguable.

We’ve got a guy who’s been shooting bows for most of his life while on a modern diet (while he may have started later than English longbowmen, his better diet likely made up for that) using a bow of the strength he would likely need to use on the battlefield (so he can fire a large number of arrows and still have energy enough left to fight in melee if needed). The bow also falls well within the strengths estimated for the closest bows we have for the time.

We have very limited evidence about the construction of arrows; it very well could be that the mary rose arrows are unsuitable for such strength bows.

Are you stating the test is invalid because it’s somehow more likely the Mary Rose was transporting arrows meant for bows other than the ones it was also transporting?

The archers at the ranges shown should be capable of hitting a foot higher... his shot grouping was about 6" diameter.

The test was about the performance of the breastplate; testing the helm/gorget wouldn’t tell you much. Also, the test archer didn’t have an angry chevalier charging at him, which probably would have reduced his performance.

The fragmentation and splintering of the arrow is potentially as lethal as direct penetration.

... which means nothing when the question is if the arrows could penetrate the plate. Note they also discussed the fragmentation quite a bit in the video, and even found how the French may have avoided the issue - a cloth surcoat (often worn over armor by chevaliers) catches the fragments.