Video of arrows vs. armor using period materials

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

I love the discussion (around 7:25) of why they only tried 160 lb draw... the thing is, up to 200 lb bows have been recovered. And the archers had what would have been visible differences in bone due to the near-constant high-draw bows. At 13 min, they explain their testing rig.

Yeah, there is one surviving bow out of 100 or 200 which might have been around 200 pounds draw, but the archaeologists are not sure it was really finished, and its an outlier. Its good practice to base things on the middle of the curve not the farthest point or two at either end.

[Ashley]

While all of the discussion is true, I would point out that this is not how longbow archers were used i.e: they were artillery, not sniper rifles.

Archers fired thousands of arrows, around 36 times 6,000, so this wasn't about precision shooting, rather covering the enemy in a rain of arrows.

So yes, arrows don not penetrate good armour, but thousands of blows will render knights ineffective as they traverse 300 yards of open ground.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ashley

While all of the discussion is true, I would point out that this is not how longbow archers were used i.e: they were artillery, not sniper rifles.

There's discussion of that too. While the illustrations may well be artist's impressions rather than reflection of what actually happened, they do seem to show arrows being used for direct fire, and it probably happened at least occasionally.

Originally Posted by Ashley

So yes, arrows don not penetrate good armour, but thousands of blows will render knights ineffective as they traverse 300 yards of open ground.

Hit probability of firing at a mass of people is not great (though we don't know how they were spaced so it's hard to tell just how bad, and it varies with angle), but the general final decision of that video is "the way you defeat armor with bows is shooting lots of arrows".

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Yeah, there is one surviving bow out of 100 or 200 which might have been around 200 pounds draw, but the archaeologists are not sure it was really finished, and its an outlier. Its good practice to base things on the middle of the curve not the farthest point or two at either end.

Which is more or less what they did, though a bit higher than the middle. I recall the median or mean reconstructed bow from the Mary Rose being about 145#, the heaviest 185#. They more or less chose the middle of the upper end, so to speak, with the 160# bow the archer was shooting.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

They more or less chose the middle of the upper end

Which makes sense. If you're trying to see what might have happened on a real battlefield, there's no point in trying the heaviest bow we've ever found. All of the thousands of archers on the field weren't using the biggest bow. Knowing what was typical is a more interesting question for this case than knowing the best case that might possibly ever have happened.

[adm]

I suspect that which bow the bowman owned in the preferred range also made a difference.

[zorg]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Bow performance has very heavy falloff as you reduce arrow weight;

After a certain point, you‘re also damaging the bow and the string; possibly with unpleasant results. You don‘t shoot a flimsy arrow from a strong bow.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Which is more or less what they did, though a bit higher than the middle. I recall the median or mean reconstructed bow from the Mary Rose being about 145#, the heaviest 185#. They more or less chose the middle of the upper end, so to speak, with the 160# bow the archer was shooting.

guys who shoot 150-160 lb bows regularly do not show the bilateral asymmetries to the degree of the English longbow men of the middle ages.

Which tends to imply that the bowmen used higher draw bows, practiced more, and/or were already practicing heavily at younger ages. The latter is almost certain, and the second tends to be often believed. The data is unavailable to determine if the higher bows are required for the levels seen.

Given the stated ranges for artillery fire, it's quite plausible that 150 lb was the average, and that 200 may have been either +1σ or +2σ, rather than the +3σ or more.

Given that the archer had a higher pound bow, it would be interesting to see the difference. Especially on the fragmentation of the shafts.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

guys who shoot 150-160 lb bows regularly do not show the bilateral asymmetries to the degree of the English longbow men of the middle ages.

Which tends to imply that the bowmen used higher draw bows, practiced more, and/or were already practicing heavily at younger ages.

Bear in mind that a modern human is significantly larger than ancients; 160 lb today is probably comparable to something like 130 lb for a 14th century man (I wasn't able to find exact numbers on brief checking, but the trend is certainly there). Also, the people who choose to use heavy bows today may be outliers, while average medieval was presumably for people of average size (at least for their status).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Bear in mind that a modern human is significantly larger than ancients; 160 lb today is probably comparable to something like 130 lb for a 14th century man (I wasn't able to find exact numbers on brief checking, but the trend is certainly there).

The last time I looked for this sort of thing I got the factoid that the average US soldier of the Revolutionary War was 5' 7 while the average Brit was 5'5. However, there was also a not-entirely compatible factoid that the average aristocrat who graduated from Sandringham was also 5'7 while the common soldiers were 5'2.

You will find possibly isolated individuals of very great size all through history and perhaps especially through Northern Europe with "everybody knows" stats like the average Roman Legionary being only 5'2.

It seems likely that early life consumption of a high protein diet corresponds to increased height while low preeotein intake leads to shortness. WWII Japanese soldiers were notably short while modern Japanses are perhaps only a little shorter than average Westerners.