[Dan Howard]

[Pieter B.]

I found this translation to be quite interesting.

http://deremilitari.org/2013/02/battle-of-agincourt-1415/

[Dan Howard]

[Randall Moffett]

Neil,

I have not read much classical accounts in Latin lately but that makes sense. I knew it had something more to give our interpretation from vertere. Put to flight is pretty close to turn to flight. If the saying is tied to classical writers it is almost undoubtedly the authors meaning. Medieval writers tend to copy earlier authors. Truth be told most what I have been reading lately is muster accounts and inventories which get rather repetitious.

Pieter,

I think Dan it likely right. I do not see evidence for an increase or decrease in archers skills or strength. A few still do think there is a shortbow to longbow transition but I think it is a tricky point to prove as most try using art and art can be a difficult medium.

RPM

[Lafayette C Curtis]

And there isn't much evidence for Welsh influence upon the classic late-medieval English longbowman either. It's a conjecture first made in the 18th or 19th century and a pretty intriguing one at that since the timing seems to fit, but I've never really seen it backed by convincing arguments.

[Neil Melville]

Dan,
There isn't much call for me to make use of a classical education these days, but here goes. The Latin is a bit odd at times, either through a decline from classical standards into the Middle Ages or just with mistakes.

"Likewise more [men] had entered both on the first and on following days of the siege for profit and money; among whom was one called Benkin, a huge inexperienced youth but skilled and swift in shooting. He went round the walls fighting, running now here now there, and while there was just him alone he seemed to have been many more, so many men did he strike with wounds from inside [the walls] and never let up. When he was drawing (i.e. shooting) at the besiegers his shooting was registered by everyone because he either struck and seriously wounded those who were unarmoured, or put to flight those whom he aimed at with the arrows he shot, astounded - battered but not wounded since they were armoured."

That's the best I can make of it.

Neil

[Pieter B.]

Has anyone actually got some numbers on the accuracy of historical crossbows and longbows? Some of those modern hunting crossbows with scope and all that jam are quite accurate and can place their carbon bolts in a nice neat little 4 inch spread at 100 yards (at least according to this guy: http://www.nabowhuntingcoalition.com/Bowhunti...test.htm). I don't expect that kind of accuracy but how would a windlass or other heavy crossbow perform in the 30-60 meter range, a distance you might shoot at during a siege? Richard I and Geoffrey IV, Count of Anjou met their end during a siege when they got shot by a crossbow. The later supposedly got shot during negotiations which points more to an aimed shot by a marksmen than a lucky shot during an attack.

[Dan Howard]

Accuracy, as we define it today, is largely irrelevant in most battlefield situations. Ranged weapons, including firearms, were usually deployed en masse in volleys. "Accurate shooting" involved dropping an arrow somewhere in the midst of a large formation of men, not pin-point targeting. Snipers can't be included because they are small in number, use specialised equipment, and are often trained differently. They aren't relevant to the equipment used by the majority of an army.

[Pieter B.]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Pieter B.]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I like how well the matchlock does in that Conquest test. It's in line with Humphrey Barwick's claim that the gun was more accurate than the crossbow, which in turn was more accurate than the bow.

[Pieter B.]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Pieter B.]

Hey there folks,

I just went through the Berner Schilling Vol. 3 detailing the Burgundian war in which the Burgundians used longbows and both sides used crossbow. I went through all the images in it and extracted each with showed an arrow or crossbow quarrel. I did not cherry pick examples that would fit in my earlier assumptions, I simple looked for all and any arrow/quarrel depictions.

http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/bbb/Mss-hh-I0003

Sadly the image format restrictions prevent me from posting all here so I will link to a few instead.

The first image shows a group of people in a boat being attacked. One is hauled overboard and I assume he was shot with a gun, the other two were both shot in the head with an arrow/quarrel. No crossbowmen can be identified on the shore.

http://i.imgur.com/HB3peft.jpg

The second image is from the same page and shows a boat of, what I believe are, enemies approaching, two sticks appear inside which could possible be bows. Although Charles the Bold and Burgundians have not been introduced at this point. It could be a pike/spear as well.



http://i.imgur.com/mdL1I0i.jpg

The third image shows the Burgundian army approaching, it shows two soldiers with a spear and an archers. Just included this one for fun.

http://i.imgur.com/vgguYlM.png


The Fourth image shows a siege conducted by the Swiss against the Burgundians. Several people are hit in unprotected parts and the head. Two show an arrow wound at or near the throat, whether it is a plate bevor or a mail collar it penetrated is not clear.

http://i.imgur.com/2uqpA0R.jpg

The fifth image shows another siege conducted by the Swiss against the Burgundians. It shows the use of defensive shields which stop arrows and a single person hit in the head.

http://i.imgur.com/5S9lWIL.jpg

The sixth image shows another siege conducted by the Swiss against an unidentified defender. Only one casualty is show on the entire page perhaps indicating the siege just started. He was hit in the head with an arrow.

http://i.imgur.com/ACzKuha.png

The seventh image shows Burgundians besieging (and entering) a Swiss castle or city, Burgundian infantry have reached an inner court where fighting ensues. They shoot at close range and hit a person in the throat.

http://i.imgur.com/8j7ATps.png


The eight image shows a battle between the Burgundians and the Swiss. The battlefield is littered by arrows shot by longbow archers on the side of the page. Several hits in protected and unprotected limbs are seen. A single person appears to be shot in the chest but at the angle it cannot be seen if he was wearing just clothes or armor underneath his clothes.

http://i.imgur.com/N1FLHxH.jpg

The ninth image shows a Swiss person dead at a siege against an unidentified opponent. He's the only visible casualty and the only image I could find where it is absolutely clear an arrow or quarrel pierced the chest protection. it is located on page 444 with some text which I was unable to read.

http://i.imgur.com/lp5GEnF.png


The tenth image shows a siege conducted by the Swiss against the Burgundians. A man with a crossbow shoots a burgundian in the head.

http://i.imgur.com/c2K9PCg.jpg


The eleventh and final image does not show any arrows or quarrels but I found it to be quite interesting regardless. It shows two opposing formations fighting each other inside a fortified place. Handgunners are shown in the infantry formation and a pikemen on the left side uses his pike in an overhead manner to push or leverage an enemy pike aside. Two people with halberds are show holding it in striking position but out of range of the enemy. It's just guessing on my part but I think the artist tries to show the halberdiers ready to move in and strike as the pike is pushed aside.

The formation on the right side has halberds held with the point to the enemy unlike the left where they are shown striking. It's one of the few instances in which I saw halberds being held forward like spears.


http://i.imgur.com/vAtcqgW.jpg




I'd like to reiterate these are not cherry picked examples but all depictions of arrow wounds I could find in the document. Of course we should be careful relying to much on artistic depictions of battles and wound patterns, but I feel it's valuable information nonetheless.

Now I am a little afraid to draw conclusions but it does appear that arrow and quarrel wounds depicted are mostly seen on the head and limbs regardless of protection. A few wounds are shown on the border of throat and chest and none are shown in the groin or abdomen.

Regards,

Pieter

[Dan Howard]

Its great to see these pulled together but I'm not sure how much help they are unless they were made by eye witnesses. Textual accounts are the same - eye witness accounts take precedence.

[Pieter B.]

[Mart Shearer]

Pieter,

An interesting subject to study, arrow wounds shown in manuscripts. I was instantly reminded of this example in the British Library's Neville of Hornby Hours, Egerton 2781, fo.190r, 1326-1350. Unfortunately it's impossible to tell what's worn beneath the cyclas - aketon only, aketon and mail haubergeon, aketon haubergeon and plates.... or, as Dan notes, the first-hand experience of the illustrator.

[Pieter B.]

Well the sketch by Paul Dolstein was made by an eye-witness. As far as manuscripts go I tend to think (perhaps wrongly so) that 15th century manuscripts and woodcuts are a bit more accurate in showing combat wounds than preceding ones. It's really the Maciejowski Bible that makes me doubt how accurate earlier illustrations are, though this recent thread I made about skull wounds has me reconsidering the head wounds shown in many earlier manuscripts. Perhaps the wounds shown are correct but the weapons that cause them are incorrectly depicted as swords.

[Vasilly T]