[Kevin S.]

Thank you for your answers, guys. I have one more question.

Generally speaking, what's the angle of impact that you cannot pass in order to penetrate armour?

[Dan Howard]

you can't answer that question. It is dependent on the thickness of the target and the amount of energy in the projectile.

[Kevin S.]

How do I calculate the angle of impact then?
Yes, the equation has to take air resistance and everything into consideration.

Thank you

[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

Mail armour was used for more than 2000 years. If it was not capable of defending its wearer against the most common of weapons such as the spear and the bow, then it would have never endured as top armour for such a long time

[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

There are many records of crusader knights being hit with multiple arrows and still remained 100% battle effective. Joinville for example mentions examples of him as well as other knights being struck with arrows without sustaining any serious injury. Baha'a Al-deen, Saladin's confidant mentions how the mail armoured seargents of King Richard's army were covered with arrows and yet marched as if they were untouched. There are many other examples.

These arrows were fired from Turkish composite bows. Now granted, they may have not been as powerfull as the dreaded mongol bow, but they were still of similar construction and they as well were respected as very powerful weapons. A typical turkish composite bow had a draw weight of about a 150 lbs. Quite similar to the much discussed English longbow.

Another point that must be taken into consideration is that by the time of the third crusade, the Muslims were well aware of the high quality and quantity of "Frankish" mail. And so it can be easily assumed that the Turks who fought the Crusaders at Arsuf used armour piercing arrows (not unsimilar to the bodkin). And yet they had little effect on the mail clad crusaders.

This proves that medieval mail was excellent protection against medieval arrows.

The bodkin arrow started being used at a time when mail was being suplemented by brigandines and coats of plates in Europe, and so I dont understand the incessant testing of bodkin arrows against poorly made unriveted and unsupported mail by longbow enthusiasts. I also feel irritated by people who judge on the effectivenes of mail by how well it stands to ONE kind of arrowhead used by ONE people (British). Mail was used all over the world, not just in England and France, So when attempting to test the effectiveness of mail, please do try to broaden your testing methods.

[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the extent of penetration a bodkin inflicts when shot a mail armoured warrior. Unlike conventional arrowheads, a bodkin's construction does not have any barbs. And so removing it is not nearly as painful and dangerous as removing a broadhead. And as most of you might know, Most of the damage caused by an arrow occurs when it is being pulled out. And so assuming a bdkin did pierce the mail and the padding underneath, if the penetration was not to deep, then the mail armoured opponent might still be battle effective.

Something quite interesting I read in the "Mail Unchained" article mentions that Felt might offer some resistance to bodkin arrowheads as it is not made of a woven structure. This is quite plausible since the Crusader infantry whom Baha'a Al-deen was astonished to see alive after being hit by so many arrows (many of which were likely meant to pierce armour), wore felt coats (most likely under their mail).

So this would be an interesting test for all you Longbow fanatics to try

[Randall Moffett]

Ahmad,

Some good points but I think the argument is not this simple, nor one sided.

I think this argument has been dealt before here but I will put it up once more. The logic is not sound that if armour did not protect then it would have been discarded as the reverse argument that weapons would have been discarded if they were not effective would also be true using this line of thought. Since armour and these weapons were in use for thousands of years together that logic just does not stand on its own. It also is a very relative system with many almost unquantifiable variables in many respects. Sure mail armour protected against most weapons of the time. Just as weapons had to have been effective in some sense of they would have been discarded. If armour was a perfect defence no one would have died.

To me historic accounts are more a gauge of how effective armour was. For the most part in the written record indeed mail was a good defence. That said we have accounts in text of many types of weapons piercing mail, textile and plate. Just as there are loads of examples of mail defeating arrows there are plenty of men being pierced by arrows such as Gerald of Wales and an example of Lord Mortimer being pierced by arrows and killed in Scotland around 1300. In Froissart's chronicle a garrison commander gets an arrow through the side of his bascinet and into his brain. So just as there are examples of mail and plate offering protection it clearly was at times compromised.

I would be interested to hear where you got the average on Turkish bows being 150 pound draw. Regardless it does not change the general argument that penetration did take place both against mail, textile and plate armour. I have seen many averages given for composite bows but not much based on real bows. That said I have not seen evidence that indicates mongol bows were more powerful only that they had excellent tactics with them.

Now why there is more work on English longbows over others... First off I do not think this is true. We have a large amount of work being done of composite bows, granted of Eastern European design, but still not longbows. As well there are a fair number of English gents who are working on arms and armour of the Near East so I do not think this comment really correct. That said there is a great deal of interest in the longbow (not English, it was used all over Europe) as it had a great effect on the 14th and 15th century battlefield in Europe. If you are interested in arms and armour of the Near East Dr. D. Nicolle has some great bibliographies in his books loaded with great research on them.

Some testing has been done including textile amour, some coupled with mail and/or plate, but as always there is more room for further research.

My personal feeling is that the numbers of arrows that penetrated armour, of plate and mail was limited and that much of the time armour did its jobs well. That said arrows do not need to pierce armour to wound or kill a man, moreso regarding the mount.

RPM

[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

Randall,

Allow me to explain what I meant with regards to the equivilant draw weight of a recurved composite longbow, in the words of David Nicolle: "Its shape and construction gave it a draw or pull equal to that of the much larger European longbow, but it could achieve twice the range - weight for weight......... It also had much greater 'potential energy' at the moment of release than a European longbow"

Basically a "Turkish" bow can shoot with the same power as a longbow requiring a draw weight of 150 lbs, for half the required draw.

When fighting a mail armoured warrior, the intention is usually to defeat the warrior by going around the armour, i.e. hit him in unprotected areas. The proof for this is in skeletal remains found in visby where most wounds were found in less protected areas of the body. When thousands of archers realease a shower of arrows, there are bound to be arrows that land on the face, the neck, and most commonly the horse. Take Agincourt for example, 7000 archers realeased more than a hundred thousand arrows per minute. I am sure that the majourity did not pierce the armour but they killed most of the horses forcing the french to wade through a field of soggy mud. This in my opinion is a much more sober description of why the English won.

But I assure you I do not have anything against the English longbow. I am simply frustrated that everytime the effectiveness of mail is being discussed, people often state that mail is not effective as it can not protect from a bodkin arrow. The bodkin arrow when fired from an English longbow can be quite devestating, but it is not rational to judge on the effectiveness of mail which was used for 2000 years by testing it by a weapon that was used by one nation at one period of time (The welsh inspired English longbow being more powerfull than other European longbows). That is all what I meant.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Timo Nieminen]

Average draw weight for Ottoman war bows of about 110-115lbs. (Mean 111lbs, standard deviation 17lbs.)

(A. Karpowicz, "Ottoman bows - an assessment of draw weight, performance and tactical use", Antiquity 81, 675-685 (2007). Draw weight at 28", estimated from dimensions of limbs, calibrated against draw weight of testable examples. Random sample from Topkapi and Military Museum in Istanbul. Very light draw weight bows (<70lbs) rejected as unlikely to be war bows, very heavy draw bows (>150) rejected as likely to be strength-testing bows.)

[Randall Moffett]

Ahmad,

I agree very much that the real effect of the longbow, and archery in warfare in general when facing armoured men was about hitting unarmoured places. That said though there are sufficient accounts and recent testing, such as that posted in the RA Journal that and elsewhere that demonstrate that arrows did penetrate armours of various types. The whole spectrum of how this took place.

I have no doubt that composite bows at times got to the same draw weight. My thought is that these were not for mounted men generally. Especially in areas where horse archery was not predominant in the Near East having powerful composite bows for men on foot would be important to counter the mobility of horse archery. I have seen a number of experts hit the 100-115 range as average and that works fairly well.

RPM

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Thanks for the info, Timo. Looks as if I made a good guess. That's broadly consistent with the Chinese sources on composite draw weights for mounted warriors. With a light arrow, a 110lb composite bow probably wouldn't penetrate mail and padding enough to cause a serious wound. Not at any distance, anyway. However, a heavier bow or arrow would at close range. That matches accounts from the Crusades perfectly. A lot of arrows failed to pierce mail but some succeeded.

[Timo Nieminen]

From the same paper, Ottoman military arrows varied from 20-40g, so lighter than English longbow arrows. Fast bows, so they'll still have a lot of energy. Still, the lighter ones are for range, and the heavier ones for power, so in this weight range, they see the benefit of using heavier arrows when required.

I don't have any figures at hand for Ming or earlier arrows (but there might be something in Selby's book), but Manchu arrows were very heavy, like 100g. High draw weight bows, with very long draw lengths (to the ear, or behind the ear). They're trying to do the job of firearms with these!

Similar things can be said for Japanese military archery (already in the 1600s it was being said that sportified Japanese archery was irrelevant for war, where the goal was to punch heavy arrows through armour at 15m).

There were also some extra-heavy draw weight Chinese bows, in Ming and Qing (so very different bows), for use in military officer examinations. I don't think they're entirely a test of strength, but also of technique. Together, they constitute a test of diligent training (which will provide both strength and technique). Apparently extra-heavy bows are still used by Chinese acrobats; when the strongest in the audience can't draw it, and the acrobat can, then they are impressed.

[Jonathan Hill]

A point to refine your statements:

It seems commonly accepted here that the footman with arrows sticking all over them are wearing padded jackets, or cloth armor on top of the chainmail. This being the case the cloth armor is what defeated the arrow, not the mail, stating that chain held up to arrows while the chain was behind the cloth is like claiming chain armor will protect you from a bullet, provided you wear a bullet proof vest above the chain. The cloth armor diffuses the energy of the arrow so that by the time it gets to the mail it does not have the energy to punch through it and it is easily stopped. There was a reason you wore both chain and cloth and it is the combination of armor that kept them safe from many threats. Keeping this in mind the historical examples of porcupines in the crusades only shows that cloth armor will help protect against arrows. If an arrow were to stick into chain itself it would have defeated it as the arrow needs a portion of the tip to be inside the target to hold, otherwise it bounces off.

[Dan Howard]

[Brawn Barber]

I'm going to interject here that any number of attacks may have been able to be defended by maille with the exception of a single or more "weak" links. If this is the case, penetration is not only possible but probable. Especially when it come to a projectile or other penetrating weapon. A slight degradation of material composition could make for a deadly result.

[Mikael Ranelius]

[Philip Montgomery]

[quote="Mikael Ranelius"]

[Mikael Ranelius]

[quote="Philip Montgomery"]

[Dan Howard]

I agree. There is nothing in The Great Warbow that led me to that conclusion. The idea that English warbows were inspired by Welsh bows is Victorian fantasy. A lot of what we think we know about Welsh bows is also Victorian fantasy.